I already addressed this issue comprehensively in this tweet

I concur with 5cc’s full and eloquent statement of how to properly address Blue Labour.

I think this is a good criticism Don – although I’d say that a better option might be to involve more ground organisers from Citizens UK than sending all the academics out to do some organising. That sounds a bit too James Purnell-esque and won’t really work will it?
Hope you don’t mind the changed headline

I agree with 5cc

I think that’s dead-on Don. The party is partly at fault here though – the definition of ‘organising’ is often just a version of pyramid marketing.

Oddly, I’ve just posted at about the same time as your post, on a similar subject http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2011/07/glassman-im-not-racist-but.html

I think that hyperlocal communities (not just the online variety) that aren’t primarily based around political parties – or even used as a sub-rosa organisational tool for political parties – are the way forward. It’s an approach I’m trying myself – one that meets with almost total incomprehension from local party comrades.

Lord Glasman wants to build a Labour party “that brokers a common good, that involves those people who support the EDL within our party. Not dominant in the party, not setting the tone of the party, but just a reconnection with those people that we can represent a better life for them, because that’s what they want.”

I disagree with 5CC on this one. Blue Labour might actually mean well, but Glasman is a political buffoon with only a tenuous grasp on the real world. I don’t think he deserves abuse. He should be led away quietly, and put on medication.

I think this is absolutely spot on but then it begs the question where does the idea of Blue Labour come from… how involved have community groups etc been in the formulation of the policies in the first place?

The whole idea smells a tiny bit of what they think working class people care about… just my view.

Anyway great piece.

“the power of organised people resisting commoditification”

What the hell does that mean? How can the “core” of a moment be something so vague.

The reason why Blue Labour will (and richly deserves to) fail is that it’s central premise is flawed. People didn’t turn away from New Labour because it wasn’t socially conservative enough, but because huge swathes of voters were appalled by the policies it pursued whilst in office.

The recent abject failure of the Scottish Labour party in the face of the SNP should serve as a salutory warning to those misguided enough to think that the busted flush represented by New Labour and its pale imitators like Blue Labour are any part of the future those on the centre-left want to see.

Ed Miliband has been handed an opportunity he scarcely earned by recent events; he doesn’t even have to try that hard to make Cameron look bad. Whether he can translate that into anything more permanent remains to be seen. He has shown encouraging signs of actually growing a pair recently (even if he still comes across like an Ardman animation), but if he doesn’t come up with something a lot more convincing he’ll go the same was as Scottish Labour….. and quite right too.

Glasman thinks the big problem is globalization – the whole political, economic, and social kaboodle. The resistance of commodification alludes to this. And he gets it – he understands what all the academics are saying about the impact of globalization on culture and identity. Blue Labour is the answer. Is it “bad”? More in the sense of being extremely silly. Seeing a stop on immigration as the key to resisting globalization is like suggesting King Canute is a sound model for managing rising sea levels. The movement of people is only one facet of globalization. I don’t think Glasman is closet Daily Mail reader. Just out to lunch.

‘Blue Labour’ might seem interesting in theory, a so-called radical departure from old fashioned ‘reds’ or New Labour. But in practice, a policy which panders to anti-immigration popular prejudice seems wrong to me. Glasman’s critique of free-market finance Capitalism, on the other hand, appeals. I’m just puzzled at how he proposes putting into practice his ideas of community led solutions. It all seems rather regressive to me.

Galen10,

The reason why Blue Labour will (and richly deserves to) fail is that it’s central premise is flawed. People didn’t turn away from New Labour because it wasn’t socially conservative enough, but because huge swathes of voters were appalled by the policies it pursued whilst in office.

But, since it seems indisputable that Labour lost voters who thought it too radical and others who thought it not radical enough (where radical clearly means pushing in a particular political direction) is it not possible that many thought it too radical in abandoning social conservatism (and to be fair to Lord Glasman, it is a fact that many solid Labour-voting areas are deeply socially conservative – where social breakdown occurs, voting tends to be less common and more fractured). I do wonder if there is some truth in the argument that social conservatives who would normally vote Labour were put off by the highly-metropolitan aims of the last Labour governments.

That said, chasing social conservatives is a fools game, as it implies a social coherence between the various bits of Britain (or even bits of a particular bit of Britain) that has never been in evidence; in effect, whilst there are many people conservative about their society, what they identify as the key tenants of society may differ immensely. If anything, the most likely way to create a single society that we can identify with in conservative terms would be through the common experience imposed by globalisation…

So I am pretty certain Blue Labour have got this wrong, but not for quite the same reasons as Galen10. I think that it is the same problem as identified by Don – that this is a top-down movement that assumes a commonality of experience amongst those people who are not the thinkers behind Blue Labour themselves.

haha nice one I just read Laurie Penny’s article. Blue Labour. Very funny. Well done.

@12 Watchman

I actually agree with some of what you say e.g. about the dangers of it being a top-down movement assuming a commonality of experience which is not in fact warranted. I’m also aware that you can’t necessarily generalise from the Scottish experience in all respects, altho’ I still think there are lessons there for UK Labour to learn, as well as Scottish Labour.

Remember that Labour in Scotland lost votes to a party that was seen to be offering a better alternative, and those losses came from a fairly wide cross section of former Labour supporters (as well as a more or less wholescale defection of a huge group of disaffected scottish LD voters direct to the SNP, not Labour or the Tories).

Trying to pimp Blue Labour as some non-Tory alternative to the Big Society is a crap idea, because it’s ideological basis is just as flawed. Vague criticisms of globalisation and consumerism, and waffly appeals to some ill-defined new form of a local communitarianism “cleansed” the supposed bad old days attachment to a bureaucratic welfare state atren’t going to cut it.

People can see Blue Labour for what it is: a none too well concealed attempt to re-brand New Labour, and steal the wind from the already becalmed Big Society.

It’s time for a change; Labour can either be part of bringing that about, or see itself become irrelevant.

@13

Laurie Penny says in her article:

“It is far too easy to mouth the mantra of “tradition”, and far harder to offer a positive, inspiring vision of modernity, but that, if it is still a party of principle, is what the Labour Party needs to do.”

Quite. We’ve been waiting for that positive, inspiring vision of modernity for a long time. Blue Labour obviously isn’t it. The worrying thing is that the current Labour leadership didn’t shoot this down in flames long ago.

Galen10,

Quite. We’ve been waiting for that positive, inspiring vision of modernity for a long time. Blue Labour obviously isn’t it. The worrying thing is that the current Labour leadership didn’t shoot this down in flames long ago.

I contend that the problem is modernity is neither positive nor inspiring. Post-modernity can be both, so maybe the future lies in that direction…

@16

I’m not sure what a post-modern approach would look and feel like in this context Watchman? But if it’s anything like post-modern architectute, it’s not likely to be anything good

Galen 10,

I’m not sure what a post-modern approach would look and feel like in this context Watchman? But if it’s anything like post-modern architectute, it’s not likely to be anything good

I’m not saying it would, just that it might – that’s what’s so fun about post modernism.

More seriously, the modernist view of the perfect society that seems to underlie much political thinking, including I presume much Blue Labour thinking, always concerns me, with its inherent assumption that the end it is aiming at is the right target, and that everything can be built around that. Modernism is too much the politics of the machine – claiming to care for people as individuals rather than consumers (although to be fair Lord Glasman uses citizens – suggesting he sees people as voting units and participants in the state, not individuals) but then trying to protect a lack of individuality in the form of defending society and opposing change. Ironically, classic conservatism has always opposed this sort of thinking (on either political wing).

It isn’t a very encouraging vote of confidence in community organising if its advocates spend their time writing pamphlets, making speeches in the House of Lords and in policy seminars and chatting to Daily Telegraph journalists, rather than building relationships with local leaders and mobilising people.
And you can add in David Cameron and his Big Society community organiser’s programme, shove in David Miliband’s army of such organisers, and have Mr Purnell to boot.
Those who get things done in communities, do so with a purpose: renovating their neighbourhood, running a sports or activity group, disability peer-support etc. You can class them all as community organisers, but no politician should try and co-opt them, and that’s for two reasons: one, it’s fecking insulting and exploitative, and secondly, if they wanted to organise party political stuff in their community, they would (some do).
We’re not talking about pawns to be corralled by one or other political party, but people who actually, y’know, get stuff done. Autonomous beings who don’t take kindly to condescending and remote talking-head politicos and wonks deigning to pat us on the head, and try and get credit by association.

‘I contend that the problem is modernity is neither positive nor inspiring. Post-modernity can be both, so maybe the future lies in that direction…’

Postmodernism’s the logic of late capitalism. When capitalism completed the commodification of the present it began to plunder the past, through pastiche.

Agree totally with this article, and with Galen10

galen10 couln’t diasgree more, the labour leadership ,notice sone thing about blue laobur it’s socialsim with a socially conservative background, at least that’s more socialist than Laurie penny or new labour.

@5 Paul Evans
Quoting from Paul’s blog: “But no-one in the last government was interested in something that involves improvisation and local spontaneity. You can’t procure or commission that sort of thing.”

Coming to this debate from a LibDem perspective, I thought the Blue Labour arguments about community and mutual support were interesting. Paul’s words encourage me that those ideals are partly alive in the Labour Party.

Down the road from you in Leicester, the Labour Party observed the organisational skills of a community activist and invited her to stand in a winnable council seat. But it didn’t work for her: the local Labour Party wanted her to be involved in party politics and she was interested in civic politics. She politely stuck it out for four years and made her case in the Leicester Mercury when she chose to stand down. Community activists are not individuals that can be borrowed for political convenience and community campaigns have an existence beyond party politics.

—
I think that Don Paskini over-uses the word commodification. Other negative words that describe non-participation by citizens (or residents in a migrant community) are depersonalisation and managerialism, which suggest more reasons why top-down approaches are wrong.

@op, Don: “It isn’t a very encouraging vote of confidence in community organising if its advocates spend their time writing pamphlets, making speeches in the House of Lords and in policy seminars and chatting to Daily Telegraph journalists, rather than building relationships with local leaders and mobilising people.”

That is a bit of a sly argument. The organisations that Maurice Glasman helped to establish are still doing their stuff. Glasman and friends argue that government needs to give more space to community activism which requires less intervention by local and national government. To achieve less intervention by government, campaigners have to debate with politicians. Glasman’s choice to conduct a think-tank-wonk campaign is not in contradiction to his work with community campaigns.

Blue labour whats wrong with it, lets see oh yes Purnell is part of it…..

RABBIS AND IMAMS OPEN LETTER TO ED MILIBAND

Dear Mr Miliband

We are writing as British Jews and Muslims, rabbis and imams and community leaders, in an open letter which we are forwarding to the media of both our communities.

We share a commitment to fighting racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia wherever they are found – including within our own communities. This position is informed by Jewish and Muslim ethical teaching on equality and human dignity.

We wish to express our concern at some of the statements on English national identity, immigration and the English Defence League, made by your close advisor, Lord Maurice Glasman, Labour peer and founder of “Blue Labour”.

He has spoken of his vision for Labour “to build a party that brokers a common good, that involves those people who support the EDL [English Defence League] within our party”. He has said that it is not the case that “everyone who comes is equal and has an equal status with people who are here”. And he has also called for a complete halt to immigration, and implied that he is against asylum (“Britain is not an outpost of the UN…”).

These comments have caused such offence and concern with the Muslim community that some mosques have announced a prohibition against Lord Glasman entering their premises.

We are extremely worried by Lord Glasman’s pronouncements and use of language. Whatever his intentions, these sentiments and soundbites on such an emotive topic as immigration just give fodder to extremism.

We feel that it is important for you to dissociate yourself from these comments, and we call on the Labour Party to reaffirm its best traditions of anti-racism, equality and compassion for all people in our country.

Yours sincerely

Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini, Lecturer in Abrahamic Religions at Al-Azhar College, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif

Sheikh Professor Mohamed Elsharkawy, Secretary of Scriptural Reasoning Imams Council

Dr Edie Friedman, Executive Director of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality

Imam Shahid Hussain, Head of the Interfaith Department, Regent’s Park Mosque London

Rabbi Reuben Livingstone, Chair of Children of Abraham, Jewish Chaplain to H M Armed Forces

Imam Dr Abduljalil Sajid, Chairman of the Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony UK

Rabbi Jackie Tabick, Chair of the World Congress of Faiths

Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Rabbi of Brighton and Hove Progressive Synagogue

ENQUIRIES TO: enquiries AT childrenofabraham DOT org DOT uk

(Children of Abraham is the national charity for rabbis and imams, the Jewish Council for Racial Equality is the national body in the Jewish community on asylum and immigrant rights, the World Congress of Faiths is an international interfaith organisation, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif founded in 960 is the oldest centre of Islamic learning in the world, Scriptural Reasoning is the practice of Jews, Christians and Muslims meeting to study their sacred texts in order to foster understanding and respect for religious differences. Maurice Glasman has been a leading exponent of Scriptural Reasoning, and used this as the Faith justification in Blue Labour)

There can be no better evidence that labour has lost its’ way than @26, whether or not Glasman was clumsy with his choice of language, he sounds suspiciously like he supports national socialism

@22 john reid

“galen10 couln’t diasgree more, the labour leadership ,notice sone thing about blue laobur it’s socialsim with a socially conservative background, at least that’s more socialist than Laurie penny or new labour.”

If you think Blue Labour has much to do with socialism, you know very little about socialism, or it would seem about Blue Labour. The epithet is even more ridiculous than “New” Labour was/is. How anyone of a radical or progressive outlook could talk about “New” Labour without throwing up has always amused me.

As another poster alluded to above, you only have to look at the list of paid up Blue Labour non-entitiies, sorry… “supporters” to realise what a crap concept it is. It has all the ideological coherence of the Big Society, and about as much chance of ever being tested… probably a good deal less in fact given that Cameron IS actually in a position to try and enact the dystopian nightmare on the unfortunate electorate.

@24 – If they keep their association with him, then they’re going to be tainted by his statement, and see the people they’re supposed to help walk away from them. And rightly so, bluntly.

galen 10 check this link

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/110724_immigration_patriotism.htm

regarding if blue laobur were socialist, it reminds me of the Drama GBH where after the Militants are intimidating hte democratic socilaist techer the teacher says to the derek Hatton character, what he stands for is nowt to do with socialism,

25 purnells part of blue laobur, anytthing else?