Although I guess it’s none of my business, I can’t resist penning a thought or two about the Labour leadership election. I understand that, so far, we have a brace of Milibands and are expecting Balls to join in over the next couple of days. And we may yet see a candidate from the ‘left’ – perhaps John Cruddas. Game on as Labour tweeters like to say!
But catch your breath for a minute and ask yourselves a question – what sort of party do you want Labour to be over the coming few years? Be cause it’s plain that these candidates each offer a different direction. You have a choice between European-style social democracy, a tribal and cynical union-dominated approach or a real attempt to remake the party as a voice for ordinary people.
The Milibands – privileged background and education, pro-European, urbane, metropolitan – represent the shining besuited Euro-elite, the sort of candidates that Paris, Bonn and Madrid would approve. But this positioning means nothing to the ordinary working class voter who’s probably a bit doubting of the EU project and thinks the bloody foreigners should butt out of British politics thanks. The Milibands are part of that patronising Labour elite that gave us Mandelson, Harman and Blair.
Balls – despite his (well-disguised) posh background, Balls represents the cynical side of Labour politics. Lots of sound and fury followed by remorseless attacks on the Party’s enemies (internal as well as external). This is the trade unions’ party (as distinct from the trade unionists’ party), the party of group rights and the party of big government. It is the approach rejected by the electorate on May 6th
The third choice for Labour is to find again the place from which it sprung – the needs and aspirations of hard-working people employed in the private sector. These people – some are trade unionists but most are not – stuck two fingers up at the nannying, hectoring, interfering government of Brown. These people look across at public sector workers and see feather-bedded, protected employees – and worse, that comfort is achieved with their taxes. And these people want to drink beer, smoke fags, go by plane to Benidorm and Paphos, drive pick-up trucks, eat pies and give their kids a chocolate bar to go in the lunch box. They have absolutely nothing in common with the metrosexual niceness of the Milibands or with the bullying authoritarianism of Balls.
It isn’t my business but if the Labour Party wants to find its voice and place they have to get through to these voters – and to the 75% and more of C1/C2s who didn’t vote Labour – they have the chance to change the narrative. To be the party that say to ordinary folk: “you enjoy the money you earn how you like and we’ll try to look after your interests. To help protect your jobs, to support business, to provide doctors, schools and coppers and to defend the country.”
Maybe someone will step forward and make that offer. If they do Labour members would be mad not to take it.
But catch your breath for a minute and ask yourselves a question – what sort of party do you want Labour to be over the coming few years? Be cause it’s plain that these candidates each offer a different direction. You have a choice between European-style social democracy, a tribal and cynical union-dominated approach or a real attempt to remake the party as a voice for ordinary people.
The Milibands – privileged background and education, pro-European, urbane, metropolitan – represent the shining besuited Euro-elite, the sort of candidates that Paris, Bonn and Madrid would approve. But this positioning means nothing to the ordinary working class voter who’s probably a bit doubting of the EU project and thinks the bloody foreigners should butt out of British politics thanks. The Milibands are part of that patronising Labour elite that gave us Mandelson, Harman and Blair.
Balls – despite his (well-disguised) posh background, Balls represents the cynical side of Labour politics. Lots of sound and fury followed by remorseless attacks on the Party’s enemies (internal as well as external). This is the trade unions’ party (as distinct from the trade unionists’ party), the party of group rights and the party of big government. It is the approach rejected by the electorate on May 6th
The third choice for Labour is to find again the place from which it sprung – the needs and aspirations of hard-working people employed in the private sector. These people – some are trade unionists but most are not – stuck two fingers up at the nannying, hectoring, interfering government of Brown. These people look across at public sector workers and see feather-bedded, protected employees – and worse, that comfort is achieved with their taxes. And these people want to drink beer, smoke fags, go by plane to Benidorm and Paphos, drive pick-up trucks, eat pies and give their kids a chocolate bar to go in the lunch box. They have absolutely nothing in common with the metrosexual niceness of the Milibands or with the bullying authoritarianism of Balls.
It isn’t my business but if the Labour Party wants to find its voice and place they have to get through to these voters – and to the 75% and more of C1/C2s who didn’t vote Labour – they have the chance to change the narrative. To be the party that say to ordinary folk: “you enjoy the money you earn how you like and we’ll try to look after your interests. To help protect your jobs, to support business, to provide doctors, schools and coppers and to defend the country.”
Maybe someone will step forward and make that offer. If they do Labour members would be mad not to take it.
....
3 comments:
My guess is that they'll go for Balls - which could be interesting. Welll, perhaps I mean entertaining, as he represents the old-style bullying, sound and fury Labour. If they *do* choose Balls, I shall spend happy hours chuckling at their blind stupidity :)
One of the questions about the Milibands is why two- two!- sons of one of 20th Century Britain's most radical communists, a primary populariser of the Gramscian analysis and strategic methodology- are both in a position (despite short tenures in parliament) for leadership of one of the two main parties, and thus to be perhaps Prime Minister. Why are they never grilled on how much of their father's extremist views they share?
And why, with reference to the photo in the article, were trousers so immense in times past? Were shirts extremely short? Was it to save money by reducing tie length during the hard Depression years? Did men suffer from uncomfortably rubbed armpits due to trouser waistband abrasion? I think we have a right to know.
Iab B - on the trouser front we can only guess although those pictured are spectacularly high!
On the Milibands and communism - the Gramscian stuff continues apace as I suggested here:
http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.com/2010/03/do-you-want-marxist-government.html
Post a Comment