As Glasman himself puts it, Blue Labour ‘is a claim that the ethical vision of a humane society which led working men and women to found the party in 1900 is still relevant and vital today’. I would struggle to find a party member who disagrees with an ethical and humane society. However, the way that was defined in 1900 surely changed as society’s attitudes changed. It reminds me of speaking to a room of 80 year olds recently. They complained about immigration and praised Enoch Powell for ‘being tough’. They are not members of the EDL, but they are the grand generation of my mother’s family with their working class roots based in north London. Naturally I was appalled, but it proves the point: what was traditionally acceptable then is not now and we do not need to go back to it.
‘I think the Conservatives are right to point out that Labour was too statist’ is another line from Glasman’s arsenal. He argues in this video that tradition has been missing from Labour’s agenda and that the working class have been ignored for being seen as racist and homophobic. I disagree. As Roy Hattersley said, ‘Believe me if you ever meet any working class people you will find they are just as liberal as you and I’.
Had we kept up the Conservatives’ approach we would not have the changes we made to promote racial equality, gay rights and women’s rights, and finally the introduction of the equality act.
Then there is the idea that ‘Blue Labour welcomes religious belief’ as espoused by Luke Bretherton (an academic at King’s College London). Firstly, when did Labour stop welcoming religious belief? When did Labour close down places of worship or faith schools? Let’s be clear, we live in a country with fewer people attending church than before. Then why are we still helping others? It’s because we all have inherently built into us what we see as right or wrong. I was at the Citizens UK meetings at King’s College for the living wage as I was then chair of the university Labour club. I was there out of my belief in better pay for our cleaners, not out of religious conviction. Little did I know that Bretherton and Glasman were going to use Citizens UK for a political stunt.
I agree that we need debate in the party about where we go next, and I’m not suggesting New Labour is without its flaws, especially on party democracy, but it is clear now that Blue Labour is almost trying to out-right the Conservatives in its rhetoric. If it comes down to a choice between a Labour party that embraces modernity, progress, globalisation, mobility, flexibility, individual rights and universal values that represented us in government (as defined by Graeme Cooke) with a role for state welfare, or Blue Labour which suggests we ‘need to get away from this obsession with absolute fairness, with material equality’ and should ‘go back to a Tudor state model’, I know which one I prefer.
If it comes down to a choice between a Labour party that embraces modernity, progress, globalisation, mobility, flexibility, individual rights and universal values that represented us in government with a role for state welfare, or Blue Labour which suggests we ‘need to get away from this obsession with absolute fairness, with material equality’ and should ‘go back to a Tudor state model’, I know which one I prefer. Quite. Question: isn’t their a form of social justice which is fuller than simply harnessing the proceeds of consumer and financial services based economy to ameliorate the social trauma that it causes? Your’s is a doctrine I think I would call enlightened economic liberalism. But I don’t think you could understand or mean what you’re saying – why would you champion something like the living wage movement if you wanted to champion globalisation and labour market flexibility? Exactly who is trying to out-right the Conservatives? Genuinely confused by the deep contradictions in your post.
Dave, thanks for reading. You will notice I have stayed away from economics as that is not where my biggest criticisms of Blue Labour are. The problem with the term globalisation is that it means different things to different people. Most dictionaries cannot even come up with a definition. Also globalisation represents a number of key issues, with the economy being just one, albeit an important one. Therefore I’m not so keen on your idea that I do not understand. You can have globalisation and a living wage, depending on how you define globalisation. I feel that to detract from our beliefs of equality and fairness and push a larger role for religion in politics does hark back to an age that we left behind as a party and indeed as a nation. To bring such nostalgia back to grab modernity and scale it backwards would chime with a number of Tories. Similarly the idea that we should go back to Tudor or Victorian society where you look after yourself and your family and the state does not help you seems odd too. I hope that clears it up a little for you.