The Guardian has this headline this morning:
The story begins by saying:
The Labour faction influencing Downing Street's pitch to Reform UK voters has urged ministers to “root out DEI”.
An article from the Blue Labour campaign group, titled What is to be Done, calls for the government to legislate against diversity, equity and inclusion, echoing the rightwing backlash from Donald Trump and Nigel Farage.
Once upon a time, from 1918 until Bair came along, the purpose of Labiur was defined by Clause 4 of its constitution, which said during that period:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
I do not think that was realistic, or even desirable, as I am committed to a mixed economy, but equity was right there in the middle of this.
Blair changed this to:
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
If anyone can reconcile that with a policy that is opposed to diversity, equity and inclusion, I cannot. What Blue Labour is proposing is the promotion of intolerance, abuse and exclusion, leading to exploitation.
I am sure Starmer will lap up all they have to say, ike the good puppy that he is.
When will they learn that Labour will never outdo Reform, and what they need is a philosophy of their own?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Might Blue Labour be confused about the purpose of a political party?
Thought, research, inclusive discussion for the better running of the whole country?
Limited, obedient group planning to achieve dominance and power irrespective of the effects on the whole country?
The only thing missing from Labour’s new right wing way of doing politics seems to be Mr. Fa***e himself.
If they invited him to take the Labour whip and then made him leader, they could do fascism properly and win in 2029, and we could have a Labour fascist government instead of a Reform one.
If it didn’t work out he could be accused of “anti-semitism” and hounded out of office and replaced with Wes Streeting.
Maybe I should stop, in case McSweeney is watching.
Seriously though, we seem to be a long way down the rabbit hole already, even in REAL Labour politics. It’s getting v cramped down here.
How Starmer (or perhaps more accurately McSweeney) reacts to this call from this faction will be telling in the extreme. Any doubt as to Starmer’s political ineptitude and lack of principles may be put beyond dispute. It could even hasten a split within the Labour Party, dividing the left and leaving the door widen open for the far right.
They are as confused about the purpose of the Labour Party as those who thinks it is about forcing the young, the old, the sick, the poor, into any old jobs – whatever the pay or conditions – rather than providing them with mechanisms to share in the country’s prosperity. It is the party of the working class, not of work.
The most appropriate course of action by Starmer would be to expel these clowns from the party and tell them that Reform is actually their political home.
If he has any political sense that is. Though judging by the ludicrous immigration bill he announced, he hasn’t.
I see that Farage is copying the idiot Musk by sending in DOGE type teams into Reform led councils despite the evidence from the States that it has been a disruptive failure. No surprise to those of those who don’t swallow right wing drivel about government ‘inefficiency’.
So no point in labour trying to ape Reforms stupid policies then is there?
In a sense this relates to Richard’s post on Chat GPT. When making an appointment or other decision, you should check whether the choice has been influenced by irrelevant factors. Historically, DEI has corrected a major bias in one direction. Bias in the other direction is possible. But not to check is just wrong. (Richard and his typos are a different case, since he always has a band of readers happy to point them out.)
🙂
Blair introduced a seismic shift in the nature of the Labour Party, and although it made me feel queasy I gave it the benefit of the doubt because it seemed very much in tune with the spirit of the times: Third Way politics, digital revolution, cool Britannia, all that guff.
Now we are seeing another seimic shift, sadly also much in tune with the spirit of the times, but a darker prospect. There comes a point where the outcome is unrecognisable, and somewhat like “The Republicans” in the USA, “Labour Party” has become merely a pseudonym.
I don’t think Starmer is trying to ‘out Reform Reform’. I think he’s just enacting policies he believes in. Which is even worse.
Richard, returning to an earlier comment of mine regarding holding Reform to account and the unedifying spectacle that was the Kent County Council AGM, there is an interesting article this morning in the London Economic (website) about Reform councillors going AWOL and most of the Kent CC meetings being cancelled. It’s not looking good……
It is looking as I expected…
None of these people really assumed they were actually going to have to do something
I watched the AGM. The look on some of the Reform councillors faces reminded me of the look on Gove and Johnson’s faces the day after the Brexit referendum (“WTF have we done?!”)
There is an irony here.
Labour are not going to win on issues like immigration with Reform, because the fascists will always be one step ahead on what they would do.
However, Farage recently confirmed again that Reform support nationalisation of water and gas. Now, they want it because they are opposed to foreign ownership of critical national infrastructure, and their version is part state/part UK pension funds ownership. Nevertheless, with utility bills rocketing, and Labour offering more of the same, this could be a popular vote winner for them.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50098-support-for-nationalising-utilities-and-public-transport-has-grown-significantly-in-last-seven-years
On the question, do you think the following should be nationalised and run in the public sector, or privatised and run by private companies? the % for each voting group saying “should be run in the public sector”, Reform voters are close to Labour voters.
My conclusion is that the public sector is actually quite popular when the alternative offer is a private sector that is only interested in making money. Labour should take note, because Reform are stealing their clothes. What has Labour got left (no pun intended)?
Popular opinion on more nationalisation has increased in recent years. There would never be a better time for Labour to take advantage of it. Starmer is alienating the progressive vote, while Reform edge closer towards a form of National Socialism.
Let’s be frank. There’s no mystery here. Call this for what it is: the takeover of the Labour Party by a faction made up of right wing Tories.
They were “clever” enough to realise that the Tories were going to be doomed as far as last year’s election was concerned and so they set out to take control of the Labour Party – which they’ve done – and thus they remain in power as a supposed Labour government, but which is, in fact, Labour in name only.
The only aspect of this development is that they’ve been able to put in place/find a cohort of people who’ve been elected as Labour politicians but who are so ideologically weak/free, and/or simply in politics for what/where it can get them in the future, that they’re more than happy to go along with a right wing, Tory, agenda. You can take your pick as to whether this was all part of some grand plan going back several years – as some suggest – or simply something that’s fallen into place more by luck than judgement. My view would be that in some cases (e.g. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting) they were part of the plan, while others, such as Rayner and Miliband, they were largely unwitting players, now kept in place to provide a semblance of “Labourism” to what’s quite obviously a Tory party.
What I also find interesting is this form of “entryism” is pretty much exactly what everyone made such a fuss about when members of Militant Tendency tried this (from a hard left perspective) in the 1980s. But you don’t hear so much fuss now.
DEI is an American term, is it not? We’ve had Equality legislation in place from the 70s, although we have plenty of sociological evidence (e.g. matched job applications) that discrimination still exists. This creeping Americanisation, similar to the arrival of ‘benefits’ instead of ‘social security’ is language shaping perception, replacing ‘citizen’ with ‘scrounger’ sentiments.
It is an American acronym. So?
Thanks for this. It has clarified some of my thoughts about the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Or perhaps his non-leadership and why this led to the labour party seemingly to be on a constant crusade to erase its past.
When he said for the many not the few he was echoing Tony Blair. The problem was that some in labour want to revert clause 4 back to what it once was and thought Corbyn would be sympathetic to the idea. Well it never happened and was never part of Corbyn’s agenda. What happened was political infighting which Corbyn was found to be incapable of controlling. People weren’t lead. They acted to what they thought Corbyn wanted and not what Corbyn ever said.
What labour have now is a leader who asserts that the whole party must follow what the leader says. Tony Blair was never like that. We have a leader who is advised by a vanguard elite who call themselves ‘blue labour’. Tony Blair never had an elite around him.
I think I am right in saying that the political wing that strongly behind Blair was Progress, which today goes by the name Progressive Britain. It is deeply aligned with the politics associated with the US Democratic party. I think that Blue labour is not this. I believe that the labour party is not going in this direction. Blue labour does not run away from the idea that it can sound like the US Republican party.
DEI is just the latest distraction from having our pockets picked. But I’m sure it will become terribly important.
It will, for those who are abused as a result.
I realise this is a retorical question but I think I have an answer.
17 August 2029
That’s the last likely date of the next ge results. When reform will be in power and whatever votes on the left there are would have abandoned Labour. Starmer would have turned the largest ever majority into a party wipe out.
Then maybe, just maybe, he’ll realise he was wrong.
I struggle with today’s political debates or perhaps just our media coverage of them. It is partly why I like seeing/reading this blog. It’s an attempt to uncover important matters.
But I have a bit of time to investigate matters of interest most people are far too busy and the media version or versions are what they absorb readily as they get on with their lives.
Corbyn’s Labour let certain media narratives get established and Starmer’s Labour are doing much the same.
Also trying to conduct politics by adjusting to the other side’s narrative or perceived media advantage always seems to me the wrong strategy.
One should have faith in one’s ideas and proposals and be constantly willing to discuss them. Good ideas and proposals often improve in quality through this kind of process. Journalists seem however unwilling to play their part in this any more. They constantly go on about funds, budgets, plans, targets etc. Criticising all ideas being their preferred contribution.
Labour seem to me to not have much to say that distinguishes them any more from the Tories and maybe they are trying the same tactics with Reform.
This hardly feels like a way to tackle some of the country’s many issues.
Impoverished politics … we so need to change for the health of our democracy.