With Labour looking increasingly likely to lost the next election, deputy leadership hopeful Hazel Blears - pictured - has a letter in the Financial Times this morning, offering her opinion on how the party can avoid that outcome:
From Hazel Blears MP.
Sir, Your reports from Dartford ("The return of southern discomfort' ", May 1) highlight the true nature of Labour's choices over the next few weeks. Labour won elections in places like Dartford because we reconnected with the key swing voters. People with jobs, mortgages, families, holidays, and no tradition of voting Labour.
Unless Labour can attune to the heartbeat of these aspirational, hard-working families, and articulate their views and desires, then we will never win another election. That means focusing on crime and anti-social behaviour, job security, flexible working for mums and dads, tackling the unsettling effects of immigration, and dealing with a volatile housing market that leaves too many behind. The reality is that the people in my constituency of Salford got jobs, new school buildings and more police, because people in the southern marginals voted Labour.
A lurch to the left for Labour, deserting the centre ground to David Cameron, and alienating the people in Dartford and marginals elsewhere in the south, would be a tragic error.
Hazel Blears,
Labour Party Chair
Much of the content comprises catchphrase bingo a go go; ‘aspirational hard-working class families’, indeed. Aren’t they what we used to call the working class?
And some of the dog whistle stuff – ‘tackling the unsettling effects of immigration’ - leaves a slightly bad taste in the mouth.
But what of the underlying political argument here? Surely New Labour has been doing all the things Blears lists, or at least thinks it has. And it is precisely these policies that have driven Labour’s opinion poll standing to the lowest ebb for a quarter of a century.
Voters are judging Labour on the basis of its record in office for the last ten years, a decade when the political influence of the left has been zilch. ‘More of the same’ is not the key to a fourth term; it’s a sure recipe for defeat.
Nobody on the left – least of all those of us that come from working class backgrounds - is suggesting that Labour antagonise the AHWFs. The task is to put forward relevant democratic socialist policies that appeal to the majority of the electorate.
In my book, they would include boosting job security by curbs on private equity. How many votes could Labour win in Kent commuterland by taking the railway network back into public ownership and then spending the money to make the system reliable?
And – pace Blears – the housing market has not been ‘volatile’. It’s been going up and up and up. The only answer to what is increasingly becoming a crisis is the provision of vast amounts of accommodation on a non-market basis.
Thatcher’s dogmatic proclamation that there is no such thing as society has been replaced by New Labour’s idee fixe that there is no such thing as market failure. If obeisance before market forces remains central to its political outlook, it can kiss Dartford - and dozens of seats like it - goodbye.
Comments (33)
"boosting job security by curbs on private equity"
Hooray... private equity finally gets a mention.
Given the amount of trade union commentary/activity in relation to private equity in all the developed economies, I am gobsmacked at the silence on the Left about it as an issue. The unions are trying to develop a genuinely global campaign here, but from a trawl of lefty blogs you'd think it was a side issue.
This, I would suggest, is a rather more important question for working people (both as employees and with financial assets in pension funds that are invested in private equity) than the political meaningless squabbles amongst Trot mirco-sects.
Given that "overthrow/abolish capitalism" is not in any way a realistic position to adopt - this is something happening now, not in Barcelona in 1936 - where the fcuk is the Left in this argument?
‘aspirational hard-working families’, indeed. Aren’t they what we used to call the working class?
Look again. When Blears talks about aspirational hard-working families she means the Daily Mail-readers down south - and they're the ones whose votes Labour has got to hold on to, so that the government can help working class people in places like Salford. (Well, help them or criminalise them, depending.)
Nothing in this letter (from the Chair of the Labour Party) suggests that Labour might actually represent the working class - or care about how they vote. (Since, after all, where else are they going to go?)
PS
the key swing voters. People with jobs, mortgages, families, holidays, and no tradition of voting Labour
Well-known fact. Get a job or start a family, boom!, Tory voter. No wonder the Labour vote's gone down.
I like "attune to the heartbeat [...] and articulate their views". Because New Labour is all about gleaning the unspoken collective will of the voters (as told by the tabloid press) and then telling us what we really want, rather than listening to us tell them what we (obviously only think we) want. It's comforting to know that, whilst they ignore whatever I say, New Labour have reached deep into my soul and know it better than I know it myself.
Gregg has it exactly right. New Labour are simply a self-appointed elite of career politicians who believe they govern in everyone's best interests. That's why the only reason why socialists and trade unions still belong within the Labour Party is kneejerk conservatism (note small 'c') and the idea of the 'lesser evil'. Unfortunately that idea holds less water every day.
The unions are trying to develop a genuinely global campaign here, but from a trawl of lefty blogs you'd think it was a side issue.
I usually consider that those comments which just plug their own blogs are a sort of spam, but i have to point out that the SU blog has had two substantial articles about private equity in the last month, including a very substantive argument one by Martin Wisks summarising the trade union response.
http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/search/label/Private%20Equity
We are indisputable a lefty blog, so perhaps Tom P should widen the range of blogs he reads
Andy
Thanks for the pointless bitchy comment. I wasn't trying to plug my own blog at all and didn't even refer to it in my post. I make a point of not making anonymous comments so my "plug" (ie if you click on my name it links to my blog) is exactly the same as yours, so it's a rather hypocritical 'point'.
I'll respond to the post on your site.
Tom - Andy wasn't accusing you of plugging your blog, just apologising for plugging the SU blog.
"tackling the unsettling effects of immigration"
Broadly agree with your analysis, but are you trying to claim there aren't any unsettling effects of immigration? Madness!
"The reality is that the people in my constituency of Salford got jobs, new school buildings and more police, because people in the southern marginals voted Labour."
What utter b******.If you put a monkey up in Salford with a red rosette on it would win.....and the regeneration of Salford started way back in the 1980s at the height of Thatcherism. Salford City Council (Old Labour but Right-Wing) struck all kinds of deals with the private sector, sold off social housing, attracted investors to old docklands in Salford Quays, and gotmoney to build newschools etc years and years ago.
.A pact with the capitalist devil, possibly. But to suggest New Labour's swing vote obsession is somehow responsible for salford/'s renaissance is, frankly, crap.
I lived in Salford for eight years from 1988 to 1996 and remember that wonderful local MP Frank Allaun, an old-fashioned left-winger who people in the community really respected.
Blears dumbs down everything to "bread-and-butter issues" and patronises the working-class.She was only chosen as MP because there was no-one any better and she stood on a soft-left platform. So much for that. As for her appointed role as "Labour Party Chair",the sooner we make that an elected post the better. Asthings stand, she purports to speak for the Party when actually, she does not. I actually think she means well but she is an irritating menace.
Igor Belanov - You didn't used to play for the USSR up front/midfield did you?
I actually live in Dartford and face the choice of Labour, Tory or English Democrats...
I am thinking of spoiling my ballot paper!
Actually, Susan, that reminds me - doesn't the Labour Party actually have an elected Chair? I vaguely remember Blair conferring the title of Chair on some trusty or other, and being surprised by the negative reaction from people who knew more about the LP constitution than he did.
The reason Labour have a chance in Dartford is because of hostility to the Lib Dems allowing planning permission for a Tesco hypermarket, not because they've fallen in love with Tony all of a sudden. Hazel knows this.
Sorry, may not be Lib Dems: whoever the council belongs to.
"Andy wasn't accusing you of plugging your blog, just apologising for plugging the SU blog."
Doh!
Apologies for being fick.
Not directly related but worth checking out the SP blog for their "perspective" on Labour leadership.Predictably, they are yet again writing off the Labour left and rubbing their hands with glee at the possible prospect of a coronation for Brown.Even more predictably, their position and interpretation of the current state of play, support for socialist values, and of morale within the Labour Party is utterly wrong. Question for SP comrades: How many votes are they going to get tonight? Question for LP comrades: Even if we DON'T get a leadership contest, are we going to give up and join the Socialist Party?
I think I know the answer to both questions.......
Aspirational hard working families is just a modern version of the deserving and undeserving poor - those without 'aspiration' being the latter.
Of course we used to have collective aspirations, and New labour is talking about individual ones.
As far as I can see, Hazel Blears is our version of "Senator Pothole" (the old nickname for Alphonse D'Amato). She's a "Corporation Socialist" of the 1830s vintage, who believes that her job is to give the working class an indoor karzey and a lick of paint on the front door, in return for their obligation to go to evening classes and vote Labour. The beginning and end of her politics is the provision of public works to deprived neighbourhoods.
It's not intrinsically an evil thing or even an uninfluential one (god knows we hear the same thing retooled for the middle class as "public services" ad nauseam). But it's really limited. I would bet a week's wages that if you asked Hazel Blears a question about civil liberties, her answer would contain the phrase "bobbies on the beat" - it's a worldview that simply does not stretch far beyond anything that one cannot employ someone to polish.
Which means that she's completely at sea in the present political climate. The Labour Party is, in fact, doing very well on schools, hospitals, jobs, etc, all of her bread'n'butter issues. But they're also fighting an unsuccessful and unpopular war overseas and they're caught up in a number of corruption scandals. Hazel Blears doesn't care about this and, I think, doesn't really understand how anyone else might (certainly not anyone in the working class).
As a result, she has no hope of understanding the reasons behind the current opinion poll figures. That rabbit-in-the-headlights look of hers is real.
When the seagulls... follow the trawler... it's because they think... sardines will be thrown into the sea
Todays derserving poor would find it very hard ro go to an evening class (unless it was in computer programming) as this government has slashed adult education. It's hard to believe that Hazel Blears ever had the idealism that leads to someone joing a political party. I wonder how she became involved in the Labour Party in the first place?
I don't think Blears is as nasty and cynical as some of them; I just think, as others have intimated, that she's really really intellectually limited. She tries to crowbar standard New Labour 'arguments' into places where they don't work, such as the one about swing voters being all-important to the poor of Salford or the (probably accurate) prediction above by dsquared about how she'd grapple with a civil liberties debate.
And this leads me onto a point I don't think the Left have made enough during the Blair years: that, aside from their ability to manipulate and machinate, Blairites are actually in the main pretty thick. It's a 'movement' without any serious intellectual underpinning at all. A movement for stupid people who want to suck up to powerful ones.
Susan Press: "She was only chosen as MP because there was no-one any better and she stood on a soft-left platform. So much for that. As for her appointed role as "Labour Party Chair",the sooner we make that an elected post the better. Asthings stand, she purports to speak for the Party when actually, she does not. I actually think she means well but she is an irritating menace."
Susan, let me get this straight, you are very angry at the government, you want a change in direction, you're in favour of structural reforms such as making Chair an elected position, but still you insist on supporting Cabinet Minister Peter Hain for Deputy Leader rather than Jon Cruddas?! I know you're angry about Cruddas refusing to support McDonnell but I still can't understand your thinking.
Peter Hain was humiliated in a Newsnight report this evening. He told the reporter that he and Ian Paisley shared a "special bond". In the next shot Paisley was asked about this and he said that was the best joke in 100 years. Clearly Paisley doesn't hear many jokes, but he made his point.
Dsquared:
I agree with your general point on Blears, but to say that Labour has done well on hospitals and schools? Funding has gone up in general, but the organisational chaos linked to introducing 'choice' and market criteria is a disaster waiting to happen. Foundation Hospitals, 'Specialist' Schools and PFI all go against socialist principle and will lead to much greater inequality in the long run.
Crudd Comrade,
How do you justify your claims suggesting that Jon Cruddas is, i speaking in terms of the Labour Party of course, to the Left of Peter Hain??? Are you not aware of the fact that Cruddas seekd to reduce the Trade Union at Conference vote to a mere 33% - as opposed to the 50% to which it is presently entitled??? In my eyes, such a suggestions makes arch-right-winger such as the late John Golding look like dangerous Bolshevist compared to Cruddas. Yet you call him a soft-Lefty. He seems like more of a closeted "far-righty" to me! Furthermore, Cruddas' voting record is no better - or any different - than Hain's.
At least Peter Hain has a Left-wing past. Jon Cruddas, on the other hand, has no more than a record as a Blairite bag-carrier.
Too bad the CLPD nominated him. Though it (naturally) did not mention Cruddas' ferocious anti-union stance in its declaration!
Mikael, with respect, if you read my post you'll see that I didn't claim Cruddas is to the Left of Peter Hain (though I think he probably is). Cruddas has previously suggested reform of Conference structure but he has backed away from the proposal to reduce the TU vote. That's not a policy he's running on. I was not convinced of the merits of reducing the TU vote and am glad of a change of direction, but I completely agree with the rest of Cruddas' ideas for Conference reform (less leadership management and infringement of party democracy, more emphasis on encouraging NGOs and campaign groups to participate). These are sensible structural reforms that should appeal to Labour people of both left and right persuasions (though inevitably the left are more prepared to listen to ideas for change).
Perhaps you should warn Amicus and the T&G (or Unite as they now are) about Cruddas' attitude to trade unionism, as they are both bankrolling his campaign! Unless you think these unions are stupid?
I think Cruddas should have more credibility with the Left than Hain for a multitude of reasons. Apart from his specific ideas for reinvigorating the party (whereas Hain doesn't have any), Cruddas is not a member of the government and is therefore not so tarnished. His voting record does contrast to Hain's: he voted against Top Up fees, he voted against Nadine Dorries' anti-abortion PMB, he voted for Paul Farrelly's PMB extending rights for agency workers. All important stuff.
Yes, he voted for the war, but has made clear that he regrets that decision. What criticisms has Hain made?
Hain's Left past? As a Liberal? You must be joking. Also, you might want to compare Cruddas' significant union financial backing with Peter Hain getting his money from certain rich individuals and companies.
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200705/92521a1a-ee01-4d2d-911b-a2f1c69f114b.htm
I don't want to be seen as over-enthusiastic in bitching about Hain, but come on!?!
As for her appointed role as "Labour Party Chair",the sooner we make that an elected post the better.
Abolish the post already - we already had a Chair of the Party (elected by the NEC), there was and is no need for Blair to create an appointed "Party Chair" as well. It's just a way of giving another of the leader's lap dogs some sort of title so they can go on TV and look important.
"Perhaps you should warn Amicus and the T&G (or Unite as they now are) about Cruddas' attitude to trade unionism, as they are both bankrolling his campaign!...."
First of all, I don't think my warning would be taken very seriously. I mean, I tried to warn, and look at your reaction - utter rejection!
"....Unless you think these unions are stupid?"
No, I don't think they are at all! That's a brutal misconception of what I was saying (Though I do think that Cruddas is an absolute imbecile, that's for sure). Now, on other hand, I do fear that Derek Simpson may have lost the plot! At any rate, I doubt that he is doing what's best for his members! The same does not apply to Woodley, whom, I do believe, is simply excesively careful. What he needs is to be less afraid to make bold moves - he could reverse this unfortunate trend by backing John McDonnell for Party Leader!
About Hain, I don't think that being a liberal(which I disapprove of, but that, hopefully goes without saying!) is the only aspect of the man's past - after all Harold Wilson was also a liberal in his youth. Hain was also a Tribunite and, what's more, the author of a number of interesting works concerning Socialism. Furthermore, ASLEF, a union not known for its industrial or political moderation, has endorsed Hain; as have many principled Socialist MPs, such as Michael Clapham and Billy Etherington. Cruddas, on his part, has yet to produce any other support than that he will (in theory) receive from the Compass group of (very, very, very) soft-"Left" (?) MPs.
On the issue of voting records, I don't approve of Hain's present support for NuLab policies. However, given that he has served in parliament far longer than Cruddas, his voting record is far more diverse and dare I say, better, than the latter's. As gfar as Cruddas' "opposition" to top-up fees is concerned, I don't think that being "[m]oderately against introducing student top-up fees" qualifies as vehement opposition. It basically means that he ended up backing the Balirites at the end of the day! Furthermore, I don't think it's enough to make up for a rock-bottom record such as his
At any rate, I am not in any way endorsing Hain (I don't know what to do when it comes to the deputy leadership race). Simply, I was saying that, as candidate of the "Left", Cruddas was no more convincing than Hain. This despite and in spite of him haviong positioned himself as such!
Come off it Mikael. A couple of decades Tony Blair was declaring in his election literature that he wanted to put an end to "nuclear madness", he was writing articles about socialism for Marxism Today, and he was declaring to Michael Foot that he found Marx's writings inspirational. Peter Hain may have had a "left wing" past - who hasn't?! - but that doesn't stop him being a fairly bland politician today. Hain has the support of a couple of "Socialist MPs" and a union because he's been planning this campaign for years. I'm not wholly dismissing him, but he's not an inspirational character and he's not full of exciting ideas for Labour.
You think Hain's voting record is better than Cruddas'?! So even though Cruddas voted AGAINST top up fees you're still somehow incinuating that he "backed up the Blairites at the end of the day" (don't know how you worked that one out!). As I've said, on these Private Members Bills on abortion rights and workers rights Cruddas was there to vote but Hain (and all the other DL candidates) were nowhere to be seen.
"Cruddas is an absolute imbecile". Uncomradely. Where's this coming from?
Why must you be so fixated with Cruddas being a "left" candidate? So he's willing to criticise the government and is making leftie sounds, which really annoys ultra-Blairites, but at the same time I know plenty of people on the Right of the party who are sensible enough to appreciate his ideas on party reform, on housing, and just the fact that he is a fresh face. Can it not be accepted that the programme he is running on can find a diverse appeal within Labour ranks?
As for the Woodley and Simpson not endorsing McDonnell: they're being sensible. With polls indicating that McDonnell enjoys less than 10% of Labour support they have nothing to win by backing the losing candidate. Though I hope they're applying behind-the-scenes pressure to get him on the ballot and allow a contest.
"As for the Woodley and Simpson not endorsing McDonnell: they're being sensible. With polls indicating that McDonnell enjoys less than 10% of Labour support they have nothing to win by backing the losing candidate. Though I hope they're applying behind-the-scenes pressure to get him on the ballot and allow a contest."
In that YouGov poll, McDonnell came second after Brown (in front of Meacher and Clarke) - despite being by far the least known candidate. Most Labour party members and trade unionists don't even know who he is.
In a contest where he'd actually have a platform, we can expect those figures to rise - a lot.
Now I'm a total supporter of Cruddas - but I think there's an element of chutzpah given that Cruddas is currently flatlining on 9/10% - i.e. the same level of support as McDonnell. Indeed, despite the fact that Cruddas clearly has far greater resources at his disposal than the McDonnell campaign, he's still the second least popular deputy leadership candidate (with only Hazel Blears behind him - just).
As a supporter of both campaigns, I wish we could be a bit more comradely. The campaigns shouldn't be rivals. If we can't say anything nice about the respective campaigns, then let's just say nothing...
Crudd Comrade,
As I said, I'm no supporter of Hain - I just don't see how you can go on pretending Cruddas is any better.
The only thing I said about Hain's voting record is that, given that it was longer than that of Cruddas, it necessarily contains a greater number of positive elements. Being "moderately against" (please see theyworkforyou.com) implies, by definition, by defenition, that he did not oppose the policy in question on all counts! Btw, I think Cruddas did vote in favour of privatising probation services, but you may well have missed/ approved of that!
"Why must you be so fixated with Cruddas being a "left" candidate?"
Because I am a man of the Left! That seems quite self-explanatory really!
Oh, and in the polls, Cruddas isn't much better of than McDonnell; McDonnell is, by the way, running second while Cruddas occupies the penultimate position in the DL poll!
POI,
I agree! I should not have said that Cruddas was an imbecile - I was simply ticked off by Crudd Com's pointless insinuation that I was a Hain backer (though, in my book, he's cleaner than Crudda) as well his clqim that my point about Cruddas' position totally lacked validity. I simply stated the facts, I am afraid!
I do, again, agree about keeping discussion more comradely (sorry, again!) - after all, Cruddas has a lot of decent supporters out there!
"As I said, I'm no supporter of Hain - I just don't see how you can go on pretending Cruddas is any better.
The only thing I said about Hain's voting record is that, given that it was longer than that of Cruddas, it necessarily contains a greater number of positive elements."
This is simply untrue, I'm afraid. Hain has been a member of the Government since 1997. As a member of the payroll vote, he has voted for every single piece of New Labour legislation. Cruddas has, at least, rebelled on issues such as trust schools and tuition fees. He also advocates policies such as the trade union freedom bill and direct investment in council housing - none of which Hain has shown any support for (indeed, I believe that even privately Hain is opposed to any restoration of trade union rights).
"Being "moderately against" (please see theyworkforyou.com) implies, by definition, by defenition, that he did not oppose the policy in question on all counts!"
Not actually true, either. For example, if you miss certain votes (including not very important or relevant votes), theyworkforyou knocks down how opposed you are to a given policy. Cruddas rebelled on all the key votes relating to top-up fees - including the crucial third reading (which passes the piece of legislation into law).
Owen,
On the issue of top-up fees, I suppose I stand corrected. Though, i still believe that moderate opposition does imply - though perhaps not in this case, I am willing, and even glad, to admit - that opposition isn't, by definition, total!
As far as T.U's are concerned Cruddas has always struck me as contradictory - he backs the freedom bill (to his immense credit), however, he also supports (supported????) a reduction of the proportion of T.U. vote at the Party Conference. If he genuinely opposes this at the present stage, I am, again, willing, if not happy, to stand corrected!
His article in today's was not too bad, though I still think his position are short of representing a genuine solution...
Finally, I am no fan of Hain. I never said I was, I am simply questionning the criticism originally put forward by Crudd Comrade concerning Hain. In '91 Peter Hain was still OK, broadly speaking. If have come off as defending his present record, I have been misunderstood!
Again, at this point, I can't see who i could possibly support in the DL election - certainly not Hain, though my opinion of Cruddas has deteriorated compared to what it was... The only thing I can find in his favour is the recent endorsement by the CLPD!
"As far as T.U's are concerned Cruddas has always struck me as contradictory - he backs the freedom bill (to his immense credit), however, he also supports (supported????) a reduction of the proportion of T.U. vote at the Party Conference."
That's not that contradictory. It's perfectly logical to support the TU Freedom Bill - with all the genuine, day-in day-out benefits that will bring on the ground to workerrs - while having an opinion about the internal structures of a political party should operate.
Although I disagree with Cruddas on his proposed changes to the Lab voting structure personally, I think he'd be on fair ground to argue that the TU Freedom Bill is a good deal more important