Memo to Blue Labourites: tone down the nostalgia
There was no golden age and the party must not idealise the working class.
By Mehdi Hasan Published 20 April 2011
Cast your mind back to the Labour Party conference in Manchester last year. For the gaggle of assembled political journalists, pundits and television cameras, various moments in the new leader's speech on 28 September stood out: the story of his Jewish parents fleeing the Holocaust and arriving on our shores as refugees; the call to a "new generation" of Labour "optimists"; his promise not to oppose the government just for the sake of it; and his defence of civil liberties and denunciation of the invasion of Iraq - prompting his brother, David, to voice his displeasure from the audience.
My ears, however, pricked up when the younger Miliband reached the section on "the good life". "We must be on the side of communities who want to save their local post office, not be the people trying to close it," he declared. "We must be on the side of people trying to protect their high street from looking like every other high street, not the people who say that's just the forces of progress."
Miliband concluded this particular section of his speech with the line: ". . . the good life is about the things we do in our community and the time we spend with family." It wasn't the rhetoric that we had become used to hearing from Labour frontbenchers - least of all Labour frontbenchers of the Brownite, statist variety. This wasn't "Red Ed", the caricature promoted by right-wing media commentators and Blairite supporters of his elder brother; this was "Blue Ed", emphasising the value of local communities and neighbourhoods, of human relationships above economic relationships.
Pitfalls
Blue Ed - the Miliband that is getting married, signs his name to his (second) son's birth certificate and speaks of the "good society" - is a fan of "Blue Labour", a political tendency launched by an academic named Maurice Glasman at Conway Hall, London, in April 2009. It wants to reclaim the reciprocity, mutuality and solidarity that Glasman says defined the Labour Party before the advent of the "remote, bossy and managerial" welfare state in 1945.
Ennobled in the New Year Honours List, Glasman has free access to Miliband and is often seen ambling around the leader's suite of offices in the Norman Shaw South parliamentary building. He has been the subject of profiles and interviews in the Guardian, Observer and Prospect, and on the pages of this magazine three weeks ago. On 15 April, the Blairite commentator Philip Collins, writing in the Times, said that the Blue Labour account of the party's decline "seems to me bang on the money".
Is it? Some of the criticism of Glasman from Labour traditionalists has been misguided and ill-informed. In a bizarre intervention this month, the singer and activist Billy Bragg tried to link Blue Labour thinking to "free-market dogma" and an "economically liberal agenda". But Blue Labour, like its civic communitarian counterpart in the Conservative Party, "Red Toryism" (© Phillip Blond), wants to tame the excesses of global capitalism. Glasman has been at the forefront of community organising inside the City of London and, in particular, the campaign for a living wage.
Yet there are several pitfalls that the nascent Blue Labour tendency must avoid falling into if it is to influence Labour's ideological and policy direction between now and 2015.
First, it mustn't demonise the state. To pretend that the state is the font of all evil plays into the hands of the small-state, free-market right - in David Cameron's dishonest formulation: "It is more government that got us into this mess." In fact, the state, not society, rescued Britain from the collapse of the banks.
We can all agree that inefficient, impersonal and bureaucratic government, big or small, is a bad thing. But the state, in and of itself, is not, as Ronald Reagan once claimed, "the problem". To quote another president - Barack Obama, in his speech this month on the US budget deficit - it is because of the government that "we've built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We've laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce . . . Each of us has benefited from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result."
Second, Blue Labour must not demonise immigration. Glasman attracted the attention of the Daily Mail and Daily Express on 16 April when he was quoted as saying: "Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration . . . and there's been a massive rupture of trust." However, blaming migrants for a lack of decent housing or secure jobs sits oddly with a world-view that also recognises the destabilising nature of global capitalism and financial markets.
Golden years
Blue Labour types tend to idealise working-class communities and turn a blind eye to enduring racism (and misogyny) in those groups. Glasman believes Gordon Brown's ill-fated encounter with Gillian Duffy in Rochdale last year symbolised New Labour's hatred for working-class people. Not only is this sweeping hyperbole but Duffy, let's recall, referred disparagingly to eastern Europeans "flocking" to this country.
My anxiety is that Blue Labour advocates, obsessed with winning back the fabled C2 voters, are willing to take the words of the late Tory MP Eric Forth as their motto: "There are millions of people in this country who are white, Anglo-Saxon and bigoted and they need to be represented." But, as one of Glasman's fellow-travellers, the Labour MP Jon Cruddas, has argued, if Labour becomes the voice of a "sour, shrill, hopeless politics it will die".
Third, Blue Labour must avoid idealising the past. Community and family ties may have been defining characteristics of the past, but so were disease, poverty, homelessness and racial and sexual discrimination. Memo to Maurice: tone down the nostalgia.
“Glasman is on another planet," says a shadow cabinet minister. "He has this romantic, nostalgic view of a Labour Party that never really existed. When I joined my local party as a teenager, there were six people at the branch meeting. There was no golden age."
Forget the past for a moment. What does the future hold for Glasman and his distinctive views? A senior member of Team Ed tells me that Miliband is deeply enamoured by the Blue Labour approach to society and the state. But is this just a case of a new leader looking for innovative thinking? And how long will it last? The omens aren't great. Just ask Phillip Blond.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


39 comments
All is fine. Things have never been better. Now repeat after me...
MiddleClassMarxist
20 April 2011 at 10:03
I really wish people would stop alluding to the myth of a British "indigenous" population as a source of rights for one group within British society over others. It is nonsense. (Marx's wasn't even a Marxist)
The Labour party needs the blue collar workers. The Labour party doesn't need the immigrant vote.
The Labour party needs to apologise to the working-class. Just get on with it 'Miliband' just say SORRY!!
an interesting article, that accurately identifies the problem.
so maurice glasman is ed milliband's steve hilton then? worrying.
i think the problem is we have had so much change over the last 30 years that a large number of people have been left behind by it. mainly those who lost out in the changes in income distribution. who are the bulk of the electorate.
the tories have tried to solve this problem by pretending that this group lost out because of immigration and too many people on benefits, and ignore the power of the corporate sector.
and now labour needs to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the economic losers, (many of whom voted for them), during their time in office.
the temptation to follow the tories must be great, and in power labour tried to placate these people by being tough on crime, and nasty to the unemployed, however they have taken that method of appeasement too far already, so they are a bit stuck.
so how do we offer this group of people a stake in the future in a way that respects their needs, but does not involve encouraging the sort of prejudiced policy ideas, that result in the sort of nasty right wing narrow minded country that those who are genuinely beneficial to our country in economic times, which is often our intellectual elite, would find too unpleasant to live in.
The golden age of the working class is not a myth. From 1945 to 1979 the national wealth was more evenly distributed. Under Blair and Thatcher the the majority of the national cake as returned to the rich and powerfull. This is the reason for racism and exploitation, the working class have been targeted for low pay and poverty were ever they come from. The answer to this is stronger trade unions. The Labour party without the trade unions will wither and die. That has been plan A for Thatcher Blair and now Cameron. New Labour and all the rest of the neo-liberal appeasers are the problem. The working class are the ones paying for capitalisms failings not the bankers. Labour thinkers Like Mr Cruddas have to understand this, good wages plentyfull employment will remove many of these issues. The system needs change the neo-liberal consensus has to go, or nothing will change now matter how much hot air is expelled.
Sam, If you look again at my second post, you will see that I am actually arguing for the rights of all employees regardless of where they live or come from. Unfortunately, you seem to be displaying a tendency to view anyone who dares to even use the word "immigration"as a racist.
Similarly your reference to "people who have been living on the dole for decades" may be a good use of alliteration, but is just as inflammatory as some of the language used by Cameron, e.g. his reference to "mass immigration". You seem to be quite happy to demonise the unemployed as a marginal blight on society and lump people together in this manner.
SR819 - can you tell me what the economic situation would have been in the last 13 years if no immigrants had come here? Are you assuming that the 2 million odd underclass would have picked up the slack? What about immigrants who came over as doctors, nurses, care workers ie jobs that couldn't have been done by the unskilled underclass?
You might not like immigration but you have no right whatsoever to demonise them and blame them for problems that have nothing to do with them.
I think you need to start checking some facts and figures rather than just thinking up elaborate theories that have no basis in reality.
Mary - I probably shouldn't have included you as you're not being as prejuidiced as the others. I apologise.
I don't know how you can say my language is inflammatory. Unfortunately it's a fact that the Tories and Labour have demoralised a small but significant section of society who have become an underclass, who no education and no skills that could be useful for employers.
Considering the extent to which the working class has been demonised over the past thirty years, perhaps a little idealisation might not be such a bad thing?
Till Death Do Us Part, Only Fools and Horses, Porridge, East Enders and Coronation Street plus many more television series were cultural staples and are aimed at the 'working class' audience.
Even when the Labour Party had a large membership, many working class voters favoured hanging, flogging and birching. Although they may have agreed with the Conservative Party on these policies and on the British Empire and on racial prejudice, they realised that their economic interests were not identical. They voted accordingly.
Korea and Iraq were linked to the Labour Government. Consequently, the Tories were elected whilst hostilities were still in progress.
Yet, when the Tories embarked upon the Suez adventure and the Falklands, the Conservatives were re-elected. Admittedly, Afghanistan and Libya are not so confidently supported. Victory is somewhat uncertain. The British electorate hates losing. So, in fact, does the US blue-collar worker.
Now some British ethnic groupings are upset at Eastern European immigration.
All the American continent, Australia and New Zealand depended on immigration - with Europe supplying the surplus labour.
, .
Orly Herbert? I'm guessing in America the average wage is about £2,000 a year considering they've had much higher immigration than us.
Post new comment