There’s a new phenomenon sweeping the Twittersphere, which of course means it’s not really a phenomenon. Rather it is grandiose, self-important posturing of a number of self-declared Blairites, looking to appropriate the term ‘Blairite’ to justify defecting to the Conservative party, one even creating a brand new branch of political philosophy called ‘Blue Blairism’. Apparently you’re allowed to just make up your political ideology on the spot, which is very convenient. For the rest of this article, these two ‘prominent’ activists will be referred to as ‘Tweeter 1’ and ‘Tweeter 2’, for using their names would give them a sense of satisfaction that I’m not prepared to give them.
You know, I don’t mind them leaving the party – in Tweeter 1’s case he was most certainly a Tory. If they feel ideologically uncomfortable and have felt so for some time, it is of course their prerogative to leave the party. They can of course join the Conservatives if that’s where they feel most comfortable. In Tweeter 2’s case, if she feels that the Tories will welcome a diversity coordinator from the NHS, then of course that’s her decision. I’m not so sure.
But what I will not accept is their two premises for joining the Conservatives, and their accompanying rallying call for social democrats to join them. The first argument seems to suggest that Blair’s agenda while in office was a conservative one, and the second is that this current Conservative-led administration has taken on the Blair mantle and is actually progressive. I’m afraid not, Tweeters 1 and 2, and your desperate justifications for joining Cameron’s Tories are just that – desperate.
I have a theory, and it goes somewhat like this. If you call yourself a ‘Blairite’, and have not had it ascribed to you by someone else, you are probably not a Blairite. Let us be clear about this – the term Blairite and Brownite were used more to define personality, rather than ideology. Together Blair and Brown were architects of New Labour (although, I will concede, some discussion could be had about how much Brown deviated from the New Labour project during his tenure). There has always been a strong revisionist wing in the Labour party, there have always been modernisers (and there is still some modernising to go) and there will always be social democrats. If you call yourself any of those three, you probably get ‘it’.
Blair, and New Labour, was certainly not a conservative agenda by any stretch of the imagination, unless of course you are on the far left where anything to the right of Castro is conservative (a special mention to anyone who has ever used the terms ‘Bliar’ and ‘ZaNu Liebore’ here too). I don’t want to do the whole reeling off of New Labour’s achievements here, but let’s just clarify that being socially progressive and massive investment in the public sector is certainly not conservative ideology.
But one question I certainly have to ask is how on earth can anyone reckon that this Conservative-led government is in any way progressive? If anyone can tell me I would be delighted to know. The tripling of higher education fees, the dismal polling of Cameron’s government among women, making someone who voted for retaining Section 28 equalities minister and the frankly unwanted and bizarre reforms to the NHS certainly does not strike me as progressive. But what do I know; I don’t even run my own blog.
So I say to the defectors, Tweeters 1 and 2, you turn if you want to. This social democrat knows that he is in the right party.
—————————————————————————————
Curtis McLellan is the international officer for Labour Students and former club co-chair of Manchester Labour Students, and tweets @cjmclellan
—————————————————————————————
yup, tick the social democrat box and flush the rest down the blog.
Think you make a fair point Curtis.
These people claim the mantle of Blairism, but they don’t seem so keen on all the completely worthwhile spending made on schools, hospitals etc. What they mean is ‘I sympathise with the emotional style of some Labour politics, but basically I’m right of centre and want society to move that way, and that’s what I mean by ‘modernising'”.
All of this does skirt over a bit of a crisis for Labour centrists though. Where do they believe ‘modernisation’ now lies? Which direction should society be moving in? What are the urgent problems, and who for?
Can they build alliances between classes?
Can they build cross-factional alliances within the Labour Party itself? Are they prepared to in the first place? Would they need to change course themselves?
What mistakes were really made in office? Which parts of Blairism were best and worst?
Centrists in the party have some discussion on issues of this kind. But save for David Miliband, there is little in the way of longer, deeper self-questioning, or discussion/debate on how Blairism itself needs modernising, revising or adapting. In the past, publications like Marxism Today, Renewal, or even some of the Fabian Society’s stuff might have explored all of this in more depth. From outside, it seems sensible to me for Progress or some other aligned organisation to run a more substantial journal as well as a magazine, and get some debate going.
In short, there is a serious risk of stagnancy for those within the party. Ramping up organisation is all very well and good for the Blairite tribe, but lesson one of Blairite thought remains – the real weight is in the substance.
Disclaimer – I say this as someone who sees themselves as a supporter of the ‘sensible left’ of the party.
Welfare reforms I did not mind we needed to sort it out decimation of welfare is different, Building schools yes building schools with PFI nope, or hospital the bill for our kids now stands at £300 billion and will rise, and that just NHS, in Wales we are steaming on with more PFI.
Not to sure I can yet see much difference between New labour and the Tories.
Blairites, Brownites,. Milibandites, well basically mean little, what has changed is the ideology of the Labour party to a point in which it’s to dam close to the Tories.
A very insightful comment Tom.
I always believe there is a danger of defining oneself in the negative, in that you say ‘I’m not like x, so I am y”. It’s a position I don’t want to be in because I don’t think it is a vision, nor an ideology.
Whether people identify as Blairites, or that it has become synonymous with a revisionist, is up to them. I’m uncomfortable with it because I believe it is a a bit of a look to the past, and somewhat vacuous. The danger is, people who identify as “I’m not the loony left, therefore” become stuck in a rigid framework that blighted the Labour left back then.
And that, for me is the path to stagnancy. Of course I reject the notion that those who identify as Blairites are necessarily right of centre. We need vibrant and varied debate.
Long comment warning.
“I always believe there is a danger of defining oneself in the negative, in that you say ‘I’m not like x, so I am y”. It’s a position I don’t want to be in because I don’t think it is a vision, nor an ideology. ”
Hear hear.
” Of course I reject the notion that those who identify as Blairites are necessarily right of centre.”
Agree – but think there is a deeper problem.
Blairites tend towards a strong streak towards what they regard as ‘pragmatism’ (those of us who are left critics might wonder why lax financial regulation is pragmatic, but that’s about my only sectarian point here).
As such, a definite strand of this tradition is against the idea of having a serious intellectual understanding of itself. That’s a problem, because when the facts change, pragmatism doesn’t answer the question of what you are trying to achieve in the longer run.
The result is that people define as ‘Blairite’ for all kinds of reasons, and mean all sorts of different things.
It might be that they are left-wing, but think only the centre can win elections. Perhaps they think that this means the centre rejecting the left. Perhaps they think that the left needs a centre to work with to get into Government, and that a Labour team should include both Alan Milburn and Robin Cook. Naturally you would expect some conflict between these two strands, but neither really understands that they even exist.
Some people define as Blairites because they join the Labour Party and realise they really dislike the left, or ‘old Labour’ (itself a misunderstanding or mischaracterisation of the relationship between ‘left’ and ‘old’).
Some might do it for actual policy reasons. Some might think that we’re not pro-private sector enough. Some might thing we need a ‘pragmatic balance’ – a bit floaty, but typifies early days Blairism. Some thing that the Private sector is always best, or that the richest continually need more concessions on wealth and power, because that is what is ‘modern’ or ‘progressive’, and that’s the way ‘society is going’.
All of these three can define against the left, but all are saying very different things.
What I am saying is that Blair has gone, and Blairism, a tradition not aware of its own ironic internal pluralism, is evolving in a variety of directions – because there were unseen streams of thought involved the whole way through.
Could it be that a centrist bloc must necessarily have members who are both right and left of centre, pulling opposite directions?
Let’s put it this way. I would have voted for Blair as leader. I think the Labour Government between 1997 and 2001 was a little soft in places like top rate tax, but basically had an excellent record. I think very different things about 2001-2005.
As a supporter of a ‘modernising centre-left’ rather than a straight centre (or indeed a slow, Bozier-style rightward shift as a conception of ‘the modern/progress/the future’)… well, how do I relate to ‘Blairites’?
No idea.
All that I can say with any definiteness is that whatever the legitimate concerns about our general direction, I am definitely glad that we have a party where no tradition now completely dominates or is able to declare others illegitimate.
Both Blairites and the soft left have a lot of soul-searching to do. The various traditionalists in Labour First and the hard left both have a more comfortable environment, for now.
Also, a side thought, but maybe one the ‘centre coalition’ has dominated politics for a while, it starts to tug in two directions. Nobody seems to look at this question much.
If it does, say, where do centrists, and indeed people on the left go?
Once again, for some reason, seldom discussed. :-/
where do they go Tom ? forward baby !