Friday, 30 December 2011
New site
Please note that all future posts will be made on the Blue Labour website, www.bluelabour.org.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Blond and Glasman: exclusive extracts from new book
In these extracts from journalist Rowenna Davis's new book, Tangled Up In Blue, Blue Labour's Maurice Glasman and 'Red Tory' Phillip Blond speak about each other's work
Glasman’s frustration came to a head in a seminar with Blond in Westminster’s Portcullis House in the spring of 2009. Blond had been brought in to discuss his ideas with a set of left and Labour party activists, MPs and journalists. Glasman was clearly irritated by Blond’s presentation, but he was even more annoyed by the reaction of Labour party members in the room. Once again, no one seemed to be challenging Blond’s “corrupted” replica of Labour’s ideas. Instead, the audience seemed to be disowning their traditions by criticising Blond’s work on the grounds that it marginalised the state. As Glasman explains:
He [Blond] was talking and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing as a response, he was talking about friendship, solidarity, belonging and all the people on the left were talking about equality, diversity, basically the state, and not talking about the quality of relationships or most importantly, capitalism. No one on the left was talking about capitalism, which you will find out if this goes ahead is a genuinely a life long obsession, so be aware that capitalism plays a central role in the story, and I remember sitting there and thinking sorry I got the wrong end of the stick, I think I remember saying I thought the Labour party was the party where people came together to resist the domination of the rich, I didn’t think it was some kind of welfare agency, you know, democratic welfare agency.
In one of the most unconventional but little-known friendships in political circles, Glasman ending up befriending the Red Tory himself, Phillip Blond. Although Blond had his own much grander apartment in North London, he took to coming around to Glasman’s crowded flat in Stoke Newington. In a sign of genuine trust, Blond joined Glasman and his family on Friday nights. This was an intimate space where the family lit candles and ate together in honour of the Jewish tradition and rested after a hard working week. Several years later, Blond still refers to Glasman with genuine admiration, calling him a “deeply good man” and a “dear friend”. He used to call him up – only half jokingly – and ask Glasman to join the Red Tory camp.
This uncanny ability to form unexpectedly warm alliances in unexpected places was to become quite a trait for Glasman. There was an important political energy in this friendship; the two could make more noise together than apart. The two worked together in tension, going head to head in a public debate billed as Red Tory vs Blue Labour at Conway Hall, and publishing an email exchange in Prospect magazine. Later Blond went even further and said that he deliberately helped promote Glasman – whose name was at that time virtually unknown in Westminster – by participating in these joint debates. Blond had always had huge confidence in the significance of his ideas, which he believed would extend well beyond the Conservative party. There were good strategic reasons then, for supporting Glasman and his Blue Labour project. A “sister movement” would help push what Blond saw as a new political consensus:
I would only win and my ideas would only succeed if there was a similar movement on the left because we needed to create a new centre ground and that takes both sides to agree. Maurice and I genuinely differ which is right and proper and we differ most on markets, so it’s not like we agree but I think his insights are in authentic parallel to mine on the left and I know history and I know that to create a new centre ground you need two sides to agree.
Of course there were significant differences in their ideology. Most notably, Blond thought that Glasman was too confrontational in style and too Marxist in substance. He believed Blue Labour lacked an appeal to a British sense of aspiration, and was unlikely to play well with the electorate as a result. Glasman for his part believed that Blond did not take the power of capital seriously enough. He also argued that Blond’s model for mutualisation was not sufficiently transformative because it didn’t include a range of interests. For Glasman, it was important to foster and encourage a diverse number of interests within any organisation. Handing over control of services to workers simply replaced a monopoly of the state with a monopoly of employees. Glasman’s model of mutualisation, in contrast, would encourage representation from different groups to encourage pluralism.
It’s also interesting to compare the two men’s positions within their own parties. On a surface level, they were operating in a similar space. Both thought that their respective parties should change, but both lacked an official position of influence in their chosen institutions to achieve it. But although they were both party political insurgents, it would be a mistake to think of their positions as identical. Although Blond always had more resources than Glasman, he remained a much more isolated figure within his own party. He had none of the significant and close relationships with the leadership that Glasman went on to have. Glasman could see that, for all the bluster, Blond’s project was a much lonelier one than his own. Talking to Glasman, it seems as if his affection for the Red Tory was tinted with a desire to look after him:
[Blond has a] very generous, gentle disposition to him and by far the best way of having a relationship with him was to embed him, for him to come over, he never has a cooked meal, he only has takeaways, was to come over have a Friday night meal, with children, it turns out he is brilliant with children, he gives them quizzes, he and Isaac, can you imagine have a kind of equality of ego, with a five year old child Phillip, he and Isaac can go completely head to head it’s brilliant and he’s very loving with children.
***
Others share this concern that Blue Labour might not be able to speak to the demographic it claims to represent. Phillip Blond of the think tank ResPublica, for example, argues that Blue Labour’s appeal to the working class cannot work because Britons no longer label themselves in that way. They are too aspirational, which means the brand won’t appeal to them. It is worth keeping in mind that over a third of Britain’s school leavers now go on to university, and with manufacturing industries still largely in decline, there is less respect associated with the working class label. Blue Labour, says Blond, hasn’t really caught up with this:
[Blue Labour] hasn’t really recognised what Blair was writing about and speaking to, Blue Labour still won’t appeal to the majority of British people, it still remains an appeal to a type of working class that is very much in the minority, that’s unionised, and low waged, there is no appeal here to small business people, or workers who wish to be high wage and high skill, no appeal to the modern structures that most people live in or desire.
Even if voters did accept Blue Labour labels, Blond does not believe that Labour would ever be able to swallow the socially conservative values it proposes:
I think Labour will always be hostile to social conservatism, or as I term it “social conservation”, it will always privilege Liberal autonomy above all things, so I never think it can be a radical party for that reason.
Although Blond does not rate Blue Labour’s ideas as they stand now, he does think they are underestimated by his colleagues in the Conservative party. Blond says that although current cabinet members do have Blue Labour “on the radar” they are not worried that it will steal capital C Conservative voters. This, Blond believes, could be a mistake:
I think they underestimate him [Glasman] and Ed Miliband, but if Ed keeps with the notion of squeezed middle, transmutes Blue Labour into that space and I think that’s a potent mix.
Tangled Up In Blue is published by Ruskin
Glasman’s frustration came to a head in a seminar with Blond in Westminster’s Portcullis House in the spring of 2009. Blond had been brought in to discuss his ideas with a set of left and Labour party activists, MPs and journalists. Glasman was clearly irritated by Blond’s presentation, but he was even more annoyed by the reaction of Labour party members in the room. Once again, no one seemed to be challenging Blond’s “corrupted” replica of Labour’s ideas. Instead, the audience seemed to be disowning their traditions by criticising Blond’s work on the grounds that it marginalised the state. As Glasman explains:
He [Blond] was talking and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing as a response, he was talking about friendship, solidarity, belonging and all the people on the left were talking about equality, diversity, basically the state, and not talking about the quality of relationships or most importantly, capitalism. No one on the left was talking about capitalism, which you will find out if this goes ahead is a genuinely a life long obsession, so be aware that capitalism plays a central role in the story, and I remember sitting there and thinking sorry I got the wrong end of the stick, I think I remember saying I thought the Labour party was the party where people came together to resist the domination of the rich, I didn’t think it was some kind of welfare agency, you know, democratic welfare agency.
In one of the most unconventional but little-known friendships in political circles, Glasman ending up befriending the Red Tory himself, Phillip Blond. Although Blond had his own much grander apartment in North London, he took to coming around to Glasman’s crowded flat in Stoke Newington. In a sign of genuine trust, Blond joined Glasman and his family on Friday nights. This was an intimate space where the family lit candles and ate together in honour of the Jewish tradition and rested after a hard working week. Several years later, Blond still refers to Glasman with genuine admiration, calling him a “deeply good man” and a “dear friend”. He used to call him up – only half jokingly – and ask Glasman to join the Red Tory camp.
This uncanny ability to form unexpectedly warm alliances in unexpected places was to become quite a trait for Glasman. There was an important political energy in this friendship; the two could make more noise together than apart. The two worked together in tension, going head to head in a public debate billed as Red Tory vs Blue Labour at Conway Hall, and publishing an email exchange in Prospect magazine. Later Blond went even further and said that he deliberately helped promote Glasman – whose name was at that time virtually unknown in Westminster – by participating in these joint debates. Blond had always had huge confidence in the significance of his ideas, which he believed would extend well beyond the Conservative party. There were good strategic reasons then, for supporting Glasman and his Blue Labour project. A “sister movement” would help push what Blond saw as a new political consensus:
I would only win and my ideas would only succeed if there was a similar movement on the left because we needed to create a new centre ground and that takes both sides to agree. Maurice and I genuinely differ which is right and proper and we differ most on markets, so it’s not like we agree but I think his insights are in authentic parallel to mine on the left and I know history and I know that to create a new centre ground you need two sides to agree.
Of course there were significant differences in their ideology. Most notably, Blond thought that Glasman was too confrontational in style and too Marxist in substance. He believed Blue Labour lacked an appeal to a British sense of aspiration, and was unlikely to play well with the electorate as a result. Glasman for his part believed that Blond did not take the power of capital seriously enough. He also argued that Blond’s model for mutualisation was not sufficiently transformative because it didn’t include a range of interests. For Glasman, it was important to foster and encourage a diverse number of interests within any organisation. Handing over control of services to workers simply replaced a monopoly of the state with a monopoly of employees. Glasman’s model of mutualisation, in contrast, would encourage representation from different groups to encourage pluralism.
It’s also interesting to compare the two men’s positions within their own parties. On a surface level, they were operating in a similar space. Both thought that their respective parties should change, but both lacked an official position of influence in their chosen institutions to achieve it. But although they were both party political insurgents, it would be a mistake to think of their positions as identical. Although Blond always had more resources than Glasman, he remained a much more isolated figure within his own party. He had none of the significant and close relationships with the leadership that Glasman went on to have. Glasman could see that, for all the bluster, Blond’s project was a much lonelier one than his own. Talking to Glasman, it seems as if his affection for the Red Tory was tinted with a desire to look after him:
[Blond has a] very generous, gentle disposition to him and by far the best way of having a relationship with him was to embed him, for him to come over, he never has a cooked meal, he only has takeaways, was to come over have a Friday night meal, with children, it turns out he is brilliant with children, he gives them quizzes, he and Isaac, can you imagine have a kind of equality of ego, with a five year old child Phillip, he and Isaac can go completely head to head it’s brilliant and he’s very loving with children.
***
Others share this concern that Blue Labour might not be able to speak to the demographic it claims to represent. Phillip Blond of the think tank ResPublica, for example, argues that Blue Labour’s appeal to the working class cannot work because Britons no longer label themselves in that way. They are too aspirational, which means the brand won’t appeal to them. It is worth keeping in mind that over a third of Britain’s school leavers now go on to university, and with manufacturing industries still largely in decline, there is less respect associated with the working class label. Blue Labour, says Blond, hasn’t really caught up with this:
[Blue Labour] hasn’t really recognised what Blair was writing about and speaking to, Blue Labour still won’t appeal to the majority of British people, it still remains an appeal to a type of working class that is very much in the minority, that’s unionised, and low waged, there is no appeal here to small business people, or workers who wish to be high wage and high skill, no appeal to the modern structures that most people live in or desire.
Even if voters did accept Blue Labour labels, Blond does not believe that Labour would ever be able to swallow the socially conservative values it proposes:
I think Labour will always be hostile to social conservatism, or as I term it “social conservation”, it will always privilege Liberal autonomy above all things, so I never think it can be a radical party for that reason.
Although Blond does not rate Blue Labour’s ideas as they stand now, he does think they are underestimated by his colleagues in the Conservative party. Blond says that although current cabinet members do have Blue Labour “on the radar” they are not worried that it will steal capital C Conservative voters. This, Blond believes, could be a mistake:
I think they underestimate him [Glasman] and Ed Miliband, but if Ed keeps with the notion of squeezed middle, transmutes Blue Labour into that space and I think that’s a potent mix.
Tangled Up In Blue is published by Ruskin
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Riots and the responsible society
Luke Bretherton says irresponsibility at the top is just as much to blame for the riots as that of the rioters themselves
David Cameron said the rioters represented ‘pockets’ of society that were ‘sick’.
His analysis was both wrong and worryingly misguided. To say someone is sick is to suggest they are not responsible for what is happening to them.
Of course the use of medical analogies to diagnose what ails the body politic is an ancient one. But to understand what was going on in the riots we must turn to another ancient metaphor, one found in the stories of Cain and Abel and Romulus and Remus, namely, fraternal rivalry.
When my two boys were toddlers, if one had a toy, the other desired it and after a while, if he could not get it by legitimate means he would snatch it.
To add injury to insult, and with a certain frenzied and spiteful glee, he would then thump his sibling from whom he stole the toy. The anthropologist Rene Girard calls this process ‘mimetic rivalry’.
It is beyond simple envy. It is a deep desire sparked by copying what another has or does. In wanting what the other has, we seek to affirm our own worth and value.
The ‘shopping with violence’ we saw in the riots was the outworking of a consumer culture in which self-worth is measured by material gain and identities expressed through brands.
It is a culture where desire for what others have not only drives the whole economy but mediates social relations: what we gossip about, watch on TV and how we spend our leisure time mostly revolves around consuming and observing what others consume.
The rioters wanted to participate in what they felt excluded from and given the opportunity took it by any means necessary. But like all projects of self-justification, it is not enough to get what you want, there is a need to hit back at what made you feel bad, held back or deprived in the first place. Hence the arson and the attacks on the police. Mimetic rivalry eventually spins out of control, until it leads to violence.
But if this all sounds a bit over theorised, we should not forget that for some rioting is fun. Studies of early modern English riots – an equivalent time of rapid social change - suggests that among a range of factors, some of which included genuine grievances, was the fact that many taking part were bored young men looking for something to do.
Rioting was a laugh, a way to vent frustrations and circumvent the normal boundaries that limited their actions. Most riots were not proto-revolutionary protests but carnivalesque upsurges that made the fools kings for a day.
If the lists of those arrested are anything to go by, most of those taking part were foolish young men aged between 17-25. This is the same demographic who take the most illegal drugs, who drink to excess the most, and whom we send to fight our wars.
They are risk takers who don’t consider the consequences. It is the same high risk, short-term thinking and wantonly destructive behaviour we saw among the (mostly male) bankers who traded away our future and indebted us for a generation.
We are a society that rewards one ‘pocket’ of self-interested risk takers for privatising profit and socialising the cost, but is busy incarcerating another ‘pocket’ for the same actions.
But the identification of irresponsible and destructive risk taking in many sections of society suggests a further problem with Cameron’s analysis of the riots.
Alongside mimetic rivalry, Girard points to another social process we saw in the riots: scapegoating. As the righteous anger and fear erupted, society sought to heal the social fabric in the face of its violent rupture by heaping all the blame on certain groups: parents, feral youth, gangs, and in one particularly shallow, but nonetheless troubling case voiced by David Starkey, black youth culture.
Society could then form a solid phalanx, re-affirming its own values and innocence in contradistinction to the irresponsible actions of scapegoats who were condemned as outside of ‘normal’ behaviour.
Scapegoating seems to shape the government’s whole response to the riots. But in scapegoating particular groups, we seek to avoid taking responsibility.
And this gets to the heart of the problem: the refusal of all involved – rioters, government, the police and society in general – to take responsibility.
This is a profound malaise at the heart of our body politic. As Peter Oborne pointed out in one of the most perceptive comments on the riots, the riots were of a piece with the irresponsible actions of bankers, politicians, the police and journalists who think they can bend and break the law, acting with impunity and with no regard for the common life we all share and on which they themselves depend.
Those guilty of criminal acts must be made to take responsibility and be taught and set an example of how to act otherwise. But to do this we must all take responsibility for creating a culture that lauds as rational self-interest desiring what others have and using any means necessary to get it; treating others with contempt in order to get ahead; taking risks without considering the consequences for others; and not taking responsibility for polluting, destroying and desecrating our common life, on which all our flourishing depends.
Thankfully, we saw signs of an alternative culture to the one displayed on the streets of our cities and in the boardrooms of the City, one that is not hell bent on sacrificing all we hold dear to the maw of mammon.
Those who came together to clean up, support those in distress and defend their neighbourhoods from attack invested in building a common life before self-aggrandisement, took personal responsibility, and did not leave it all up to the state or the market to decide. Rather than hide away in gated communities, they valued cooperative action and mutual support.
They met public squalor with public spirit. These citizens point to the virtues and values we must foster if we are to heal our body politic and inhibit both low morals in high places and heightened immorality in ordinary places.
David Cameron said the rioters represented ‘pockets’ of society that were ‘sick’.
His analysis was both wrong and worryingly misguided. To say someone is sick is to suggest they are not responsible for what is happening to them.
Of course the use of medical analogies to diagnose what ails the body politic is an ancient one. But to understand what was going on in the riots we must turn to another ancient metaphor, one found in the stories of Cain and Abel and Romulus and Remus, namely, fraternal rivalry.
When my two boys were toddlers, if one had a toy, the other desired it and after a while, if he could not get it by legitimate means he would snatch it.
To add injury to insult, and with a certain frenzied and spiteful glee, he would then thump his sibling from whom he stole the toy. The anthropologist Rene Girard calls this process ‘mimetic rivalry’.
It is beyond simple envy. It is a deep desire sparked by copying what another has or does. In wanting what the other has, we seek to affirm our own worth and value.
The ‘shopping with violence’ we saw in the riots was the outworking of a consumer culture in which self-worth is measured by material gain and identities expressed through brands.
It is a culture where desire for what others have not only drives the whole economy but mediates social relations: what we gossip about, watch on TV and how we spend our leisure time mostly revolves around consuming and observing what others consume.
The rioters wanted to participate in what they felt excluded from and given the opportunity took it by any means necessary. But like all projects of self-justification, it is not enough to get what you want, there is a need to hit back at what made you feel bad, held back or deprived in the first place. Hence the arson and the attacks on the police. Mimetic rivalry eventually spins out of control, until it leads to violence.
But if this all sounds a bit over theorised, we should not forget that for some rioting is fun. Studies of early modern English riots – an equivalent time of rapid social change - suggests that among a range of factors, some of which included genuine grievances, was the fact that many taking part were bored young men looking for something to do.
Rioting was a laugh, a way to vent frustrations and circumvent the normal boundaries that limited their actions. Most riots were not proto-revolutionary protests but carnivalesque upsurges that made the fools kings for a day.
If the lists of those arrested are anything to go by, most of those taking part were foolish young men aged between 17-25. This is the same demographic who take the most illegal drugs, who drink to excess the most, and whom we send to fight our wars.
They are risk takers who don’t consider the consequences. It is the same high risk, short-term thinking and wantonly destructive behaviour we saw among the (mostly male) bankers who traded away our future and indebted us for a generation.
We are a society that rewards one ‘pocket’ of self-interested risk takers for privatising profit and socialising the cost, but is busy incarcerating another ‘pocket’ for the same actions.
But the identification of irresponsible and destructive risk taking in many sections of society suggests a further problem with Cameron’s analysis of the riots.
Alongside mimetic rivalry, Girard points to another social process we saw in the riots: scapegoating. As the righteous anger and fear erupted, society sought to heal the social fabric in the face of its violent rupture by heaping all the blame on certain groups: parents, feral youth, gangs, and in one particularly shallow, but nonetheless troubling case voiced by David Starkey, black youth culture.
Society could then form a solid phalanx, re-affirming its own values and innocence in contradistinction to the irresponsible actions of scapegoats who were condemned as outside of ‘normal’ behaviour.
Scapegoating seems to shape the government’s whole response to the riots. But in scapegoating particular groups, we seek to avoid taking responsibility.
And this gets to the heart of the problem: the refusal of all involved – rioters, government, the police and society in general – to take responsibility.
This is a profound malaise at the heart of our body politic. As Peter Oborne pointed out in one of the most perceptive comments on the riots, the riots were of a piece with the irresponsible actions of bankers, politicians, the police and journalists who think they can bend and break the law, acting with impunity and with no regard for the common life we all share and on which they themselves depend.
Those guilty of criminal acts must be made to take responsibility and be taught and set an example of how to act otherwise. But to do this we must all take responsibility for creating a culture that lauds as rational self-interest desiring what others have and using any means necessary to get it; treating others with contempt in order to get ahead; taking risks without considering the consequences for others; and not taking responsibility for polluting, destroying and desecrating our common life, on which all our flourishing depends.
Thankfully, we saw signs of an alternative culture to the one displayed on the streets of our cities and in the boardrooms of the City, one that is not hell bent on sacrificing all we hold dear to the maw of mammon.
Those who came together to clean up, support those in distress and defend their neighbourhoods from attack invested in building a common life before self-aggrandisement, took personal responsibility, and did not leave it all up to the state or the market to decide. Rather than hide away in gated communities, they valued cooperative action and mutual support.
They met public squalor with public spirit. These citizens point to the virtues and values we must foster if we are to heal our body politic and inhibit both low morals in high places and heightened immorality in ordinary places.
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Toeing the line gets you nowhere
Ed Pocock says that freedom of thought is the only way to keep the party faithful after years of the 'election machine'
Throughout modern history, political discourse has been governed by the most dominant ideological strands of thought.
Prime Ministers, their cabinets and more recently the ‘Downing Street machine’ seek to quell any opposition that intends to adapt the policy initiatives they advocate.
This is achieved via the formulation of a party line, which is, in reality a rather uninspiring and unrepresentative depiction of the wider political party.
Indeed, David Cameron, like New Labour before him, can be seen to utilise only his closest allies (a tiny proportion of the political party) to articulate and assert policy.
True, compromises are made - but Cameron’s promise to take the Conservatives out of the centre-right EPP group in Europe, for instance, was simply a plea for allegiance from some of the more right wing MPs in his party.
The elite governing few argue that party discourse must be cohesive and convey unity to the public in order to ensure their trust and thus gain office. However, disillusionment with politics and politicians is rife.
Many of the electorate question the moral ambiguity of MPs, claim that their views aren’t appropriately represented in debate, and generally approach politics with immense trepidation. This disillusionment can only be effectively addressed by tackling the cause and not by accusing the public of undue scepticism and and an unfairly pessimistic outlook.
The idea that British politics can be defined by a few ‘major players’ and unelected representatives or advisors is proving both absurd and bemusing for the electorate.
They believe that the individual MPs they elect should directly represent the social and political landscape of their constituencies. However, the harsh reality sees individual MPs left out in the dark, exploited as dormant vehicles to push through policy.
This renders them unable to represent either their own views or the opinions of their constituents, and deepens the sentiment that politicians remain ‘out of touch’.
This system is defended under the pretence that ‘it works’. I concede it is easier for a relatively small group of people to formulate policy direction, and ensure the formal backing of the vast majority of the party through the gesture of a three line whip.
It also makes it easier to convey decisive action and a united front in the face of the media, other political parties and other state actors. Certainly, defying the party line attracts negative coverage from the media, who depict it as a blunder and often call for resignation.
However, the public perception of this is rushed policy, suppressed MPs, and underrepresented minorities. Labour must embrace and utilise the breadth of its ideological thought: only then can it re-establish itself as a progressive and forward thinking party who put the people first.
The adoption of multilateral rhetoric within a party does not inhibit unity and strength, but is rather evidence of a realistic party, proud of its range in ideological thought, and underpinned by notions of innovation and progression.
This allows a party to realise its true potential in constructing stronger and well thought out policy initiatives that have been subjected to increased internal scrutiny. This scrutiny also acts as a safeguard, protecting the party from ending up endorsing underwhelming policies.
In a self-proclaimed democratic and pluralist country, it is deeply ironic that political parties fail to convey a pluralist outlook with internal dealings.
A move to embrace a less rigid and more pluralist agenda will increase transparency and could lead to decreased public disenchantment, as parties are seen to debate issues internally and portrayed as more than a mechanic campaign machine.
This freedom could help to prevent confrontation and coups within the party as disagreements on policy become realised as a positive and respect-building phenomenon.
 |
Lords Labour whip Lord Liddle lays down the law, May 2011 - FRIENDS OF EUROPE |
Prime Ministers, their cabinets and more recently the ‘Downing Street machine’ seek to quell any opposition that intends to adapt the policy initiatives they advocate.
This is achieved via the formulation of a party line, which is, in reality a rather uninspiring and unrepresentative depiction of the wider political party.
Indeed, David Cameron, like New Labour before him, can be seen to utilise only his closest allies (a tiny proportion of the political party) to articulate and assert policy.
True, compromises are made - but Cameron’s promise to take the Conservatives out of the centre-right EPP group in Europe, for instance, was simply a plea for allegiance from some of the more right wing MPs in his party.
The elite governing few argue that party discourse must be cohesive and convey unity to the public in order to ensure their trust and thus gain office. However, disillusionment with politics and politicians is rife.
Many of the electorate question the moral ambiguity of MPs, claim that their views aren’t appropriately represented in debate, and generally approach politics with immense trepidation. This disillusionment can only be effectively addressed by tackling the cause and not by accusing the public of undue scepticism and and an unfairly pessimistic outlook.
The idea that British politics can be defined by a few ‘major players’ and unelected representatives or advisors is proving both absurd and bemusing for the electorate.
They believe that the individual MPs they elect should directly represent the social and political landscape of their constituencies. However, the harsh reality sees individual MPs left out in the dark, exploited as dormant vehicles to push through policy.
This renders them unable to represent either their own views or the opinions of their constituents, and deepens the sentiment that politicians remain ‘out of touch’.
This system is defended under the pretence that ‘it works’. I concede it is easier for a relatively small group of people to formulate policy direction, and ensure the formal backing of the vast majority of the party through the gesture of a three line whip.
It also makes it easier to convey decisive action and a united front in the face of the media, other political parties and other state actors. Certainly, defying the party line attracts negative coverage from the media, who depict it as a blunder and often call for resignation.
However, the public perception of this is rushed policy, suppressed MPs, and underrepresented minorities. Labour must embrace and utilise the breadth of its ideological thought: only then can it re-establish itself as a progressive and forward thinking party who put the people first.
The adoption of multilateral rhetoric within a party does not inhibit unity and strength, but is rather evidence of a realistic party, proud of its range in ideological thought, and underpinned by notions of innovation and progression.
This allows a party to realise its true potential in constructing stronger and well thought out policy initiatives that have been subjected to increased internal scrutiny. This scrutiny also acts as a safeguard, protecting the party from ending up endorsing underwhelming policies.
In a self-proclaimed democratic and pluralist country, it is deeply ironic that political parties fail to convey a pluralist outlook with internal dealings.
A move to embrace a less rigid and more pluralist agenda will increase transparency and could lead to decreased public disenchantment, as parties are seen to debate issues internally and portrayed as more than a mechanic campaign machine.
This freedom could help to prevent confrontation and coups within the party as disagreements on policy become realised as a positive and respect-building phenomenon.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Suspending the material: what comes after liberal individualism?
Jack Reid puts the case for religious organisation as a transformative force in our political culture
Democracy, founded above all on the principle of equality, is struggling to function properly in contemporary Western societies, primarily due to the insatiable individualism that these cultures currently foster.
This observation is not new, having been discussed by a wide range of social commentators including critical theorists like Jurgen Habermas, Christian theologians like John Milbank, and more recently Blue Labour’s very own founding father Maurice Glasman.
In the process of undermining democracy's core ethos, the recent onslaught of neo-liberalism - an economic ideology that celebrates consumerism and individual autonomy - has forced us to recognize that even democratic regimes can degenerate into tyranny.
Contrary to the conviction of enlightenment figures, this regression does not require the prior influence of a strangling sacred ideology, but stems instead from an problem rooted within democratic culture itself.
The nature of the problem is curiously paradoxical. Democratic culture is fundamentally based upon the principle of equality of condition.
Yet equality of condition - or at least the type endorsed by neo-liberal philosophy - is in fact the fundamental enemy of democratic culture, having a doubly negative impact upon democracy’s potential for success.
First, the principle of equality of condition results in making individuals feel entirely independent, and has thus produced massive social atomisation. Every individual is primarily concerned with his or her own material interests.
As a result, the complete loss of social solidarity renders it impossible for democratic culture to flourish. At the same time, increased societal disunion makes it extremely easy for governments to deceitfully manipulate public opinion, mainly for their own gains.
More often than not, this manipulation centres upon atomised society’s fears. Democratic governments frequently use claims that the public need defence from the terrorist or the immigrant as an excuse for spurious measures, including the suspension of basic democratic tenets such as habeas corpus, free speech, freedom of the press and humane treatment. This opens the path towards petty autocracy.
An example of such a slide is illustrated through the case of Guantanamo Bay detention camp, created during the Bush administration by capitalizing on the post 9/11 climate of fear sweeping across the United States.
Second, in democratic cultures where everyone is equal in principle, the real exercise of power rests upon public opinion, the clearest expression of the will of a majority of citizens. However, there is no reason to assume that public opinion will equate to what is morally good, or that it will accord with the law.
This problem comes to the fore when a majority public opinion dominates that of a minority. Here, democratic culture runs the risk of imposing what de Tocqueville deemed ‘the tyranny of the majority’.
In the modern state, the democratic system is beset by a multitude of contrary interests, making it simply impossible for democracy to satisfy each individual concern.
There is no ultimate equality of views, only a competition of interests, and eventually democracy will recognise the interest upon which there is the most consensus. At this moment, the democratic ideal of egalitarianism is lost.
The November 2009 minaret controversy in Switzerland offers an example of the ability of majority public opinion to become oppressive. Following a referendum, a 57% majority of the Swiss general public voted in favour of a ban on the building of new minarets across the country.
The initiative, which has since caused international controversy, had been supported by right wing Swiss groups including the Swiss People’s Party and the Democratic Union.
Those groups offering the strongest opposition to the initiative included the Swiss government, NGOs and Catholic bishops, who had warned prior to the referendum that the proposal did not represent ‘the Christian values and democratic principles of Switzerland’.
In sum, it is evident that the crisis democratic culture finds itself in stems from the limited social parameters of neo-liberalism, which has brought with it massive atomisation, inequality and injustice.
With the failure of the secular creeds – socialism, communism – to challenge neo-liberalism’s social ills, it may at first glance seem that democratic culture, lacking an antidote to the corrosive effects of the neo-liberal virus, is doomed.
To rescue democratic culture from this irreversible slip into consumerist despotism, we must re-focus our train of thought upon a fresh openness towards religion, and the redeeming qualities it holds.
Primarily, religion promotes solidarity. This then, stands in direct opposition to the neo-liberal principle of discord. A solid community of individuals can operate as a strong social unit and does not easily become enslaved to tyrannical institutions.
Additionally, religion provides a source for morality and the moral guidance of people. Democracy can only function within a framework of tolerance, and the pursuit of truth and justice for its own sake.
Religion can influence public opinion and direct the customs of a community towards this ideal. As a result, religion can provide the moral soil upon which democratic culture can bloom.
Finally, in direct opposition to the fundamental aspirations of neo-liberal philosophy, religion deals in immaterial matters and centres the individual’s train of thought upon eternal issues not of this world.
Religion, then, can provide a remedy against the unrestrained, avaricious individualism that modern society harbours. In doing so, it might provide one of the only paths to democratic culture’s salvation.
 |
The clean-up begins in Hackney's Mare Street - EDUARDO CARRASCO |
This observation is not new, having been discussed by a wide range of social commentators including critical theorists like Jurgen Habermas, Christian theologians like John Milbank, and more recently Blue Labour’s very own founding father Maurice Glasman.
In the process of undermining democracy's core ethos, the recent onslaught of neo-liberalism - an economic ideology that celebrates consumerism and individual autonomy - has forced us to recognize that even democratic regimes can degenerate into tyranny.
Contrary to the conviction of enlightenment figures, this regression does not require the prior influence of a strangling sacred ideology, but stems instead from an problem rooted within democratic culture itself.
The nature of the problem is curiously paradoxical. Democratic culture is fundamentally based upon the principle of equality of condition.
Yet equality of condition - or at least the type endorsed by neo-liberal philosophy - is in fact the fundamental enemy of democratic culture, having a doubly negative impact upon democracy’s potential for success.
First, the principle of equality of condition results in making individuals feel entirely independent, and has thus produced massive social atomisation. Every individual is primarily concerned with his or her own material interests.
As a result, the complete loss of social solidarity renders it impossible for democratic culture to flourish. At the same time, increased societal disunion makes it extremely easy for governments to deceitfully manipulate public opinion, mainly for their own gains.
More often than not, this manipulation centres upon atomised society’s fears. Democratic governments frequently use claims that the public need defence from the terrorist or the immigrant as an excuse for spurious measures, including the suspension of basic democratic tenets such as habeas corpus, free speech, freedom of the press and humane treatment. This opens the path towards petty autocracy.
An example of such a slide is illustrated through the case of Guantanamo Bay detention camp, created during the Bush administration by capitalizing on the post 9/11 climate of fear sweeping across the United States.
Second, in democratic cultures where everyone is equal in principle, the real exercise of power rests upon public opinion, the clearest expression of the will of a majority of citizens. However, there is no reason to assume that public opinion will equate to what is morally good, or that it will accord with the law.
This problem comes to the fore when a majority public opinion dominates that of a minority. Here, democratic culture runs the risk of imposing what de Tocqueville deemed ‘the tyranny of the majority’.
In the modern state, the democratic system is beset by a multitude of contrary interests, making it simply impossible for democracy to satisfy each individual concern.
There is no ultimate equality of views, only a competition of interests, and eventually democracy will recognise the interest upon which there is the most consensus. At this moment, the democratic ideal of egalitarianism is lost.
The November 2009 minaret controversy in Switzerland offers an example of the ability of majority public opinion to become oppressive. Following a referendum, a 57% majority of the Swiss general public voted in favour of a ban on the building of new minarets across the country.
The initiative, which has since caused international controversy, had been supported by right wing Swiss groups including the Swiss People’s Party and the Democratic Union.
Those groups offering the strongest opposition to the initiative included the Swiss government, NGOs and Catholic bishops, who had warned prior to the referendum that the proposal did not represent ‘the Christian values and democratic principles of Switzerland’.
In sum, it is evident that the crisis democratic culture finds itself in stems from the limited social parameters of neo-liberalism, which has brought with it massive atomisation, inequality and injustice.
With the failure of the secular creeds – socialism, communism – to challenge neo-liberalism’s social ills, it may at first glance seem that democratic culture, lacking an antidote to the corrosive effects of the neo-liberal virus, is doomed.
To rescue democratic culture from this irreversible slip into consumerist despotism, we must re-focus our train of thought upon a fresh openness towards religion, and the redeeming qualities it holds.
Primarily, religion promotes solidarity. This then, stands in direct opposition to the neo-liberal principle of discord. A solid community of individuals can operate as a strong social unit and does not easily become enslaved to tyrannical institutions.
Additionally, religion provides a source for morality and the moral guidance of people. Democracy can only function within a framework of tolerance, and the pursuit of truth and justice for its own sake.
Religion can influence public opinion and direct the customs of a community towards this ideal. As a result, religion can provide the moral soil upon which democratic culture can bloom.
Finally, in direct opposition to the fundamental aspirations of neo-liberal philosophy, religion deals in immaterial matters and centres the individual’s train of thought upon eternal issues not of this world.
Religion, then, can provide a remedy against the unrestrained, avaricious individualism that modern society harbours. In doing so, it might provide one of the only paths to democratic culture’s salvation.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
New book on Blue Labour: a call to stakeholders
Journalist and councillor Rowenna Davis seeks perspectives on Blue Labour in the run-up to this year's Labour party conference
I am writing a book about Blue Labour. It’s coming out soon, and I need your help.
The aim is to tell the story of the idea. How Blue Labour came about, where it’s going and what it could mean for the Labour party and the country. The book will not aim to advocate or denigrate Blue Labour ideas, but to explain them.
Since the brand was introduced to the mainstream just a few months ago, Blue Labour has gone viral, exploding into political discourse and causing fierce debate in the press. But very few actually know what it is or how it came about. This book would help to change that.
Understanding Blue Labour will help society join in the debate. It will give people a chance to hold its authors accountable for their ideas, accept what they like and reject what they don’t. It will also document the different nuances of opinion from leaders associated with the movement that were often lost by a media enchanted by the brand alone.
The book will capture these subtleties in narrative form. It’s a story that hasn’t been told that goes right to the heart of the Labour party. It has important insights to offer about the party’s leaders and their beliefs about what the party should be about.
So where do you come in? I’m interviewing as many people as I can to get as many perspectives as possible. I’m not just interested in hearing from leaders in the Labour party, but from rank and file party members, commentators, journalists and activists from left and right and inside and outside the party. If you have any input at all, please do get in touch via rowenna.davis@gmail.com. I’m happy to speak on or off the record.
Blue Labour Story, the Battle for the Soul of the Labour Party (provisional title) is due for publication in the next six months. It will be published by Ruskin Books, a publishing company founded by Derek Draper. Rowenna Davis, a journalist and Labour councillor, is working on the book with assistance from journalist Steve Richards, and retains full editorial independence. All profits will go to charity.
The aim is to tell the story of the idea. How Blue Labour came about, where it’s going and what it could mean for the Labour party and the country. The book will not aim to advocate or denigrate Blue Labour ideas, but to explain them.
Since the brand was introduced to the mainstream just a few months ago, Blue Labour has gone viral, exploding into political discourse and causing fierce debate in the press. But very few actually know what it is or how it came about. This book would help to change that.
Understanding Blue Labour will help society join in the debate. It will give people a chance to hold its authors accountable for their ideas, accept what they like and reject what they don’t. It will also document the different nuances of opinion from leaders associated with the movement that were often lost by a media enchanted by the brand alone.
The book will capture these subtleties in narrative form. It’s a story that hasn’t been told that goes right to the heart of the Labour party. It has important insights to offer about the party’s leaders and their beliefs about what the party should be about.
So where do you come in? I’m interviewing as many people as I can to get as many perspectives as possible. I’m not just interested in hearing from leaders in the Labour party, but from rank and file party members, commentators, journalists and activists from left and right and inside and outside the party. If you have any input at all, please do get in touch via rowenna.davis@gmail.com. I’m happy to speak on or off the record.
Blue Labour Story, the Battle for the Soul of the Labour Party (provisional title) is due for publication in the next six months. It will be published by Ruskin Books, a publishing company founded by Derek Draper. Rowenna Davis, a journalist and Labour councillor, is working on the book with assistance from journalist Steve Richards, and retains full editorial independence. All profits will go to charity.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Why co-operative regions are better for growth
Joe Sarling shows how co-operatives are a living, breathing part of some economies - and deliver better results too
In the last few months I've written about some key economic issues faced by regions up and down the UK.
There is a need for local enterprise within communities, the UK needs to shift its economic focus, young entrepreneurs should not be dismissed, ignoring local procurement is a false economy, and more local power can yield greater benefits.
These articles set the agenda and highlight the theory behind these new ideas. But now is the time for detail. If we truly want to rebalance the economy, and take the opportunity to reshape how the economy operates, we have to be radical.
Some of the lessons the UK should learn can be told by comparing two stories: those of the East Midlands and the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
There are 8000 co-operatives in the Emilia-Romagna region, with over half of the regional population taking part in one in some capacity. This structure has contributed to a GDP per capita level higher than that of the UK average, with an enviable unemployment rate of 4.8%.
Whilst the Emilia-Romagna region has 7% of Italy’s population, it produces 9% of the GDP. Contrast this to the East Midlands, which has 7% of the UK population but contributes 6% of GDP.
And it is innovative too: the Emilia-Romagna region contributes 15% of Italy’s patents (in 2009) whilst the East Midlands contributes 7% of ours.
What has made this region a success?
After fascism’s defeat in 1945, co-operatives grew out of three national movements. The political left was represented by the Lega; the Catholic centre-right by ‘Confco-op’ and; the centre-left by the 'Associazione'. Whilst in their formation there was a political and religious influence, those differences have narrowed and cross co-operation increased.
Concurrently, the number of small-medium enterprises in the area increased as business clusters were created, promoting the sharing of information, research, technology and skills.
In order to formalise the role and importance of co-operatives, article 45 of the Italian Constitution states:
“The Republic recognises the social function of co-operation characterised by mutual aid and not private profit. The law promotes and favours the growth of these structures using the most appropriate means and guarantees that their character and purpose will be inspected accordingly.”
Co-operatives are encouraged by preferential tax rates (saving 40%) to encourage self-capitalisation, which has led to the idea of an ‘indivisible resource’ – a resource which exists to the benefit of future employees and members, thanks to the firm’s sustainability.
More recently, the law has been amended to require co-operatives to contribute 3% of profits in order to fund future projects of the same kind, which the regional co-operatives control.
This has allowed co-operatives to innovate and grow, increasing their ability to adapt to market conditions whilst maintaining an empowered and reliable workforce.
Reciprocity is clearly at the heart of these businesses.
Reciprocity between employee and employer. Between the firm and its region. In the collaboration of businesses in projects or in tenders for contracts. And in the trust and social understanding between members.
These structures are only possible if the local authority can wield a significant amount of power. The Emilia-Romagna region has a strong government and so is able to endorse the right SMEs, with their local knowledge and understanding of the region’s resources.
What can we learn?
It is clear that the region of Emilia-Romagna can offer important ideas as to how we can reshape our economy.
Promotion of SMEs, backed by regional funding streams (who have the knowledge and experience to assess risk) is absolutely key.
Incorporating co-operatives will increase worker representation and decrease inequality. Fostering the longevity of social capital which builds trust and co-operation will ensure these firms continue to grow and be at the heart of the local community.
Whilst GDP per capita may not be the best measure of society’s success, a strong and distinct co-operative structure can improve this figure whilst simultaneously enhancing more qualitative measures.
Blue Labour has relationships, trust and reciprocity at its core. This requires support from central government, but also a philosophy of localism and self-capitalisation, which brings the knowledge and expertise of local decision-makers to the fore.
Most importantly, blue Labour should lead the change in thinking on our regional economies. We need an alternative to the status quo, and international experience shows us that co-operatives are the way forward.
 |
| Northampton Saints at Franklin's Gardens, Northampton, East Midlands - BOB |
There is a need for local enterprise within communities, the UK needs to shift its economic focus, young entrepreneurs should not be dismissed, ignoring local procurement is a false economy, and more local power can yield greater benefits.
These articles set the agenda and highlight the theory behind these new ideas. But now is the time for detail. If we truly want to rebalance the economy, and take the opportunity to reshape how the economy operates, we have to be radical.
Some of the lessons the UK should learn can be told by comparing two stories: those of the East Midlands and the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
Italy | UK | |
Emilia-Romagna | East Midlands | |
Population of region | 4,377,435 | 4,413,206 |
Population of country | 60,340,328 | 61,191,951 |
Proportion of population in the region % | 7.3 | 7.2 |
Proportion of country's GDP from region % | 9 | 6 |
National GDP per capita (€) | 26,200 | 29,600 |
Regional GDP per capita (€) | 32,200 | 25,800 |
Proportion of country’s patents from region % | 15.1 | 7.4 |
Unemployment in region % | 4.8 | 6.4 |
Number of co-ops | 8000 | 261 |
Population in a co-op % | 57 | 23 |
There are 8000 co-operatives in the Emilia-Romagna region, with over half of the regional population taking part in one in some capacity. This structure has contributed to a GDP per capita level higher than that of the UK average, with an enviable unemployment rate of 4.8%.
Whilst the Emilia-Romagna region has 7% of Italy’s population, it produces 9% of the GDP. Contrast this to the East Midlands, which has 7% of the UK population but contributes 6% of GDP.
And it is innovative too: the Emilia-Romagna region contributes 15% of Italy’s patents (in 2009) whilst the East Midlands contributes 7% of ours.
What has made this region a success?
After fascism’s defeat in 1945, co-operatives grew out of three national movements. The political left was represented by the Lega; the Catholic centre-right by ‘Confco-op’ and; the centre-left by the 'Associazione'. Whilst in their formation there was a political and religious influence, those differences have narrowed and cross co-operation increased.
Concurrently, the number of small-medium enterprises in the area increased as business clusters were created, promoting the sharing of information, research, technology and skills.
In order to formalise the role and importance of co-operatives, article 45 of the Italian Constitution states:
“The Republic recognises the social function of co-operation characterised by mutual aid and not private profit. The law promotes and favours the growth of these structures using the most appropriate means and guarantees that their character and purpose will be inspected accordingly.”
Co-operatives are encouraged by preferential tax rates (saving 40%) to encourage self-capitalisation, which has led to the idea of an ‘indivisible resource’ – a resource which exists to the benefit of future employees and members, thanks to the firm’s sustainability.
More recently, the law has been amended to require co-operatives to contribute 3% of profits in order to fund future projects of the same kind, which the regional co-operatives control.
This has allowed co-operatives to innovate and grow, increasing their ability to adapt to market conditions whilst maintaining an empowered and reliable workforce.
Reciprocity is clearly at the heart of these businesses.
Reciprocity between employee and employer. Between the firm and its region. In the collaboration of businesses in projects or in tenders for contracts. And in the trust and social understanding between members.
These structures are only possible if the local authority can wield a significant amount of power. The Emilia-Romagna region has a strong government and so is able to endorse the right SMEs, with their local knowledge and understanding of the region’s resources.
What can we learn?
It is clear that the region of Emilia-Romagna can offer important ideas as to how we can reshape our economy.
Promotion of SMEs, backed by regional funding streams (who have the knowledge and experience to assess risk) is absolutely key.
Incorporating co-operatives will increase worker representation and decrease inequality. Fostering the longevity of social capital which builds trust and co-operation will ensure these firms continue to grow and be at the heart of the local community.
Whilst GDP per capita may not be the best measure of society’s success, a strong and distinct co-operative structure can improve this figure whilst simultaneously enhancing more qualitative measures.
Blue Labour has relationships, trust and reciprocity at its core. This requires support from central government, but also a philosophy of localism and self-capitalisation, which brings the knowledge and expertise of local decision-makers to the fore.
Most importantly, blue Labour should lead the change in thinking on our regional economies. We need an alternative to the status quo, and international experience shows us that co-operatives are the way forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)