Registered user login:

Bright'sBlog

Bright's Blog

Politics uncovered by Martin Bright, New Statesman political editor

Bright's Blog Homepage

Wanted: new-thinking pioneers

  • Posted by Martin Bright
  • 22 May 2008

The intellectuals whose thinking underpinned Labour's return to office in 1997 have moved on. Where will the new ideas come from

What if people who want to see this government re-elected could see beyond the horrors of the past few weeks (the 10p tax-rate fiasco, the crumbling poll ratings, Labour's pitiful "anti-toff" campaign in Crewe and Nantwich, the growing triumphalism of the Conservative Party) and look at the wider political horizon? What would they find there?

The truth is that they would see a landscape largely barren of ideas. This is the true state of progressive opinion today. It is difficult to think of a single academic, writer or intellectual who is fully signed up to the Labour project as it exists in 2008. In fact, it is difficult to describe it as a project at all.

This is odd, because Labour's recovery under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was founded on a solid intellectual bedrock. The philosophy of the New Labour project, once described as the Third Way, is sometimes written off as an empty shell, but this is unfair. Even its most eloquent detractors recognised the attraction of its message. In his 2001 book Against the Third Way, the Trotskyist Alex Callinicos, then professor of politics at York University, wrote: "The attraction of the Third Way lies in the promise it offers of escaping the dead ends we have inherited from the past. Confronted with the unpalatable alternatives of Stalinism and Thatcherism, who wouldn't prefer a third way?" Who indeed? Not the generation of young politicians which now dominates British politics. Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ed Balls and David Miliband all grew to adulthood between the miners' strike of 1984 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. All three major parties practise a form of Third Way politics. Despite its apparent collapse, the politics of the 21st century will be built from the rubble of New Labour.

Callinicos has argued that Labour under Tony Blair was never a genuine alternative for the left. Instead, New Labour became an essentially right-wing, neoliberalist exercise, outstripping even its Tory predecessors in its fervour for the private sector. The columnist George Monbiot made a similar point on Tuesday in the Guardian when he argued that the present government was the most right-wing since the war.

Like it or not, however, New Labour was always as much an intellectual concept as it was an electoral strategy. It emerged from left-wing think tanks, the pages of publications such as Marxism Today and New Left Review and, to a certain extent, from the ashes of the Social Democratic Party. For a time it appeared to offer a genuine alternative to traditional socialism.

In the early days, intellectuals of the Third Way put themselves at the service of New Labour. Roger Liddle, a founder of the SDP and the author, with Peter Mandelson, of The Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver? (1996), became a special adviser on European affairs to the new prime minister, Blair. Geoff Mulgan, a founder of the think tank Demos, became director of the government's Strategy Unit and later head of policy in the prime minister's office.

Hugely influential was the New Statesman contributor Professor Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics, whose 1994 book Beyond Left and Right is often seen as the founding text of the Third Way. Although Giddens never worked for the government, his thinking influenced those formulating New Labour policy.

Another important figure, Matthew Taylor, went from the Labour Party to work as director of the Institute for Public Policy Research before becoming chief adviser on strategy to the prime minister in 2003.

Interestingly, each of the figures above has retreated from direct involvement in the political sphere. Although some important New Labour thinkers, such as David Miliband and Andrew Adonis have gone on to become ministers and retain a role in the post-Blair world, most have not. Liddle now works on European issues for the international think tank Policy Network. Mulgan, perhaps the single most important intellectual figure in New Labour's history, left No 10 in 2004. He now leads the Young Foundation, an organisation based in east London, which attempts to put new political ideas into action on the ground, free from the restrictions of central government. Taylor has become the chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts, which he has turned into a forum for new ideas very much independent from his old political masters. Of the younger generation of New Labour intellectuals, Patrick Diamond, who worked in Blair's policy unit, now works as director of policy and strategy at the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

Recent publications by these New Labour thinkers suggest that they are no longer entirely focused on domestic policy. Diamond's Shifting Alliances (2008) examines Britain's increasingly troubled relationship with Europe and America, while Mulgan's Good and Bad Power: the Ideals and Betrayals of Government (2006) hoovers up examples from around the globe through a thousand years of political history.

Intellectual rebirth

The present occupant of No 10 Downing Street would be proud to describe himself as an intellectual. At the same time, his three closest political allies - Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander - are all quite capable of knocking off a political pamphlet for a think tank. But, crucially, they have yet to establish themselves as pioneers of new thinking. In the present political climate, even exceptional behind-the-scenes strategists such as Dan Corry, the present head of the No 10 Policy Unit, or Nick Pearce, Brown's strategy adviser, are in no position to think in the long term.

Those who left the heart of government may be better placed in this regard. It is as well not to be too conspiratorial about these things, but many of the Blair-era intellectuals continue to work closely together. For instance, Giddens, Diamond and Liddle are the co-authors of Global Europe, Social Europe (2006). Giddens and Diamond also co-wrote The New Egalitarianism (2005). All three are associated with Policy Network, on whose board they all serve, alongside the Blairite former cabinet ministers Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn.

There are signs of intellectual rebirth on the left, mostly driven by the women who lead the left-wing think tanks, as Richard Reeves has pointed out in these pages. Catherine Fieschi at Demos is a genuinely independent thinker, Lisa Harker and Carey Oppenheim at IPPR have both worked in government and Ann Rossiter at the Social Market Foundation is pure New Labour. But none could be described as a Brownite, and they have not been driving the Labour policy agenda.

As the anniversary of Brown's coronation as Labour leader approaches, murmurs of a challenger grow in volume. Charles Clarke has denied he will stand as a stalking-horse candidate, despite his criticism of the government's direction from the back benches. The website Politicalbetting has reported that Alan Milburn is planning a leadership bid after Crewe and Nantwich, when the Prime Minister is likely to be at his weakest. Whether or not this is true, the machinery and personnel remain in place to continue the intellectual tradition of the Third Way.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

31 comments from readers

johannine
22 May 2008 at 14:43

The polititions [and their parties can only reflect the thoughts [and acts ] of the elite circles they float arround on [like pond scum, they are able to convert light into poisen

Pretty much like 'you are what you eat ', they can only do as their lobby requires them to be doing ,so they get that good high powerd job when the voters finally see through their spin.

Govt is good at getting party loyalty [thus doing only that the lobby ,lays out for them to be doing ]

The failed doctrin of self regulation of the multinational intrests ,financial marketeering their way to their next bonus [tax free] ,

When is the govt going to introduce a day trading tax, or a special bonus windfall tax ,on the proffiteers running down the public infastructure they 'privatised' then getting huge bonus for sacking the trades that maintain it , and will in time be needed to re-build it when it all begins to wear out.

[like the new zealand rail system they destroyed , and now are selling back to the govt [now that its beyond repair] What happened to civic responsability [serving the common weal[wealth]

People are our best resource ,instead of importing skilled people try training them at home [ha] only joking much cheaper stealing them from the third world

MrR
22 May 2008 at 16:16

This is a interesting piece Martin - a good read.

From my point of view I associate the current crop of 'thinkers' that you meantion as being more associated with policies (good, bad, and ugly).

But where is the egg (or maybe egghead) that will bind them?

As a member I can identify myself and Labour with words like Equality, Fairness, Social Justice, Opportunity, Aspiration, etc, etc.

But when faced with policies like the 10p tax nightmare, where is my explanation for how it fits in with these values? Not just the minsiterial statement, but the real explanation?

Not that I believe that Conservatives are placing ideas at the foundation of what they are doing now....

antileft
22 May 2008 at 16:22

"People are our best resource ,instead of importing skilled people try training them at home [ha] only joking much cheaper stealing them from the third world"

Come on now- three quarters of all british people are so boneheaded it's hard enough to even teach them to peel a banana- let alone get them through a serious university course. Take Cybertiger for example. Best to import a smart person that waste time on him.

BegbiesEvilTwin
22 May 2008 at 18:43

This issue has been a concern I have harboured for quite some time. If we took Anthony Crosland out of the equation it is difficult to see any individual in the last forty years who has done any solid work to determine Labour's raison d'etre.

IMHO Martin is slightly mistaken in naming the wonks as thinking pioneers but technocrats who have attempted (with various degrees of success) to follow out the orders of neoliberal leaders Blair and Brown. The wonks virtues have been further challenged by the imperative of stealing policies originally advocated by their opponents.

It's time Labour supporters faced up to the truth. They have no ideas of thier own.

To those who dispute this claim, I challenge them to present a decent case. No obfuscation, rhetoric or bad faith.

katyrick
22 May 2008 at 18:53

Perhaps, and somewhat likely, the Thrd Way is a Mirage!

Alf Tupper
22 May 2008 at 19:24

re: antileft

I get what you say about the parlous state of our lobotomised younger 'potential' worker.

But

1. It isn't ALL their fault, the system is rigged and set for their gradual extinction.

2. Had we the right people in power, then it is a situation we could start to put right in month one.

3. What prevents any rescue of our own young people is the left's cretinous inability to develop ideas due to its craven love affair with the corpse of the welfare state, and the addiction of the business/middle classes to a labour force which is cheap and instantly available.

Anecdote: A pub recently closed in my area, bought and now newly opened as a curry house...oops sorry...purveyor of contemporary Asian cuisine. My freind's son, seeking work, asked if they had a position he could fill. "No sorry" was the reply "we want to use our own people?

Good night, sweet ladies, good night, good night.

BegbiesEvilTwin
22 May 2008 at 23:25

katyrick: Yup.

BegbiesEvilTwin
22 May 2008 at 23:32

Alf Tupper: Next you will be saying you have problems with the Queen being a German and her fuckbuddy being a Greek.

antileft
23 May 2008 at 05:42

"1. It isn't ALL their fault, the system is rigged and set for their gradual extinction."

Erm one second- the last time I checked less intelligent people have far more kids than the educated. Think about it. And watch "idiocracy"- great movie with a good point. As they say "It's no longer about survival of the fittest, because with our modern lifestyle, everyone lives a long time. Now, it's just about who can reproduce the most". Doesnt matter if youre smart anymore- everyone can pass of their genes.

It's the thickies who breed like rabbits. That's why we re getting thicker with every generation. Look at Bush. Doesnt that worry you? Hell, we re a moronic species- too smart to die but too dumb to avoid killing ourselves. Itll get worse as time goes by and as we get thicker. I bet that in 200 years time america will be so damn stupid itll make the "war on terror" look like a smart idea.

"2. Had we the right people in power, then it is a situation we could start to put right in month one."

Come on now- again, three quarters of brits are complete boneheads. A change of government, or spending even more money on education is not going to change that. Again, take cybertiger, robert powell, or carl jones. Try to teach them mediciene or something complicated like that. It'll be frustrating for them, and a complete waste of resources for everyone else. Hell, dont get me wrong- someone has to clean the toilets. But let's not kid ourselves- most people are incredibly thick- and it would be more efficient and practical to import smart people than waste the finite resources of the state on them.

"3. What prevents any rescue of our own young people is the left's cretinous inability to develop ideas due to its craven love affair with the corpse of the welfare state"

Good point.

"and the addiction of the business/middle classes to a labour force which is cheap and instantly available."

That doesnt help either. But I still think it's better than trying to teach a bunch of damn brainless monkeys like Cybertiger complicated physics.

"Anecdote: A pub recently closed in my area, bought and now newly opened as a curry house...oops sorry...purveyor of contemporary Asian cuisine. My freind's son, seeking work, asked if they had a position he could fill. "No sorry" was the reply "we want to use our own people?"

Yes but cmon now- its very very hard indeed to find a british born person that can make a decent indian curry. Hell, like I say- fair enough if theyre just going to clean the toilets- but I would imagine theyll need more skills than that. Curry is a very complicated thing to make- you cant employ some random brit to do it. And I like a good curry- Id say its worth getting in some indians specially.

john problem
23 May 2008 at 09:08

Where will the new ideas come from? Focus groups, consultants, wordsmiths, spinners, 'research assistants', so called think-tanks, and spokes-people on the hoof. Same as now. But hopefully getting blander and blander, so that the poor old country is not screwed up any more by our incompetent Leader and the delinquent politicians of Westminster. However, it will soon be time to call in the UN.

writeon
23 May 2008 at 21:22

I think we often overestimate the importance of ideas and the role of the 'intellectual' in explaining the world, let alone changing the world. Why does society change and how? What makes 'history' move in one directin and not another? Apparently simply questions, at least on the surface, but attempting to answer them is far from simple, uncontradictory, or uncomplicated.

At the present time I think we are witnessing the 'collapse' of a particular historic variant of 'Capitalism' or the 'free market'. We are not at the end of a 'crisis', or in the middle, we are only at very beginning of a structural readjustemt of the economy which will last a long time, and the world on the other side will look very different from the one we've come to know and love.

The era of 'comsumer capitalism' that we've lived under since WW2 is coming to an end. There are a number of reasons for this, one of them is the rocketing price of energy, which baring a truly massive slump, is only going one way and that is up. In a few years, oil at 135 dollars a barrel will seem cheap and like the good old days! Oil at 200 or 300 dollars a barrel, probably 500 in few years, will change the way we live in numerous ways. Our civilization is a cheap and plentiful and easy energy civilization; all that is about to change, radically; and for always. It won't be easy and it won't be pretty to watch, especially for the poor. They will be pushed off the capitalist carrousel completely, almost doesn't bare thinking about, but we are adept at turning away from unpleasantness. In our own country we will see an enormous leap in the wealth gap between rich and poor. The middle-classes are going to get a slap they will remember and I doubt they will take it without protest. Historically those in the middle have tendency to move towards the right when times get hard. How far they move is anyone's guess.

Social Democrats have always attempted to mitigate the worst effect of the socalled 'free market' system. Their 'recipe' for society has it's advantages, yet is fundamentally based on the premise of economic growth. A society without the rates of growth we have become used to is going to be a very different type of society, with radically transformed social relationships.

The UK is in an unusually precarious position to deal with the new era of scarcity we are entering. The historic scandal of squandering the once in lifetime windfall of North Sea Oil and selling it so cheaply instead of conserving it for the future, seems increasingly like an act of gross, shortsighted, irresponsibility on a criminal scale.

The City and it's financial institutions are too big for a country of the UK's size and significance, still having all that easy money sloshing around London gave the impression that Britain's growing wealth was based on a firm foundation, instead of on an illusion.

Britain became a kind of Potempkin society, like a house of cards, and the game is now up. The party, based on a bubble of debt, and selling the family silver, is over, now the time has come to sober up, wake up, and attempt to face harsh reality. A new era, where 'cheap 'n' easy' everything is definitively over, sad in a way, yet unfortuanately invetable. Capitalism, as an enormous, Las Vegas, wasn't built to last.

One could go on listing the ways the UK ecomomy has been distorted for short term gain and appearance, but it's probably unecessary, soon enough even the most obtuse and deluded will see for themselves how bad things really are, and how little the current political system can do to deal with the myriad problems we face.

Will New Labour develope new ideas to deal with the new era we are moving into? I doubt it very much. If they couldn't in the years of plenty, I'm sceptical they can do so now.

Personally I think we are moving towards a far more authoritarian form of society with the military and the other security forces occupying a central role. With parades, flags, special schools and housing, shops, more uniforms, children joining the cadets, pride in our heroes, pride in our military, proud of the British Empire, a new, tarted-up imperialism.... I think it's a new form of fascism that one can see emerging. George Orwell would look at modern Britain with something close to incredulity and pained recognition, so much of his nightmare turned into flesh.

antileft
24 May 2008 at 05:45

Oh writeon you really do say a lot of crap. Here's what you said before after another article:

"What's frightening is that they really seem to believe that Capitalism works, and there is no alternative!"

What is the alternative? Cmon writeon I want to know. Youre saying here that there is a BETTER alternative because the problem is that people dont know about it. Are you saying in your above post that you think "a new form of fascism" would be a better alternative? Or are you just as usual writing endless drivel to make yourself sound more intelligent than you actually are?

sarahsmith232
24 May 2008 at 15:30

antileft

you imagine you're so very much the superior of we but mere average joe's, this seems to be based on the belief in your supposed to be fantastically superior brain. yeah, if that was the case how come you didn't get the immediately obvious point that 'writeon' was making about her/his fears about the frighteningly near gordon brown step backwards towards an really unpleasant, insular, arrogant and very backward nationalistic state that wouldn't do a bad impression of something approaching a fascist one. obviously, that must have been your brilliantly astute brain at work then, mustn’t it?

antileft
24 May 2008 at 15:49

"you imagine you're so very much the superior of we but mere average joe's, this seems to be based on the belief in your supposed to be fantastically superior brain. yeah, if that was the case how come you didn't get the immediately obvious point that 'writeon' was making about her/his fears about the frighteningly near gordon brown step backwards towards an really unpleasant, insular, arrogant and very backward nationalistic state that wouldn't do a bad impression of something approaching a fascist one."

One of the reasons I feel that Im superior to you is that I can at least speak basic English. I have absolutely no idea what youre trying to say here but I think, translated, it may mean that I somehow missed writeon's point. However, the problem is not that I missed his point- but that he didnt clarify a point that he made in a post on another article earlier, and that the post here (which is related) seems to contradict it, or at least complicate an already muddy point further. Im also tired of his repetitive intellectual ramblings where he time and again refuses to say what he actually thinks, such as what he thinks the solution is, even though he has hinted on a number of occasions that there is a solution that none of us are intelligent enough to see. This is important because predicting the end of our system sounds like an even dumber joke when one is aware that the guy is an old fashioned 1960s commie.

Am I correct about that, writeon? And if not, what is the positive solution which you spoke of before?

writeon
24 May 2008 at 23:02

sarasmith232,

There's a very old joke from Ireland about an english tourist who goes out walking and obviously he gets lost, in fact he's going round in circles and the sun's begining to sink behind the hills. Finally he sees a figure on the path in front of him and hurries towards it. He meets a old man and dashes off his request for directions back to the village and the pub where he's staying. The old man scratches his head, narrows his eyes, looks up at the stranger and replies, "Well, I wouldn't start from here, Sir!"

That is, in way, how I feel about, the situation we find ourselves in; economically, socially and environmentally. Increasingly I feel as if we're in the wrong place to even begin to find solutions to the challanges we face. Theoretically it's perfectly possible to imagine and indeed propose alternatives to the society we've allowed to develope, especially after the counter-revolution of the Reagan-Thatcher regimes of the last thirty odd years and all the damage they caused.

However, posts like these are not really the place, to expand on necessarily complex ideas relating to alternatives to our current society. There simply isn't the space or the time available. Individuals and thinktanks all over Europe and beyond, with time and room, still have trouble focusing on viable alternatives.

At the moment we are clearly entering a period of instability and flux, between one model for soiciety and another. It isn't just New Labour or the left who are in trouble and grabbing at straws and appear lost. The idea that the right has any more clue about what to do or better proposals about solutions is glaringly false too, only the right dominates the media so overwhelmingly that alternatives have a hard time getting heard above the noise we're surrounded by.

Of course one could argue that the reason the mainstream left doesn't seem to have a whole raft of ideas and proposals, is because there aren't any, given the core political, economic and social assumptions of our culture. Perhaps it's just too late to reform the system or change it? That we're on a chosen course and we've just got to follow it to the end of the epoch. Then we'll begin on another epoch, formed by circumstances existing at that particular time. Exactly how this particular epoch will end and what the new one will look like is difficult if not impossible to describe, at least with a accuracy.

Though it's clear that increasingly many highly qualified, knowledgable, educated and influential individuals believe we are facing multiple and substantial problems as a society. Problems that are fundamental, connected and structural in nature, and that solving them is going to be a real challenge, requiring global initiatives and organization and coordination. This kind of co-operation is, in itself, problematic.

Luckily, on a positive note, we do, at the moment have the resources available to start investing in solutions, and we could do this quickly and without too much trouble. We have an absolutely gigantic, bursting and overflowing, treasure chest, called the world's combined expenditure on the military and fantastically expensive and destructive weapons systems. This morally repugnant and staggeringly wasteful system could provide funding for a whole range of worthwhile projects for a better future.

For example we could easily eradicate desease in the third world, feed everybody and educate them, create a social security system and provide usful employment. This would not only be the moral and right thing to do with our resources, it woul also be in our own interests, as development would reduce the rocketing population growth in these poor countries, population growth being one of the great challenges we collectively face.

Over the next ten years we should agree to slash military waste by 10% a year and keep going year after year until we cut it down by 90%. The money should be diverted towards produtive projects, like alternative forms of energy to fossil fuels, which are not only running out, they are also ruining the world's climate.

But I don't really believe anything like this will happen. We'll continue to waste vast resources on death and destruction, not life and hope. We are stuck in boxed-in mindset, that doesn't allow us to really debate fundamental questions in the mainstream. It certainly doesn't happen in parliament, which is increasingly irrelevant and sidetracked and controlled. We've virtually destroyed parliament as political power has become increasingly concentrated in the office of the prime minister, a move away from democracy and towards monarchy.

johannine
25 May 2008 at 07:15

It becomes trying to respond with the same solutions to the same problems ,but i will try again to put at least a partial solution to the cost of energy.

$400 dollar a barrel oil is an absurdity ,we have made huge in roads into algae farming ,simply by googeling oil from algae ,

even the wikipedia offers the yeild from one single acre ,to out yield say corn, by a factor far in excess of 10 fold ,

what govt money has gone into that research that assures a renewable oil supply of arround 50 $ us a barrel? for ever

Or hemp farming , or the joe fuel cell [that allows the car to be run on browns gas made from water in a series of stainless steel tubes ,[browns gas [not minester brown the no ideas con man serving the petro chemical elites]

Any way the joe cell is made for less than a hundred dollars and costs nothing to run, thus of course petro buisness has sought and fought to hush it up

joe who perfected the idea ran the joe cell engine in races and was banned from competing because the combustion engine [comverted into a vacume driven engine [because browns gas dosnt explode it implodes] to drive the engine ,joe has given us free energy but those seeking total control dont want no obne to know [WHY for the cash income they feed on]

Free energy is also available using magnetic driven generators ,that arrange a series of magnets in a series again giving free energy

[ via magnet driven generators that creates electricity ,that can yet be sold to consumers [or rented if you will] but either way they wont be making huge bucks for those intent on supplying us our petrol at ransom prices., but that cant go on forever

Anyway the future needs big thinkers ,and do-ers , not speech and spin meisters ,

big buisness has made its fortune, has used its gross capital gain to push us all to spend our last cent on their poluting products ,obsolete consumer driven rubbish

[the suppressed truths of just how affective this colluded gain has been make horror reading, but they are available ,but we neednt tell them just how bad it is YET

But we dont have time to make blame, we do have time to have a govt return fairness to its people ,

But it would take leaders who arnt seeing their duty to serve big buisness , but far seeing people who see their mission to save the people as well as our planet and financial systems.

Greed isnt that good when everyone is intent to suck the last cent from the people [buisness has had a fair go ,but the people havnt been allowed relief ,[noting the capitalists sent broke the commies,

But at least the people got a share when it collapsed, but the capitalists consumers havnt gotten that same equality ,thus remain ever more under the heel of those who seek to own it all ,

facilitated by our public servants [who must be charged with treason should their colluded gain be allowed to continue]

The total burden of govt has shifted from the rich to the poor ,must we wait till the factery workers tear up the factories and lock up the colluders that thought it fair to own it all ,before we see community decency and accountability and fairness return

antileft
25 May 2008 at 17:14

"However, posts like these are not really the place, to expand on necessarily complex ideas relating to alternatives to our current society. There simply isn't the space or the time available."

You wimp! What a cop out!!! After pages and pages of gibberish, you expect us to believe that "there isnt enough space"?! Why is it that there is time and space to ramble endlessly about the problems, and yet not to mention the solutions?! It would only take one word- youre just embarrassed to admit that you believe in it! Socialism. At least have the guts to admit that you have ridiculously old-fashioned and discredited beliefs, you semi-intellectual nitwit.

sarahsmith232
25 May 2008 at 17:56

antileft.

'One of the reasons I feel that Im superior to you is that I can at least speak basic English. I have absolutely no idea what youre trying to say here but I think, translated, it may mean that I somehow missed writeon's point.'

oh my, you're fast boy, aren't you?

translation: irony.

but then, you yanks don't really do that, do you?

translation: not irony.

writeon
25 May 2008 at 19:47

sarasmith232,

Just one of the things that's always appalled me about the primative, totalitarian mind is its need to oversimplify the world, and complexity in general; to reduce politics, or economics, or society, to a bunch of slogans, or catch-phrases, or perhaps a few, not particularly well-understood, or defined, words.

These words then function as symbols or badges, one either displays to identify oneself, or uses them to brand the enemy, as stupid or of lesser worth and intelligence. A labels slowly replace thought and the examination of real ideas. It's simplification for simpletons. The world and reality then becomes artificially understandable and managable. But this is an illusion. Furthermore, one can then define oneself as 'superior' to lesser mortals, of lesser intelligence, because one has deluded onesself that one 'understands' and actually knows the correct answers to questions, one in reality, barely comprehends. These characteristics are, when pushed to extremes, highly destructive and very dangerous, and can ultimately lead to horrors and abominations, as the 'gifted elite', the controlers, lose patients with lesser beings.

Totalitarians don't like shades of grey, they prefer to see the world in simple terms and black and white. Another characteristic is violence and barely controlled anger, verging on hysteria, petulance, stamping their little jackboots in sweaty frustration, at the same time as they hector and demand that other people, lesser people of course, bow to their demands, and become subject to their will. Once again attempting to force complex reality and relationships into a simple form they can comprehend and ultimately control.

sarahsmith232
25 May 2008 at 20:24

writeon

my god, well said sir.

i think i've just become slightly in awe of you. and am jealous of the writing.

sarahsmith232
25 May 2008 at 22:16

Writeon

About your earlier, seemingly slightly disheartened, observations on the world.

I'm aware it's so easy to slip into despair but I must admit, I don't share your lack of belief in the possibilities and probabilities this current and rapidly evolving new world order presents. World peace is a graspable reality for the first time in human history. Although it really wouldn’t seem so seen through a prism of British/American own goaled gloom. For us even the most idealistic of politicians, such as David Miliband, when tasked with the responsibility of taking the world forward are still, having to move against their ideals, forced to make populist, Murdoch press pleasing, short term, ultimately probably horrific, decisions on foreign policy. There is an America that is so intellect averse, it is only a matter of time before the world is infected, yet again, by a reflection of that collective, gallingly ignorant political will. Yes, strangely, it’s difficult to see the positives!

But actually, there are so many. Like for e.g: we’re currently living in a time of unprecedented world peace. For us it really wouldn’t seem that way. For the Japanese, the Thai’s, the Cambodians, the Vietnamese, the Brazilians, the Chileans, the Argentineans, the etc, etc, etc, it would. They can just put their feet up, kick back and luxuriate in a smug awareness of their safety assured futures - (there’s only so far rearing, Russian, hegemonic fantasies will stretch.) (thank god). There really isn’t that much conflict in the world at the moment. It’s inspirational. I say, enjoy. The world is an awesome, awe inspiring, satisfying, enjoyable, sweet and nice ride.

As far as the article is concerned: What could capture and inspire a disheartened, despondent, disappointed, desperate, gagging for a change electorate? Lose the backward, xenophobic, nationalistic, bible bashing christian conservative, puritanical, far right, callous, old world supremacist that’s presenting itself as a Labour prime minister. Could be a start.

sarahsmith232
26 May 2008 at 08:36

antileft dear

again, it must be that fabulously bright brain at work, you've tripped yourself up. 'we ? yanks do don't irony'? yes, you yanks don't tend to be too great at it, as witnessed here on the spectator site when reading your comments.

i suspect i would probably have to simplify my writing again. what with him having such a fantastically superior brain, an' all.

sarahsmith232
26 May 2008 at 11:41

good grief dear, you frantically cling to your imagined, fantasy of superiority - so much so you appear to practically start foaming at the mouth when it's brought into question.. . . . then accuse me of desperation!

writeon
26 May 2008 at 18:16

One of the psychological characteristics of individuals who defame the intelligence, understanding or motives of others, using violent and grossly intemperate language, totally out of proportion with the alleged 'transgression; is that it's actually themselves they are refering to, they are exspressing deeply felt insecurities about their own abilities and project these onto others, like shouting and spitting into their reflection in a mirror.

Often these outbusts have only a tenuous connection with the individuals chosen for their invective, anger and defamation. They are really innocent victims, unknown and attacked at random, rather like serial killer stalking the streets at night looking for someone, anyone, they can find and make them 'pay', 'pay' for their own insecurities and inadequacies.

Perhaps this form of pathology lies at the heart of many totalitarians and expressed in different ways, yet they do seem to require, in the most extreme cases, victims that are more or less helpless, unable to defend themselves and dehumanized. Dehumanized victims who one has designated as being of lesser worth, of lower intelligence and ultimately, expendable.

The typical authoritarian often has an exaggerated idea of their own worth in relation to others. It's as if one builds up ones own self-esteem by frantically attempting to denegrate the self-esteem of others, often people one has only the most fleeting contact with. Forums like this one give one the opportunity to savage other people in safety and anonymously, venting and releasing the festering and pent-up anger, frustration, and fears of ones own pathetic, insignificance, of a lifetime. It's actually disturbing. One feels sorry for such individuals so full of hate and bile, yet they appear so fragile at the same time, as they cling to fundamental certainties like drowning men to rocks in a storm, and these certainties are merely illusions they have conjured out of thin air.

It must be a heavy burden to carry, knowing that one has 'super-human' almost 'Godlike' abilities compared to mere mortals, yet one is unrecognized by the world. Being 'Godlike' must make one feel rather isolated and lonely, how does one interact with ordinary, lower forms of humanity, when one is so much more than they are or can comprehend? Delusions of grandeur are commical in a clown or in a staged farce, yet in the real world they appear something close to madness, are dangerous, and one feels sorry for the individuals that suffer from such a terrible affliction, sorry and rather sad. It must be lonely sitting up there looking down on the rest of us.

sarahsmith232
27 May 2008 at 17:22

writeon

hello dear, spot on again.

but have you noticed? some of 'antileft's' posts have been removed?

i'm slightly miffed with the 'new statesman'. we can take it. i'm sure their readers wouldn't have been too offended. surely, only just as amused as we were by 'antileft's' pitiful attempts at throwing it straight back at us.

although i'm slightly concerned by your, what was it: 'picking on the vulnerable' or was it 'targeting the defenseless'? something along those lines. do i really seem so feeble to you?

writeon
27 May 2008 at 17:59

sarahsmith232

I do not think you are feeble or need to be defended. Though to be perfectly honest the role of 'knight in shinning armour, does somewhat appeal to me.

I wasn't refering to you personally as being 'weak' or 'vulnerable' and I wasn't really targetting antileft. It's interesting though that antileft appears to recognise himself, or feel that I'm specifically talking about him, when I write a few lines about the characteristics, in my opinion, of the totalitarian mind in general.

I was really thinking about fascists, Nazis and others on the right, who seem to need to trash 'lower forms of life' to a disturbing degree. Why are they like this? They are like attack dogs, straining at the leash and frothing at the mouth, snarling and barking, snapping and grinding their teeth in barely controlled anger. It find it both disturbing and also sad.

But it's not just on the right that these attitudes exist. I've read some disgraceful, disgusting and completely rascist comments refering to Jews and Israel by people who are apparently on the left, whatever that really means anymore. These people aren't on the left or socialists, in my opinion, they just hate Israel and Jews in general.

I'm not really sure what 'socialism' means anymore. If Cherie Blair is a 'socialist' them I'm lost! Also I think that various forms of National Socialism are on the rise again, as if fascism, for example in Italy. Then one could argue that 'socialism' is alive and well in the United States, only it's confined to the absolute richest portion of society, which is rather confusing and makes me wary and dubious about using and defining these labels.

sarahsmith232
29 May 2008 at 14:09

hello writeon dear

i'm guessing you're a Southerner?

where did it all go so wrong for you all down there?

observing you all from our Northern perches, it's easy to enjoy how good we've got it now, compared to you.

there def' seems to be a put upon, forced down, trapped, hemmed in, acceptence of life being, for the most part, crap, down there. as we'd say it up here: 'it's all come on top' for you all down there. house prices, fuel prices, food prices, blah, blah. our houses have been reasonably priced for the last 11 years. we don't all have unreasonably large, petrol guzzling cars and we're still all only shopping at morrisons and asda (no shame in that up here!).

the south seems to have become a victim of it's own success. it's not a great advert for affluence. the end result just seems to be large swathes of this society feeling so trapped, forced down and miserable. and you've all become a load of moaning, grumbling, misery guts because of it!

maybe the salvaging of the southern, relatively affluent, pretty much successful, sorts enthusiasm and optimism should be a Labour priority? the poor dears, they all seem to permanently exist in a really dragged down, just given up, depression.

PeterBright
30 May 2008 at 11:00

Where Is The Labour Party?

I come from a working class background (this is not an apology or me trying to be cool - it is a fact). My paternal lineage goes back to the coal mines at Kiverton Park and my maternal lineage goes back to the car manufacturing industry in Birmingham (Austin). My uncle was a communist (maybe) a defender of socialism.

Where is Socialism now?

The cynical, vote begging polices disrespect the memory and achievments of socialism and the (real) Labour Party. The working class have been forgotten in the clamber for the ‘clean handed’ vote - thank God it has backfired with the new middle-classes turning their backs on the devils wearing the red rose. It has taken 10 years for them to show their true colours (a muddy [Gordon] Brown - a mixture of every colour and policy with no true depth or clarity) traitors to my forefathers and my heritage.

knave
01 June 2008 at 19:57

Alf Tupence (great name, Viz eh ) and antileft, what a pair of stars.

These ubermensch believe the population needs to undergo a Malthusian revolution.

Thickies to be sterilised.

Martin you must be proud of your followers.

They remind me of the rat faced Himmler who thought he had an intellect and that he deserved his place with the aryan super race.

In fact like you, Antileft and Alf he was an ugly, sexually repressed doughnut.

Alf and antileft before lecturing others on the dangers of populating it would be a good idea that you both get girlfriends.

Sorry that would require empathy

Martin just read Cohen's article and you know which ballot box he is going to put in his cross. Same as you, the blue one.

knave
02 June 2008 at 17:12

“One of the psychological characteristics of individuals who defame the intelligence, understanding or motives of others, using violent and grossly intemperate language, totally out of proportion with the alleged 'transgression; is that it's actually themselves they are referring to, they are expressing deeply felt insecurities about their own abilities and project these onto others, like shouting and spitting into their reflection in a mirror.”

How true

There are 3 types of posters.

True intellectuals like Write on, Sarah and taghioff. Who have more than an element of doubt and empathy for other arguments and alternative points of view.

The herd, which includes myself.

The Wannabies, these are the sad cases who think of themselves as intellectuals but haven’t the empathy for true enlightment and they all have an absolute belief in their view and have no doubts. They are also usually the loud members of pub quiz teams and they keep telling everybody of their MENSA application forms. This group includes posters such as antileft , Alf, serial killers, all dictators (left or right), most press journalists (certainly Bright and Cohen) and pretentious actors and footballers.

As for the need of a political philosophy for the left.

3 questions to Bright or even BET

1. Why do you need one ?. Surely the most successful political groups are the ones who can deliver stable economies or bring in practical strategies that the electorate want.

2. Don’t you think it is just a gravy train for the political elite (journos, politicians and political researchers) to be given jobs at “think tanks” to “develop ideas” in order to keep out of the way of the rest of us. The “thick of it” is a great parody on these ideas factories

3. What does Bright ,Cohen, Wheen and the rest of the Observer circle believe in. How do they differ from the Cameronies or Thatcherites. We know what they don’t like (public services, unions, lefties, liberals, ethnic minorities, EU ) but what is their vision . To me there seems to be no difference between Bright / Cohen and the ideas from the conservative think tanks such as Policy Exchange or Civitas

sarahsmith232
06 June 2008 at 12:04

knave

well, i've certainly never been refered to as a 'true intellectual' before! obviously. . . . . you're easily impressed! no, thanks for that. that was a good one.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Martin Bright

Martin Bright began his journalistic career writing in very simple English for a magazine aimed at French school children. This experience has informed his style ever since. He worked for the BBC World Service, and The Guardian before joining the Observer as Education Correspondent. He went on to become Home Affairs Editor before becoming the New Statesman's political editor in 2005.

Recent Posts

Five stark truths

  • By Martin Bright
  • 04 September 2008

And the winner is...

  • By Martin Bright
  • 29 August 2008

No glory for the other Team GB

  • By Martin Bright
  • 21 August 2008

Israel and The British Left: The Great Betrayal Revisited

  • By Martin Bright
  • 19 August 2008

The Death of Michael Baxandall

  • By Martin Bright
  • 19 August 2008

Walktalk Reaches London

  • By Martin Bright
  • 18 August 2008