"Cover for austerity" stands out in that excellent post by christiles. I guess Starmer is now seeking more covers for more austerity. Oh, we are almost at war with Russia, so tighten your belts!
Would "blue Labour" be more or less synonymous with "Red Tories"?
Yes, they originally formed in 2011 and at the time Cameron-era Conservatism was supposed influenced by Philip Blond - a self identified 'Red Tory',. 'Blue Labour' was derived from this, both to indicate opposition and proximity.
I remember thinking that Blond’s 2009 book, Red Tory, was actually surprisingly well written and persuasive in terms of arguing for a return to the policies of the Labour Party right of the early 1950s, but carried out through the left of the Tory party.
The slight missing factors were how we got there from here, and also how likely (not very) any of it was to either happen or stick…
For the same reasons I found it unconvincing. It was never clear how he envisaged that 1950s economic ideas would be implemented in a different political economy and one which was significantly more financialised. Similarly it was left unsaid exactly how the middle classes would be encouraged to return to an earlier set of values (his ideal world being one in which the social changes of the 60s wouldn't have happened). I also suspected that had he got the 50s industrial policy he hankered after he'd have been complaining that it didn't leave enough space for the 'little platoons' ...
The financial crisis provided space for such ideas to emerge, but the reality is that at best they were used to provide cover for austerity. Similarly, Blue Labour don't have much of an industrial policy beyond closing half the universities and wishing that the industrials jobs re-appear (completely unchanged - I doubt if Carden et al have even seen a modern factory).
They represent only a handful of MPs with Glasman and Rutherford as intellectuals. That they are getting a lot of press currently is a choice on the part of the media to frame certain ideas as alternatives and not others.
I think we're in total agreement actually - I did find it surprisingly well-written and persuasive, but I wasn't actually persuad*ed* - my final sentence is basically your post! Red Tory - the book - is an elegant (really) fantasy. I imagine Blue Labour is of the same ilk.
Would "blue Labour" be more or less synonymous with "Red Tories"?
Yes, they originally formed in 2011 and at the time Cameron-era Conservatism was supposed influenced by Philip Blond - a self identified 'Red Tory',. 'Blue Labour' was derived from this, both to indicate opposition and proximity.
I remember thinking that Blond’s 2009 book, Red Tory, was actually surprisingly well written and persuasive in terms of arguing for a return to the policies of the Labour Party right of the early 1950s, but carried out through the left of the Tory party.
The slight missing factors were how we got there from here, and also how likely (not very) any of it was to either happen or stick…
For the same reasons I found it unconvincing. It was never clear how he envisaged that 1950s economic ideas would be implemented in a different political economy and one which was significantly more financialised. Similarly it was left unsaid exactly how the middle classes would be encouraged to return to an earlier set of values (his ideal world being one in which the social changes of the 60s wouldn't have happened). I also suspected that had he got the 50s industrial policy he hankered after he'd have been complaining that it didn't leave enough space for the 'little platoons' ...
The financial crisis provided space for such ideas to emerge, but the reality is that at best they were used to provide cover for austerity. Similarly, Blue Labour don't have much of an industrial policy beyond closing half the universities and wishing that the industrials jobs re-appear (completely unchanged - I doubt if Carden et al have even seen a modern factory).
They represent only a handful of MPs with Glasman and Rutherford as intellectuals. That they are getting a lot of press currently is a choice on the part of the media to frame certain ideas as alternatives and not others.
I think we're in total agreement actually - I did find it surprisingly well-written and persuasive, but I wasn't actually persuad*ed* - my final sentence is basically your post! Red Tory - the book - is an elegant (really) fantasy. I imagine Blue Labour is of the same ilk.
I think the commonality is that they both owe a heavy debt to very conservative readings of Catholic Social Teaching
Having said that, the tradition of elegant fantasies is a long one in British politics - I think here immediately of Disraeli's 'Sybil, or the Two Nations' - that actually can do more good than harm, as long as everyone involved remembers that it is fiction and uses it for inspiration rather than as a handbook.
Off the top of my head, I suppose the example from the left is probably something like the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, but starting with the disadvantage that Tressell/Noonan/Croker wasn't in a position to lead the country, unlike Disraeli.
In other news and being very careful what I say, I have just stood against Reform in a local council by-election brought about by an otherwise laudable Labour councillor's dismissal for non-attendance.
Get your act together, Labour!
Reform won by a convincing margin. Voters don't appear to see the discrepancy in voting for a candidate whose stated aim is to axe council services which benefit some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
The victorious candidate is very capable but certainly won't be able to fulfil their cloud-cuckoo land promises about reducing the precept and putting more money in people's pockets.
There is some consolation in the fact that there are sufficient sensible councillors to absorb and minimise the impact.
I bear them no ill will on a personal level but deplore the party they represent and the bottomless promises touted in their campaign.
I don't see the wheels falling off the Farage-mobile just yet but eventually people may realise that the Emperor has no clothes.
In other news and being very careful what I say, I have just stood against Reform in a local council by-election brought about by an otherwise laudable Labour councillor's dismissal for non-attendance.
Get your act together, Labour!
Reform won by a convincing margin. Voters don't appear to see the discrepancy in voting for a candidate whose stated aim is to axe council services which benefit some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
The victorious candidate is very capable but certainly won't be able to fulfil their cloud-cuckoo land promises about reducing the precept and putting more money in people's pockets.
There is some consolation in the fact that there are sufficient sensible councillors to absorb and minimise the impact.
I bear them no ill will on a personal level but deplore the party they represent and the bottomless promises touted in their campaign.
I don't see the wheels falling off the Farage-mobile just yet but eventually people may realise that the Emperor has no clothes.
Reform ran a very ugly campaign, including blatant racism, in our by-election but failed to achieve their stated aim of second place - but by a narrower margin than I would like. Not helped by an abysmally low turn out of just 44%, with lots of people who would previously have voted for other parties not bothering to vote.
Longer term, it's difficult to forecast (especially from by-election results which are always a bit anomalous), but I hope that the poor performance of councillors (both in Reform councillors failing to even take their seats, and with not getting work done) and the chaos at the top with executive resignations will erode any pretence they can make of being a viable vote for actually getting anything happen. If Reform poll similar proportions next year then there may be some constituencies that go that way (I expect that won't happen), but there will be a significant number of regional Reform MSPs, I'm hoping that we've seen the peak of the Reform wave, and by next year that support will be declining.
The biggest issue is that Reform squeeze support from smaller parties. The media cast this by-election as "will Reform make a break through?" and I suspect that lead to many voters who would naturally vote for one of the smaller parties voting SNP or Labour, not through agreement with their policies but to keep out Reform. Certainly on the doorstep there was a strong binary split caused by Reform, a significant number of people saying they were voting Reform before closing the door on us and a significant number who were concerned about Reform and considering who best to vote for to keep them out. I don't see that changing over the next year, unless Reform totally implode before the election (I can dream).
On first inspection the Hamilton results suggest that the Reform vote came largely at the SNP's expense, as well as consuming the remaining Tory support, with the Labour % holding roughly steady. Does that make sense?
On first inspection the Hamilton results suggest that the Reform vote came largely at the SNP's expense, as well as consuming the remaining Tory support, with the Labour % holding roughly steady. Does that make sense?
I suspect the number of SNP-Reform switchers is tiny. Some SNP to Labour, some Labour to Reform, and a lot of tory to Reform.
On first inspection the Hamilton results suggest that the Reform vote came largely at the SNP's expense, as well as consuming the remaining Tory support, with the Labour % holding roughly steady. Does that make sense?
I suspect the number of SNP-Reform switchers is tiny. Some SNP to Labour, some Labour to Reform, and a lot of tory to Reform.
Anecdotally, both from our canvassing and I have a friend in the LibDems who related some of their impressions from canvassing (in between fuming at the amount of abuse they were getting from Reform-inclined voters about standing a female, Muslim candidate of South Asian ancestry), the SNP to Reform switch was significant. That may have been in part the absence of Alba, as the SNP is a very broad coalition united only about independence with a lot of voters currently aware that Independence has been stalled - take away Independence from realistic consideration in this by-election (and, add in a desire to send a message to the SNP for not doing more to work towards that goal) and Reform appealed to the Alba-leaning end of the pro-Indy support. Whether pro-Indy voters will continue to lend an ultra-Unionist party like Reform their protest vote when electing people to serve 5 years rather than 11 months is another question that's very difficult to answer. I suspect the hope of progress towards Independence will be more significant next year, and quite a few of those protest votes will return to the SNP.
Thanks for the correction and additional info. I should learn never to underestimate the cognitive dissonance/incoherence of the electorate, particularly swing voters.
A different vibe, certainly. But the cognitive dissonance/incoherence of a large portion of the electorate seems to be a universal feature of democracy. That portion of the electorate that would vote for someone with whom they hold very little in common to "send a message" to the government and/or the party they usually vote for seems to be present everywhere; Reform have benefitted in England, as did Johnson and Trump, and the vote to leave the EU falls into a similar category. Often evidenced by people saying "that's not what I voted for" when they vote someone into power who proceeds to do exactly what they said they would.
Comments
I think we're in total agreement actually - I did find it surprisingly well-written and persuasive, but I wasn't actually persuad*ed* - my final sentence is basically your post! Red Tory - the book - is an elegant (really) fantasy. I imagine Blue Labour is of the same ilk.
I think the commonality is that they both owe a heavy debt to very conservative readings of Catholic Social Teaching
Off the top of my head, I suppose the example from the left is probably something like the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, but starting with the disadvantage that Tressell/Noonan/Croker wasn't in a position to lead the country, unlike Disraeli.
My apologies to the late Lord Sutch - of course I meant Monster Raving Loony Party.
Fat fingers or damned auto-correct!
Get your act together, Labour!
Reform won by a convincing margin. Voters don't appear to see the discrepancy in voting for a candidate whose stated aim is to axe council services which benefit some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
The victorious candidate is very capable but certainly won't be able to fulfil their cloud-cuckoo land promises about reducing the precept and putting more money in people's pockets.
There is some consolation in the fact that there are sufficient sensible councillors to absorb and minimise the impact.
I bear them no ill will on a personal level but deplore the party they represent and the bottomless promises touted in their campaign.
I don't see the wheels falling off the Farage-mobile just yet but eventually people may realise that the Emperor has no clothes.
Brain bleach needed now
Longer term, it's difficult to forecast (especially from by-election results which are always a bit anomalous), but I hope that the poor performance of councillors (both in Reform councillors failing to even take their seats, and with not getting work done) and the chaos at the top with executive resignations will erode any pretence they can make of being a viable vote for actually getting anything happen. If Reform poll similar proportions next year then there may be some constituencies that go that way (I expect that won't happen), but there will be a significant number of regional Reform MSPs, I'm hoping that we've seen the peak of the Reform wave, and by next year that support will be declining.
The biggest issue is that Reform squeeze support from smaller parties. The media cast this by-election as "will Reform make a break through?" and I suspect that lead to many voters who would naturally vote for one of the smaller parties voting SNP or Labour, not through agreement with their policies but to keep out Reform. Certainly on the doorstep there was a strong binary split caused by Reform, a significant number of people saying they were voting Reform before closing the door on us and a significant number who were concerned about Reform and considering who best to vote for to keep them out. I don't see that changing over the next year, unless Reform totally implode before the election (I can dream).
I suspect the number of SNP-Reform switchers is tiny. Some SNP to Labour, some Labour to Reform, and a lot of tory to Reform.