It’s very rare that people actually ask me to comment on stuff. More often, I just stick my nose in where it isn’t wanted and generally offend at least a handful of folks. Several days ago however, my good friend @sarahcritcher asked for my comment on a piece in the Independant about “Blue Labour”. Here’s my take:
Socialism is now a dirty word. It’s almost more acceptable to say you’re a BNP supporter than a Socialist. There’s an overwhelming consensus among society that Socialism is “bad” – although nobody really knows why (this is in fact, something I wish to discuss further in my upcoming book, but that’s for later).
Aside from this, there’s also the matter of relitivism in politics. New Labour came about as a shift to the left from the Thatcher era. The reality is however, that New Labour was a huge lurch to the right by Labour. In fact, this is why it was electorally successful – once the nation was accustomed to a right-wing government, Labour would attract the largest number of swing voters if it positioned centrally rather than to the strong left.
This is all of course reminiscent of US politics, particularly Obama. The issue is also easier to illustrate using US politics where there is a definite two-party system, as opposed to our 2.5 party charade. Consider that, so long as the Democrat policy lies left of the Republicans, American liberals will always vote Democrat. Now here’s our problem – no matter how far left the Democrats go, that doesn’t gain them any more voters. If however, they move towards the right, this gives them access to potential swing voters. In fact, with the Republicans fielding fiercely right-wing candidates, the Democrats can go all the way to right-of-centre – picking up all the left and centre voters.
Let’s go back to British politics and consider the problem: that it doesn’t actually pay to appeal to your core. It doesn’t pay for the Tory party to pander to the Tory core, because they’re always going to vote for them over Labour anyway. Inevitably, the result is convergence, the grey-zone of Red Toryism and Blue Labour. Both parties are going at each others fringe. In effect, from a point of view, they are merging.
Of course, none of this is new. A recent series of events however, have changed an awful lot. First, the global financial crisis. Secondly, the glorious spin by Cameron and the right-wing media, which convinced the country that the financial disaster, a fundementally capitalist creation, was the fault of left-wingers and Labour. If you ask anyone in Britian what caused this country’s debt, the answer is invariably “Labour spending” rather than “the collapse of the private banking system”. Unfortunately, it’s a stubborn view to shift.
This leaves the Labour party in a difficult position. In its heart, it knows the true causes of this country’s situation. It is unfortunately also aware of the “causes” in the mind of the public: “public sector”, “big government”, “immigration”, “bleeding heart liberals”… all the bogeyman fed to the guy down the pub. The association with social progress with economic failure has been cemented. Blue Labour fundementally appeals to the man down the pub by taking a right-wing stance on social issues.
The real problem with Blue Labour is that it loses sight of what is correct. Even most of those who critisise Blue Labour do so on the basis of “I don’t think this will actually win votes because…”. Blue Labour probably will win votes, but that’s not the point. Are we so determined to win votes that we turn ourselves in everything we object to? If anything, if we ignore the economic decisions, the best improvements Labour have made to this country, in their last term and previously, have been in the way of social change. It has always been the Tories that have stood in the way of equal rights and opportunities and the last thing I want to see is Labour become that retarding force.
There is another side to “Blue” Labour – a Red side. A rejection of neo-liberal economic policies and ideas like Guild Socialism. These are ideas that I’m not necessarily opposed to, but it’s strange to find them bundled with conservative social policies. I think one problem is that we still think of politics in terms of right and left. We also mix around terms: social liberalism and economic liberalism are a world apart. In my own view, economic liberalism is about careful balance. You can never have too much social liberalism – anything else is simply discrimination.
The truth is, we can embrance these positive aspects. We can move towards Socialist economics, but we don’t have to do so by selling out on social issues to get in. A move to the right on social issues is simply unacceptable – it is a move towards discrimination and hate. I do not want to be “a little bit like the BNP” (or their moderate branch, the Tories). The positive side of Blue Labour doesn’t need a new cover note, it already exists – it’s called “Labour”, Red Labour… anyone remember the Socialist Party?
There is another term on which one can win an election. Every so often, there is a political movement, that rather than neutralise swing voters through conformancy, inspires them to actually change their stance. This is what Labour needs to do and it is our country’s best hope of moving forward into an egalitarian, socially-responsible, humanist society. With a strong shift back to the left, Labour can reject neo-liberal economics and distance itself from the New Labour that the public so hate. They can also hoover up the votes of displeased Liberal Democrats, as well as voters for numberous small, progressive parties who regarded New Labour as too right-leaning.
Now is not the time for Labour to back down and become the Tories. Now is the time for Labour to take a stand and show its true colours. Let us not hide behind a blue facade, but be proud to call ourselves Socialist, Red Labour.
Vote Quimby.