But Helen Goodman told Liberal Conspiracy she was worried that Blue Labour, “will be hijacked by those whose real agenda is to destroy the welfare state on which so many people depend”.

Well, it might be – but if it is, at least part of the responsibility will lie with the left who have engaged in a narcissism of small differences and are allowing much of the creative thinking about what Blue Labour means for future policy development to be done by the right of the party. I guess this debate may become clearer when we have the Purple Book.

Substantively, it’s a shame she didn’t have time to redraft her book after her discussion with Maurice Glasman on Newsnight, where I thought he was quite clear on this issue.

Paxman: In the Blue Labour world, would the state be smaller?”

Glasman: The state wouldn’t be smaller but it would be embedded in a set of relationships.

Here’s more by Glasman – it’s debateable, it’s entirely open to have an honest disagreement about it, but to dismiss it as “drum and trumpet jingoism”, whatever exactly that is, seems like a crude characterisation, and not helpful at all in moving the debate forward;

Capitalism is progressive, it has a contempt for customs and the meaning of things, and is concerned only with their price. That is why the Billingsgate Porters mean so much to me. The City of London Corporation are the inheritors of enormous wealth, power and privilege. They have endured for a thousand years and progressives cannot comprehend how the most unreformed city in Europe can be the promoters of the dominion of finance capital which demands flexibility from labour and deregulation. They are the political representatives of the banks yet they remain as invisible as their earnings.

So I think that a radical politics must also value meaning and tradition, and I think that Labour politics has a large dose of it, when it is at its best, but we have lost it. New Labour in general has a contempt for the everyday virtues of friendship, solidarity, reciprocity, courage and loyalty preferring progressive abstract concepts like equality, efficiency and fairness. This led to a remorseless, almost Maoist, managerialism that permeated everything. It was all about change but it was really more of the same. By placing all emphasis on abstract ends the workforce were viewed as a problem to be solved at best and as ‘forces of conservatism’ most of the time.

A democratic politics of the common good will also involve building relationships with people who value the forests and the countryside, who care about their families and wish to defy the market which endlessly disrupts their relationships. It will also be framed by a vision of England that will be patriotic, as the good of the country is a common good. Labour is a radical tradition that was built by working people out of their common experience of dispossession and exploitation.

“Blue Labour’s criticism of women’s independence ”

Got a link for this? It just sounds rather unlikely. They’re not trying to out-conservative the Conservatives.

Christ, cheers Chaise, I missed that bit. I’ve heard that line before; it seems to be a reference to this passage in Jonathan Rutherford’s chapter of the e-book. Read it as an attack on women’s independence if you like; I don’t.

Deindustrialisation and the growth of a market society have accelerated the long historical decline of the puritan moral economy that underpinned British capitalism. Individual self control, hard work and a willingness to delay or forego reward and gratification provided a social glue and the purposefulness of a national, imperial destiny. These values were an essential element of the dominant class culture that was passed down from father to son. The narrative of a patriarchal social order that they sustained ensured the reproduction of normative family and social relations, status hierarchies and moral values. They transmitted a common life down through the generations – mankind, fraternity, masterful, sons of free men, faith of our fathers. This patrimony has now been fragmented and disrupted by changing cultural attitudes, new patterns of work and the growing independence of women. An inter-generational rupture was most evident in the emergence of the youth and counter-cultures of the the 1960s and the growth of social movements around gay and lesbian liberation, women’s liberation and black identity politics. Francis Fukuyama declared the 1970s to be the period of the ‘Great Disruption’, such was the rate of change in earlier patterns of life (Fukuyama 1997). Uneven changes in patrimony have continued ever since at different rates within different classes and with variations of causes.

Despite the greater independence it has brought women, they have borne the brunt of the changes. The strains placed on women’s unpaid labour and time make family life for many difficult to sustain. Economic participation has brought with it time poverty and work related stress. Research shows high levels of mental ill health amongst girls and women. While the pressures on women as employees, carers and housekeepers have intensified, it is men who have been identified as the gender disorientated by the changes. Men’s incomes have stagnated, the old ‘family wage’ has disappeared, and for increasing numbers the traditional role of family breadwinner and head of household is unattainable. The loss of patrimony, the rise of single-parent households, and women’s challenge to men’s traditional roles, have led to recurring moral panics about a crisis in masculinity, family and fatherhood. The 1990s witnessed a growing consensus of opinion in the media and popular literature that men were emotionally inarticulate, socially and personally disoriented and demoralised.

It is surely possible to describe some of the negative side-effects which have occurred as a result of a social change without being caricatured as opposed to that social change in itself – or is that what critics mean when they describe internal debate as ‘too intellectual’.

We are fast approaching the day when voters will need a PhD to understand what all of this gobbledygook means.

Anything worth saying can be said simply and clearly.

It’s an excellent article and contribution to the debate – highly recommended.

Drum and trumpet jingoism is the Rutherford guff quoted above about the national, imperial destiny. Goodman also picks up on Glasman’s extended analogy in his essay in which he characterises as female all the aspects of New Labour he dislikes, whereas all the characteristics he applauds he draws as male, in an extended metaphor of the nuclear family.

That said, there’s a lot of overlap and agreement – Goodman is arguing that Blue Labour doesn’t go far enough, and that it is wrong-headed in some areas.

“Well, it might be – but if it is, at least part of the responsibility will lie with the left who have engaged in a narcissism of small differences and are allowing much of the creative thinking about what Blue Labour means for future policy development to be done by the right of the party.”

Goodman’s pamphlet is an example of creative thinking about what Blue Labour does and doesn’t mean for future policy development.

One reason why many of the responses to Blue Labour have been quite robust is because Glasman’s style is to make sweeping statements and dish out abuse to people and ideas that he disagrees with. It’s also because it has got a stupid name, which is a less good reason.

But it isn’t ‘narcissism of small differences’ to disagree with, say, the argument that 1945 was where Labour went wrong (Goodman is very good on demolishing that and showing how it is an argument which doesn’t fit very well with Blue Labour’s overall approach).

We are fast approaching the day when voters will need a PhD to understand what all of this gobbledygook means.

That political campaigning needs a large dollop of the plain english with a side-serving of lowest common denominator doesn’t mean that all debate at all levels needs to be conducted at the same level.

Anything worth saying can be said simply and clearly.

How does the money supply grow? What causes superbugs? Why do aeroplanes stay up?

Glasman reminds me of Peter Sellers’ last great role, Chance the gardener in Being There, whose gnomic sayings are thought to be profound wisdom.

Drum and trumpet jingoism is the Rutherford guff quoted above about the national, imperial destiny.

But in that case it’s out-of-context distortion of the worst kind – Rutherford is describing a historical mindset among a dominant class at a particular point in time. He’s not prescribing it as a model for Britain in the 21st century.

But it isn’t ‘narcissism of small differences’ to disagree with, say, the argument that 1945 was where Labour went wrong (Goodman is very good on demolishing that and showing how it is an argument which doesn’t fit very well with Blue Labour’s overall approach).

Sorry, I have obviously missed the bit where she is ‘very good on demolishing’ Glasman’s arguments on 1945. Which bit of the pamphlet does she do that in? I can just see a reheating of her Newsnight argument that the impact of 1945 was good overall even if there were some failings, and the misrepresentation of Glasman as an opponent of the overall thrust of the 1945 settlement, whereas what he in fact argues is that ‘the nationalisation model did not engage with vocation, did not engage with any worker representation within it, was entirely the same kind of utilitarian managerialism – so with the breakdown of the nationalisation model, there was no alternative to Thatcherism’.

This exchange on Newsnight captured the misrepresentation perfectly;

Paxman: What was wrong with 1945?

Glasman: There were great things about 1945 and I haven’t said any other thing, but the problem with 1945 was in the nationalisation model. Was that workers were completely subordinate, there was no role for trade unions, there was no role for workers in the nationalised industries. So very scientific, administrative, technocratic.

Paxman: This is the NHS. Was that a mistake?

Glasman: No. The NHS was the decommodification of medicine. It was a wonderful thing. I’m saying that moving to the state exclusively as the provider, very central things about responsibility, about the movement, and particularly about the role of workers and work in the economy were neglected and we need to reinstate that.

‘Blue Labour?’ What the hell is the name all about, what’s wrong with just straight forward Labour? You know, the party that was built out of neccessity, for the mutual protection and advancement of the oppressed working class and the dispossessed. I have no problem with attempts to make clear both the current and future direction of the party, but can we please stop all this tinkering with the name? Now then, the argument about women and their indepndence, I do’nt think that it was actually criticising women, or blaming them for wanting, and getting indepndence. I took it as saying that, even though it was a positive step forward, the negative consequences were causing problems that were not really anticipated at the start. Less time as a family, more time working to provide for the family is seen as the inevitable result of giving women independence, but only by people who think women should cook, clean and reproduce. The reason we have less time to be with our families is the fact that employers, not all, but most of them are determined to get value for money and then some, believing that because they pay us to do a job, they have the right to put THEIR buisiness interests at the top of OUR list of priorities. Tell them to get stuffed, they ca’nt sack you for working your contracted hours, they ca’nt insist that you work beyond those hours, unless you were foolish enough to sign the working time directive opt out. Yes, times are hard and money is tight, but which would you prefer on your headstone,”What a grafter, worked nonstop, died on the job!”or,”What a grafter, worked hard, but never forgot why and who for. The family.” I like what Glasman had to say, I just wonder if the ‘Blue’ tag might be a bit of a problem.

[6] “what causes superbugs” – repeated exposure to antibiotics – bugs evolve/mutate and in time find ways to inactivate antimicrobial activity.

Fleming predicted bug resistance in 1947 but still we hand these drugs out like sweets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming

If resistance trends continue some say most antbiotics will be largely ineffective in as little as 10 years.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2010/08/12/a-world-without-antibiotics.html

Even so most people still worry about their sore throat TODAY rather than dying from what once would have been a treatable infection in 10 years time.

I’m sure there are equally straightforward explanations for the other two?

6
All debates, at whatever level, can be conducted in plain, simple English, even explanations about superbugs. Labour already have a problem with engaging the masses, plain English might be a good place to start any dialogue about future policy development.

In answer to oldpolitics above, the money supply grows when banks ‘lend’ more money into the economy. The banks don’t actually ‘lend’ anybody anything, they create money when they pretend to loan it. Links to further information on that are http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/research/proof-that-banks-create-money/ and http://www.economania.co.uk/where-money-comes-from.htm both entirely reputable sites. I hope that was simple enough!

BB

@ a&e

“I’m sure there are equally straightforward explanations for the other two?”

But you haven’t provided a full explanation of HOW it is that superbugs evolve and so on. You’ve provided an overview here.

I have to say I’m with oldpolitics on this one. Some subject are simple, and others are complex and often need similarly complex language (maybe including esoteric technical terms) to be discussed.

Saying that anything worth saying can be said simply sounds like a truism to me, and a baseless one at that. What’s the rationale behind it?

“My grandmother collected insurance subs for the ambulance, after the advent of the NHS this wasn’t necessary. You could of course argue that this community building activity was lost, but most people would prefer to dial 999 in an emergency.”

This is a pithy encapsulation of what I find so flaky about Blue Labour and British political discourse in general. I think what people really want is for the government to run public services effectively and efficiently. Britain’s current politicians are not very good at it. When they get shouted for not being very good it, they mistakenly assume this means that people want them to do something else – like talk about ‘big society’ or ‘values rooted in relationships’ – and delegate the hard stuff to the people who are shouting at them.

No… people don’t want the same people to do something else in government, they want someone else to do the things government is supposed to do… but do them better.

[12] “you haven’t provided a full explanation of HOW it is that superbugs evolve” – easy enough.

Antibiotics kill bugs in a number of ways, e.g. by;
*rupturing the cell wall (of the bug), or,
*inhibiting the bugs metabolic pathway by disrupting DNA or protein synthesis.

BUT after repeated exposure to antibiotics the bugs begin to evolve – they adapt mechanisms that render the above processes (cell wall damage, cell synthesis) less, or even none effective.

In other words basic Darwinian principles account for growth in resistance.

I may regret asking this question but is there even one important political idea that cannot be explained in simple terms once the extraneous bullshit, spin or technocratic language has been stripped away?

Interesting stuff on both sides of the argument. Yonks ago, Sunny had a couple of posts about LC taking on a more campaigning role. I presume that this diversion is one aspect of change or growth for LC. My thanks to all involved in this interesting experiment.

The language and style of argument in the Blue Labour paper is a bit like Marxism Today of the 1980s. It is not technical enough to be described as academic but a bit too awkward for the casual reader. Not a complaint but a comment.

Blue Labour ideas will be of interest to Lib Dems and others who seek non-structural or non-managerial solutions to social and economic concerns. The label Blue Labour discouraged me from following the debate so I have a lot of reading to catch up on.

@12 How superbugs evolve? Random chance + selection like everything else, speeded up to fuck cos micro-organisms go through shit-loads of generations in a day.
Catch a bug – take antibiotics, those bacteria that have a slight resistance will survive better than those that don’t and so will be “selected” to propagate further. Repeat enough times and then ure proper fucked by super resistant bacteria. That’s why finishing of a course of antibiotics is important, the antibiotics are to turn your body into a killing field for the bacteria in your body with even those able to weather the storm eventually being taken out. Course as a&e says, even that’s not gonna keep the fuckers down forever.

@14. the a&e charge nurse: “I may regret asking this question but is there even one important political idea that cannot be explained in simple terms once the extraneous bullshit, spin or technocratic language has been stripped away?”

What are cell walls and metabolic pathways?

I am not being obtuse, simply suggesting that jargon or tech language slips into all descriptions of complex stuff.

That is not an argument that clear and simple communication is impossible. With effort, jargon can be avoided and the essential tech terms can be explained. Newspapers report finance or economic stories using too much jargon. The language of finance professionals is very dramatic — hair cuts and bull markets — but exclusive. If a journalist makes the effort to explain jargon, the explanation is likely to be cut if the article exceeds word length.

Thanks Charlieman. To revisit this, I think there are two separate arguments.

First, it’s right to say that whatever level of debate people are comfortable with, politics should be open to them making their contribution – to be honest that, in itself, is a fairly Blue Labour position, that we sometimes overvalue theory and elaborately-constructed data and have not been good enough at valuing the lived experience of actual and potential Labour voters.

Second, though, some concepts are very complicated. The plain English brigade embarrassed themselves over their attack on the concept of ‘known unknowns’. That’s not even especially complicated, but apparently it was too much for them. The discussion about the inhibition of antimicrobial activity in metabolic pathways or whatever demonstrates that some things are just hard.

In 1996 Tony Blair banned Gordon from talking about ‘standing up against vested interests’ because the focus groups showed that some people thought he was talking about reducing the value of their investments. We don’t want to disappear up our own oozlums, but I would suggest we don’t want to end up here, either:http://xkcd.com/547/

[17] Charlieman – I would be VERY surprised if an erudite commentator like yourself did not understand these simplified biological concepts.

Why can’t our leaders speak more like this? (especially 4:50 onwards)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi5-V75v-6I&feature=related

Before this falls into an Attack on Blue labour for biegn to right wing and Baring In Mind Tony Blair has also attacked Blue labour for being Too left wing, http://www.progressonline.org.uk , I’ll defend a few things Helen Goodman picks up on, I’m not sure if she’s agaisnt Blue labour for being too left/right,

1 mentioning the over excessive authoritarian polices of DNA data bases, 90 days, at the same time through health and safety we made it dificult for a school to even take its pupils to the swimming baths.

2 Equality,Helen’s view that labour in the 80′s lookedat what it was like to be a victim by seeing how someone hypathetically suffered yet didn’t look at what it was like to be an indivdiual and that catergorising anyone from a minority background as a victim didn’t do them any favours

3 the femenist thing mentioned above.

4 our part in the empire and the 2 world wars.

I didn’t agree with her about the Idea that the 1945-1965 idea that the Civil service public sector was better at paying its staff and there was a contentedness, or that our establishment of the welfare state was a traditon that the public still clung onto which emant that we had to hang on its foundings now. that bit reminded me Of Kinnocks 1985 party speech.

I know that they will deny it, be offended by it etc. but having looked at the ‘Blue Labour’ approach I think its fair to say that its proponents may not realise that it contains far too much that is proto-fascist.

Its not actually fascist of course but the core ideas are very similar to many those swirling around in the 1930′s and which were adopted by the BUF.

I could bore readers to death with examples but back then people also felt desperately insecure, the BUF was hostile to ‘international high finance’ which is considered to be ‘Jewish’, the Depression and rapid social change after WW1 also left many people dazed and seeking security within a ‘national community’ with ties and obligations defined by tradition and of course by race, do we really want to feed into that? The ‘Blue Labour’ vision is bleak, I am not seeing any commitment to ‘equality, justice, democracy and liberty’ in its vision which seems to me to be rather bleak, narrow minded and potentially dangerous. I know there is a need to motivate the white working class lost to Labour to vote for us again but ‘Blue Labour/Red Tory’ swirls around in the same currents of opinion and prejudice that appeals to the EDL, BNP and let us remember that Oswald Mosley was first a Tory MP, then a Labour MP & Minister then a fascist.

The State is the only defence ordinary people have against globalisation and its impact, that state needs to be democratically accountable and proactive it does not need to be a managerial mechanism to enforce the will of a wealthy minority or of ‘do gooders’ bossing others around which it ended up being under New Labour.

Is there a role of ‘localism’, yes, but not where it leads to greater inequalities. Is there a role for civil society, yes, its vital to have effective and accountable charities and NGO’s (something most currently are NOT and do all they can to avoid being) and of course a democratic trades union movement, which it sometimes is not.

This approach strikes a real note of relevance, because many people feel their lives are insecure and that social ties and obligations have been undermined by globalisation. Sometimes the state institutions set up to tackle problems descend into bossiness and bureaucracy, leaving people feeling frustrated and powerless

Whoops dropped a few clangers on my last post…ignore the last para, its a cut and paste error and of course ‘international high finance’ is NOT ”Jewish’ what I meant to say was that the BUF claimed it was, along with many other Fascists. The point is, in critiquing an appropriate Left response to the current situation we do not open up a can of worms and end up with a ‘national socialist’ solution…in any way shape, manner or form…

I’m all for an increase in local accountability, more common sense, less managerialism, and some sort of stand against globalisation, but why can’t we just do that?
The notion that to get there we need to return to some patriarchal, religious pre-war utopia baffles me.
When Glasman talks of these strong communities with prominent roles for faith groups, the first thought in my head is Belfast.

Goodman

examines the thesis from the perspective of two communities: the hill farmers of Teesdale and the Durham Miner’s Gala and the needs of the former coalfields

That’d be the Miners’ Gala that Ed Miliband promised to attend, and then went back on his word (causing considerable dissatisfaction in the Nth East, at least from those who believed his pledges not to be New labour-ish and metropolitan-centric). Apparently he wasn’t happy to be seen at a popular event because it was too Old Labour and because Bob Crow will be appearing.
So Ed Miliband’s not quite chiming with Blue Labour either, by rejecting associations with,erm, organised labour (small l) and the Union tradition. Where Miliband has to tread even more carefully is in how he does handle the whole Blue labour line: to my reading, Glasman yokes together the still useful and valid Labour (big L) specific notions of organised labour, with far less desirable social attitudes that were not Labour-specific, but damn near universal at that point in time.

From what I can see Labour activists are going through their nutty stage of introspection on account of their tribe being out of power. See how shrill and extreme the language on here has become over the last few months. Kind of proves Jane’s Law.

“The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.”

However, each passing day seems to suggest that the left in the UK are becoming the new conservatives. Idealise the past. Defend the status quo. Support vested interests. Left wing critiques have always had some degree of validity. However, they always lacked sensible solutions to accompany the critiques. What are the future radical big ideas for UK industry and the economy in general ? Oh, let’s go back and do things the way we used to in the past circa 1958. As I said, conservatism.

@25 I’m not sure left-wing always automatically means “radicalism” or “shiny new toys”. Because in that case the moment they got their plans in action they’d be forced to change their mind in order to do something new and radical again…

24@chiswell said,
22@ Nathan, regarding fascism and Blue labour, I’m glad you didn’t menton racism and Fascsm as it’s possible to be the first and not the latter, Don’t know if Glasmans idea of listening to laobur voters who now back the EDl is a path to this, but labour ought to sort out it’s own facistic views be they DAVID Blunketts time at the home office or Michael foot’s view that if you refused to join a union in the 70′s you were sacked from your job, weren’t entitled to unemployment benefit and told “you had no one to blame but yourself” Norman Tebbit calling Foot a Fascist for doing this”

@ 15 a&e

“Antibiotics kill bugs in a number of ways, e.g. by;
*rupturing the cell wall (of the bug), or,
*inhibiting the bugs metabolic pathway by disrupting DNA or protein synthesis.

BUT after repeated exposure to antibiotics the bugs begin to evolve – they adapt mechanisms that render the above processes (cell wall damage, cell synthesis) less, or even none effective.

In other words basic Darwinian principles account for growth in resistance.”

That’s still an overview. What do you mean “evolve”? What does that entail? What are the precise chemical reactions needed?

I’m not saying any of this is too complex to explain, I’m saying that you can add complexity to the statement (along with jargon, which you’re already using above with “protein synthesis” and the like) and make it MORE informative, not less.

“I may regret asking this question but is there even one important political idea that cannot be explained in simple terms once the extraneous bullshit, spin or technocratic language has been stripped away?”

Put the goalposts back. I’m not arguing in favour of bullshit, spin or technocratic language. I’m arguing against the idea that complex sentences and big words are a de facto bad thing. If you refuse to believe that a complex sentence can exist without automatically qualifying as “bullshit” then we’re wasting our time here.

And I still want the rationale for your statement “Anything worth saying can be said simply and clearly”.

[29] “And I still want the rationale for your statement “Anything worth saying can be said simply and clearly” – OK I will try to address this claim, hopefully without sliding into a semantic hall of mirrors.

I touched on Shankly earlier [20] because I believe he was a great man, and a great leader (who happened to be a footy manager).
Shankly was a straight talking socialist who invigorated a failing football club and to some extent an entire city (given the significance of LFC as a cultural institution).

How did he do this – I believe the essential elements included personal integrity, exacting standards applied to both himself, and those around him, as well as a deep commitment to the value of community and comradeship.

Shankly communicated these beliefs in straightforward language – people soon understood him, and knew where they stood, or what was expected of them.
Listen to Shankly for just a few minutes and its clear where the man is coming from – I seldom get this feeling from our political leaders.

It would be too tedious to list all the reasons why politicos cannot be honest with us, yet when covert material IS made available (via the likes of wikileaks) it’s hardly the end of civilisation as we know it – in other words ordinary people are perfectly capable of taking a view on these matters.
In fact doesn’t a lot of it seem like unnecessary cloak and daggers (shrouded in jargon)?

So why can’t we have an ordinary person leading us for a change?
I find it almost impossible to believe that an Oxbridge graduate in PPE is the only person suited to the job – unfortunately, we will never get any straight answers from these sophisticates since self survival seems to be the over riding driver?

Remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXGTMfqMRSE

It might be nice to see how a latter day Harry Perkins might get on today – at least we might be able to understand half of what it was he was trying to say?

BTW – I know that you know enough has been said on antibiotics for you to understand the main concepts.

@8 oldpolitics

Sorry.. missed this before; I’m actually quite enamoured with the Glasman analysis of the kind of problems with the post ’45 “settlement”, in fact it is something I’ve long considered so obvious, that one of the issues was that for all its achievements there was a lack or radicalism and progressive spirit which would have promoted the kind of workers councils seen in West Germany, swept away the ridiculous medievalism of the House of Lords, and abandoned the doomed attempt to remain an imperial superpower at the top table.

The emphasis on the technocratic, top-down, bureacratic, statism is something that sowed the seeds of decline.

@ 30 the a&e charge nurse

Either you’re on a tangent, or we’re at cross-purposes – I’m not asking you to explain the benefits of plain speaking, because I’m not denying them. I’m asking you your rationale for saying that anything that needs to be expressed in a complex way is automatically valueless. It’s not an either/or dichotomy.

[32] “I’m asking you your rationale for saying that anything that needs to be expressed in a complex way is automatically valueless” – perhaps we are at cross purposes, Chaise?

I am not necessarily saying that complex = valueless, more that complex ideas, can almost always be translated into more accessible language, and should be.

This will have several beneficial effects;
[1] at the most basic level clear speech is inclusive while technocratic language is (potentially) exclusive, as any doctor or lawyer will tell you.
[2] it is more likely to reach, or stimulate a wider audience (who might otherwise turn off if a discussion is wrapped up in arcane theory or long historical tracts).
[3] it reveals the oratory skills of the speaker who must calculate how much or how little material is relevant without abandoning fundamental truths.

Additionally perhaps we should emphasise the importance of brevity.
Glassman, Rutherford and White have produced a 155 page e-book – interesting as it might be I would be surprised if more than 155 people have read it (in it’s entirety).

More than ever Labour needs a clear vision and it is up to the leadership to rebuild confidence in terms that the troops will understand – not just the 155 politics students enthralled by G,R & W’s potted history of the last Labour party’s last 100 years.

a&e,

Purely as an academic question (I have no oar in this debate, and I’m staying out of it), does not the simple explanation not need something to explain in the first place? In effect, is not the 155 pages possibly what is required to allow people to grasp ideas and then express them simply.

Put it this way. The way a Dyson works is quite simple – but the engineering required to get it to work is not. It is only once the engineering is in place that we can simply describe what happens, because otherwise it is purely hypothetical.

@ 33 a&e

I still feel that, by chasing accessibility and brevity, you’re likely to end up sacrificing detail*. See our example of superbugs – every time you brought your description closer to the the full explanation, it got longer and used more technical terms.

Now, brevity has its place, and I’m not arguing against it. But it’s normally a way of delivering an overview of what you’re trying to say rather than a way to boil an entire complicated subject down to a few sentences without losing anything.

For example, imagine a politician telling you what they would do on the issue of, say, jobs, if they got into power. You’d have at least three levels:

1) Soundbite: “We will support British jobs!”
2) Section in a pamphlet/speech: “We aim to create 500,000 new jobs within a year by improving regulation in the industrial sector and putting money into initiatives to develop green infrastructure.”
3) Relevant chapter of a manifesto: several pages explaining the exact legal changes planned, the level and target of green investment, and a detailed economic analysis explaining how these actions will create jobs, with supporting citations and tables.

I think all of these levels are valid, and what’s more they’re mutally supporting: level 1 is a bit vacant without level 3, but level 3 is unlikely to reach many ears without level 1, and so on. But the fact that level 3 can be synopsised by the other two levels does not make it pointlessly long-winded: level 1 could just as well be talking about a plan to start a major war or kick out all the immigrants; level 2 gives more detail, but not enough to demonstrate that the plan is actually likely to work.

*Of course, sometimes you can make something shorter and more accessible without losing detail because the original was long-winded for the sake of it – this only holds true if the complexity of the original was justified.

Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of blue labour at least it has started to generate the debate that thus far appears to be lacking about moving forward?

@31 Galen10: “…I’m actually quite enamoured with the Glasman analysis of the kind of problems with the post ’45 “settlement”, in fact it is something I’ve long considered so obvious, that one of the issues was that for all its achievements there was a lack or radicalism and progressive spirit which would have promoted the kind of workers councils seen in West Germany…”

Post 1945, some things appeared “obvious” to the Labour government; a centralised, planned economy worked during the war, so surely the same process would work in peacetime? There was no need for worker councils because managers knew it all, and workers were pacified because production for export guaranteed that they could get a job. The NHS was a new invention, so managers were bound to get it wrong, first time around. Railway nationalisation: of course, mistakes would be made in the first few years.

The problems were accepting the idea of “a couple of years to settle down”, managerialism and centralisation. All of that happened 65 years ago and we are still waiting for change. 65 years of government and elections, essentially to stay where we were in terms of economic and managerial power. We just get a new government; a new method for the people in charge to run things badly.

There is much to celebrate on the social front: LGBT rights, racial equality, equality in relationships and child rearing. But the power thing encompasses almost all of us; and the left has failed to deliver common ownership or common management.

oldpolitics (you’ve met me on twitter) and Chaise: Tell me you guys: JUST WHY do we need any of the following: “A puritan moral economy”; “denial of self-gratification” (except for bankers, one is left to suppose); “the purposefulness of a national imperial destiny” (!! Britain hasn’t had an empire in donkey’s years! BluLab isn’t just WRONG going by this, it’s MAD!); “the narrative of a patriarchal social order” (!! NO we don’t want THIS! If I was at all doubtful before, I’m decided now!! NO LABOUR FEMINIST WANTS THIS!); “reproduction of normative family relations, status hierarchies and moral values”!! (this is a) medieval, and not in a Morrisian sense!! b) it is anti-equality and has nothing to do with socialism at all!). Also the wording with its “normative” suggests a rejection of ALL minorities, especially sexual and religious ones, to my eye. SO: Glasman doesn’t like gays, lesbians, transexuals, feminists and he doesn’t want any of us to have a leading part or any part in the Labour movement (bcos he>

(try again!) ..either really doesn’t like us, or because he wants to pander.. To some theoretical disaffected, injured males-as-males out there (Fathers for Justice?) who are feeling crestfallen because they have lost their economic dominance.. What about those people who never had such?

&”men are theinjured party” – what’s
THAT all about?

Sounds like USmedia’s “mancession”: turned out to be a misleading term!)

No actually if I were Helen Glasman MP – I agree with what she says about the need for feminist analysis, and her call for “equality, justice, democracy and liberty”! But I DO think she’s being a bit overpolite about it! In her position I’d storm in there and give Glasman and co the backhander they deserve! “Justice, though the heavens fall!”

Personally I’d like to set Terry Eagleton (described in LRB (?) as a “gunfighter”) on Mo! Interestingly, for different reasons I will explain in a minute, Richard Dawkins also might like a (pot)shot.. Oh I do invite all public academics to the table!

BUT.

@38.

Blue Labour does not argue for any of those things.

Reading the relevant quotation in context, I don’t understand why anyone would think Rutherford endorses what he actually calls a ‘dominant class culture’. He describes it. And then he describes its breakdown. And then he mentions some of the effects of its breakdown, which have not been exclusively positive, because the culture which replaced it also has many faults. None of this suggests that he, or anyone else, would like to return to that sort of society, any more than me describing the effects of Marxism-Leninism in the USSR , not all of which were negative, implies that I would like to revive the Soviet state. To describe something is not to endorse it.

Sorry: I meant IF I were Helen GOODMAN MP (this comment form’s clunky as crap!) I wouldn’t pussyfoot around. I also wouldn’t think I was jeopardising winning any general election: BECAUSE THIS BLUE LABOUR TOSH ISN’T GOING TO WIN ANY MASS OF THE ELECTORATE.

Now I’ve said all that, I can pass on to another matter of (personal) concern. Namely, what is all this BluLab invocation of old-time religion, nonsense?! No modern political party has ever felt it necessary to do this!

And how will all of Glasman’s bizarre, “normative”, conformist terminology affect religious minorities? (Of which I notice he, a Jew, is one; though perhaps as in the USA, he will claim common cause with Christians under the rubric: “Judaeo-Christian morality”.)

Well where does that leave Muslims in his cosy little club? Or is he going to include all monotheists and just leave polytheists, pantheists, agnostics and atheists out in the cold? (Actually that’s basically, I noticed a while ago, what the Labour party membership and other..

Liz; if you think the Labour Party membership is short of Muslims, atheist, and agnostics, then you live in a very unusual part of the world! On your question about Rutherford’s article, Jack is exactly right. I don’t understand why people are incapable of seperative out DEscription and PREscription. In the passage you cite Rutherford is explaining what society USED to be like, not what it OUGHT to be like. Goodman was either pressed for time and didn’t read it properly, or is simply making mischief. I address this on my blog today; http://s.coop/dailymailtalkingcrapshocker

..official forms tend to do! Labour party officialdom already just seems to want to leave room for “the great religions”! (Though Hindus and Sikhs *are* given the honour of their own boxes to tick, there is no “fill-in-your-own-religion” write-in option (I expect party officialdom’s afraid of jokers and Jedis – well who ever said my party of choice or any political party has much of a sense of humour?) and I think atheists and the irreligious are just supposed to leave the box blank! And don’t anybody on here say this is not true: because it **** well is!)

Well now. My own situation is that I’m a Pagan (actually a Heathen but that doesn’t mean atheist! The clue’s in the handle!) AND I’m a believer in the separation of church and state! I don’t so much mind the C of E Bishops in the Lords (which will surely be made into an elected second chamber one day); but Glasman’s “faith, flag, family” provocations just have gone a step too far for me! WHAT IS HE TRYING TO DO?! GO AWAY!! is my reaction. It has a very..

@38: I do’nt think Glasman was expressing anti-LGBT sentiment, I think he was trying to say, (not in a very clear fashion) that we need to stop looking at people in seperate compartments; gay this, ethnic that, one, two, three religions and so on. That’s my appraisal of the document, I hope that is what he meant by his words. If not, then it’s pretty obvious he’s urging a shift to the right. NOT GOOD! As for not wanting people to be involved in the process, he does’nt have a choice. We are involved, through neccessity caused by the exclusivity that New Labour were so fond of. You cut people out of the decision making, you cut yourself off from the people. That’s how you lose elections.

..anti-minority (other than Christian minority, and Christians *are* a minority in UK, so why is Glasman pushing this so? Other than that they’re a privileged minority and he wants to privilege them further!) – ring to it!!

And that’s what I wanted to say! That’s most of it! Basically, I distrust Maurice Glasman and his as others have said, stupidly-named blue confection; his rhetoric as quoted here has a very anti-women, anti-feminist, anti-minority flavour to it; and I think his bringing of “traditional” RELIGION of all things into it jeopardises the democratic separation of Church and State; which is thin enough in this country as it is; ironically what he is trying to do would just not wash in USA for this reason;for in that country the strange thing is that every big politician must pay vague lip-service to the idea of God and religion for social/etiquette reasons;bt none may officially advocate it as policy for fear of breaking the (necessary) taboo of the Constitution! (Though Moron Bush cut it fine!)

Surely ‘Blue Labour’ is not trotting out ‘Faith, Family, Flag’?!
When the Vichy collaborator regime usurped the French Third Republic the republican slogan of “Liberty, equality, fraternity” was replaced by “Work, family, fatherland.” They didn’t feel the need to include ‘faith’ since it was assumed the State would be Catholic and confessional….with all that entailed…
Of course there is some merit in faith, family, flag, work etc. but it is very dangerous to make these the key features of a political program because in practice they are deeply reactionary and exclusive, perhaps to the point where they become discriminatory and eliminationist.

Personally I am a little tired of hearing Labour politicians join in with Tories banging on about how work is ‘good for you’…what next ‘Work Makes You Free’?
Work should not define who people are or their social worth and whilst I am all for the ‘dignity of labour’ it implies people being paid a living, as opposed to a minimum wage, for doing a job they find rewarding and where they have rights as well as responsibilities and trades unions to ensure those rights are protected. Work can be good for people and society it can also be deadly, I recall the rubbish ‘hard work never hurt anyone’….yeah right! Tell that to people who suffered with asbestosis for example or the many who have suffered appalling industrial injuries…..or those currently struggling in low skilled work for low pay.

I have a feeling that despite its intentions the Blue Labour agenda appeals to people’s baser instincts and is not what the Labour Party should be about at all. What next, an economic policy based on self sufficiency with import substitution, rationing etc? Its a dangerous road to travel….

Hello Nathan #47! Good post! I’ve looked up a couple links for you: hope I can post them on here, they’re rather long! (Worth it, mods!)

Faith, Flag and Family isn’t just confined in some form to Vichy France you know! All conservatives like these words! I Googled em: and the first result I came up with was.. Sarah Palin! Knew I’d heard the Glasman slogan from someone else! The very top result on Google is Amazoo.com with her book “America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag” (you know that if anyone’s gonna sell out to the American Taliban, it’ll be her! And, actually, I think if Libcon were more like Alternet, it’d be more concerned about our homegrown versions!)

Next up: A link (I’ll use mobile version for brevity) to an article about her: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B0G020100512?irpc=932

Third is a link to a Wikipedia article about the Tory Cornerstone Group, founded 2005 – think I remember hearing about that! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Group

Faith, Flag and Family isn’t just confined in some form to Vichy France you know! All conservatives like these words! I Googled em: and the first result I came up with was.. Sarah Palin! Knew I’d heard the Glasman slogan from someone else!

You would have had to, because you wouldn’t have heard it from Glasman – he’s never said it.

‘oldpolitics’

You wrote:

‘Faith, Flag and Family isn’t just confined in some form to Vichy France you know! All conservatives like these words! I Googled em: and the first result I came up with was.. Sarah Palin! Knew I’d heard the Glasman slogan from someone else!

You would have had to, because you wouldn’t have heard it from Glasman – he’s never said it.’

For me that is good to know, the question is does he or anyone associated with ‘Blue Labour’ thinking actually mean it? Is ‘Faith, Family, Flag’ or even ‘Work, family, fatherland’ a fair summary of what is being articulated?

If he and others have been ‘misunderstood’ then there is an issue of perception to be addressed. It could be argued they have been deliberately misunderstood but to be honest that won’t cut the mustard, we all need to be clear about what we mean and as I have said in previous posts, its the direction of travel that concerns me.

Yes we need to return to power at the earliest possible opportunity, but to do what? Implement conservative policies? New Labour did so in several areas, not least in the area of Welfare ‘Reform’ and the Coalition is continuing along the same lines placing ‘work’ at the heart of their program but they mean coercing people into low paid, low skilled work, deregulation etc. that is not what we should mean at all in my opinion.

If Labour adopted a new Blue Labour platform and then lost an election how much further would a future right wing government take that approach?

The Tories are harking back to what they think was our ‘golden age’….the mid Victorian age, are we to respond in kind?

I remain concerned.

Isn’t it about time the Labour Party went back to being a defender of the working people instead of indulging in more metropolitan bourgeois nonsense. The Party should obviously return to the centre left – this is what its supporters are begging for. I mean how bad can it get? Something new, something blue what next – something borrowed – from Tory central office no doubt.