[Cromwell]

I'm not sure if this has already been discussed (I've looked in the UK and Socialism topics), but what is the board's opinion of Blue Labour?

For those who don't know, the idea of Blue Labour is an attempt to attach the Labour Party to a social conservative position on topics such as immigration and family. It comes not only from a need for Labour to cast of its association with Blair and New Labour but, also, a perceived liberalisation on social issues on the part of the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives are the ones behind the legalisation of same-sex marriage, for example, and they continue to resist a discussion of the immigration issue and have pushed the EU referendum up to 2017.

Whilst Blue Labour hasn't become official policy, as was initially expected, could a social conservative Labour Party be successful? Would any of the British members of this board consider voting for them?

For a more in-depth explanation; here's the Wikipedia page.

[Heisenberg]

In principle, I like the idea behind Blue Labour. Maurice Glasman seems like a very reasonable, intelligent man. The problem is that the Labour Party is so infested with neoliberal whipping boys that the movement/tendency/whatever you want to call it was dead in the water before it could get anywhere. Glasman was denounced with the usual hysterical accusations of "racism" simply for opposing immigration (of course, proving how out of touch with reality the leaders of the Labour party are, since mass immigration primarily harms the working class), and that was pretty much that.

The Conservatives are the ones behind the legalisation of same-sex marriage, for example, and they continue to resist a discussion of the immigration issue and have pushed the EU referendum up to 2017.

Just to address this: the "Conservative" party is nothing of the kind. They are concerned with Thatcherite economic dogma and nothing else: things like same-sex marriage are token gestures, designed to win a few votes from middle class liberals. Cameron has no intention of actually implementing an EU referendum (it's incredibly unlikely he'll be re-elected in 2015 anyway, and with the entire liberal establishment completely in tow to the EU project, the odds of a balanced picture being given to the public are approximately nil. Another win for "democracy").

[slybaldguy]

Maurice who? The Labour party isn't socially conservative just look at their previous 13 years in office. They opened the doors to mass immigration, introduced civil partnerships and embraced cutural marxism. The Labour Party will say whatever it thinks the electorate wants to hear. However, you can't trust them now anymore than you could when Blair was at the helm. The whole political establishment is essentially nihilistic and concerned soley with self-preservation.

[Heisenberg]

I think you've missed the point of the OP. The ethos of "Blue Labour" was that the working class (which Labour is supposed to represent) is inherently socially conservative, unlike the liberal metropolitan elite that currently runs the Labour party. Maurice Glasman is/was the main voice of Blue Labour, and emphasised a soft form of social nationalism rather than the bland, rootless cosmopolitan shambles that characterised Blair's government.

I agree with you that the Labour party is beyond saving, and if I had my way most of its MPs would be put before a firing squad. But the OP asked specifically about Blue Labour, rather than Miliband's rabble.

[slybaldguy]

I thought the point of the OP was that "Blue Labour" could be the saviour of the Labour Party? Strategically, i don't see how it could work for the LP. The target audience has shrunk dramatically over the last 30 years and most of them would vote labour anyway. They'd alienate the centreground, minorties and business. It would be electoral suicide and a mark of absolute desperation. I'm glad we agree that Labour is finished; now quit whining and come just my pan-national party.

[Cromwell]

To clarify, I was asking if Blue Labour could be successful and not saying that it could be.

For what it's worth, I believe it could have worked if it had been fully implemented upon Milliband's election; they'd have had over four years to get everyone familiar with the concept and might even have tempted some Tory backbenchers to cross the floor (there were quite a few rebellions in 2011/2012).

Now, since it's been neither fully embraced nor rejected and just allowed to hang around with no real direction, it will probably hurt Labour. Tories are, usually, very partisan aligned and would've switched there vote just because there might be a social conservative influence within the Labour Party.

A third party really is the only chance for conservatives. Unfortunately, UKIP have been so watered down that I don't even they'd be prepared to actually do any of the things they talk about.

[Gletkin]

the idea of Blue Labour is an attempt to attach the Labour Party to a social conservative position on topics such as immigration and family.

So nazbol-light?
Not really something all that new. Sounds a lot like sizeable sections of the Australian Labour Party that helped pass their country's former Whites-only immigration policy.

[Heisenberg]

So nazbol-light?

No, not at all. Probably more akin to the Gaitskellite wing in the 1950s. Just because it isn't fluffy bunny liberalism, it doesn't mean it's automatically a tyrannical menace, or some variation thereof. Britain barely even has anything resembling a "nazbol" tradition.

[Gletkin]

Well no not literally...hence the "light".
But social rightism combined with economic "leftism" isn't exactly new.
Afterall most mainstream labor unions routinely excluded women, minorities, and immigrants.
Mainstream social democrats also largely yielded to the prevailing prejudices of the times. You had to go to the communists and the anarchists for more consistent opposition to racism, nativism, sectarianism, etc..

Britain barely even has anything resembling a "nazbol" tradition.

Perhaps. Nevertheless Troy Southgate is a prominent "national anarchist" and prior to that very "nazbolish".
His "National Revolutionary Faction" didn't last all that long, but it did exist.

Also depending on what you count as "economic leftism" the BNP itself might count.

[Heisenberg]

But social rightism combined with economic "leftism" isn't exactly new.

That's sort of the whole point that Glasman is making. Blue Labour is meant to be the Labour Party "getting back to its roots", because the majority of the population is considerably more socially conservative than the Labour elite.

Perhaps. Nevertheless Troy Southgate is a prominent "national anarchist" and prior to that very "nazbolish".
His "National Revolutionary Faction" didn't last all that long, but it did exist.

Well, yes, you get people with radical political beliefs everywhere. I wouldn't say that Britain has a "national anarchist" or "nazbol" tradition based on this one guy, who I'd never heard of before your post. (I sincerely doubt that anyone I know has heard of him either)

The BNP, if anything, is an expression of the whole "Blue Labour" idea taken way too far. While Nick Griffin and the other pond life at the top may be creepy ex-Nazis, that probably isn't true of the average BNP voter. I don't want to sound like I'm playing semantic games, but I would say the BNP is a reaction to the lack of an influential, reasonable right-wing group within Labour (as opposed to the current conventional wisdom, that "Blue Labour" is reacting to/appeasing a rising neo-fascist tendency).

[Gletkin]

I wouldn't say that Britain has a "national anarchist" or "nazbol" tradition based on this one guy, who I'd never heard of before your post. (I sincerely doubt that anyone I know has heard of him either)

I'd say that most people haven't heard of any sort of "national communism" or Strasserism period. Even though they seemed to rise in direct response to the seeming triumph of cosmopolitan global capitalism 20 years ago. Almost a simplistic "Whatever you support, I oppose" stance.
But maybe about 8-16 years ago many websites that espoused these kind of ideologies held by the likes of Alexander Prokhanov or the European Liberation Front often mentioned Southgate.

I don't want to sound like I'm playing semantic games, but I would say the BNP is a reaction to the lack of an influential, reasonable right-wing group within Labour

To me it seemed more like what I just said: the triumph of cosmospolitan globalist capitalism that included the center-left's abandonment of their traditional roles of "looking out for the little guy" in their zeal to prove their "fiscal responsibility". Labour DID actually fall under the leadership of "an influential, reasonable right-wing group"....but an American economic style "right-wing".
Hence, the transfer of some working-class support to outfits who promise to look out for the (native-born heterosexual *INSERT "APPROPRIATE" ETHNICITY AND RELIGION HERE*) little guy.

[Heisenberg]

Hmmm, I think we're talking past each other. When I talk about "social conservatism", I don't mean "racial purity", which is what you're implying with "native-born heterosexual *INSERT "APPROPRIATE" ETHNICITY AND RELIGION HERE*". I already said that I believed "Blue Labour" was something like Hugh Gaitskell's version of the Labour Party, and I'd love to see you demonstrate that he was some sort of race-baiting populist. "Social conservatism" means just that: proper application of law and order (which New Labour was very soft on, with nonsense like ASBOs and the Human Rights Act), which is far more applicable to inner city estates than wealthy London suburbs; limiting immigration (although not in a hysterical "kick out all foreigners" way; merely acknowledging that mass immigration is a short-sighted "solution" to Britain's economic problems); maintaining high standards in education, etc.

I'd also like to point out that it is a myth that New Labour was "right wing". It was certainly economically liberal, but its social policies (banning grammar schools, deliberately opening Britain up to mass immigration, scrapping double jeopardy, etc) were anything but conservative.

[Gletkin]

Hmmm, I think we're talking past each other.

Not necessarily.

When I talk about "social conservatism", I don't mean "racial purity", which is what you're implying with "native-born heterosexual *INSERT "APPROPRIATE" ETHNICITY AND RELIGION HERE*

Not all social conservatives are racist, but racism is part of SC's fringe.
It's how people like Alain de Benoiste gets tagged "New Rightist" despite his many stances that seem more aligned with the left on just about any issue other than race or ethnicity.

"Social conservatism" means just that: proper application of law and order (which New Labour was very soft on, with nonsense like ASBOs and the Human Rights Act), which is far more applicable to inner city estates than wealthy London suburbs; limiting immigration (although not in a hysterical "kick out all foreigners" way; merely acknowledging that mass immigration is a short-sighted "solution" to Britain's economic problems); maintaining high standards in education, etc.

As I've been saying, it's all a matter of degree.
Moderate SCs aren't "kick out all foreigners", some extreme SCs are.

But sure, "Blue Labour" could be the British version of some of America's "Blue Dog Democrats". A blend of center-left economics and center-right social policies.
I was being sort of tongue-in-cheek with the nazbol thing.

I'd also like to point out that it is a myth that New Labour was "right wing". It was certainly economically liberal

Which is why I said:

Labour DID actually fall under the leadership of "an influential, reasonable right-wing group"....but an American economic style "right-wing".

Thanks to US global hegemony many "rightists" have incorporated the American "conservative" value of a generally free-market approach to economics.
Well that, and military adventurism abroad to support such global economic interests.
Would you dispute that Blair's "New Labour" has been like that?

[SE23]

The new left aren't in favor for the working class anymore than the conservatives, if anything they are calling for something more conservative; hence why the transition from the 1980's labour to Blair's third way" led to a massive change towards the BNP. Labour will have a large pool of immigrants in the U.K, who will vote if they can for labour; eventually the conservatives will start appeasing to the conservative immigrant communities and second generation ones who have made it to the middle class.

[Decky]

Also depending on what you count as "economic leftism" the BNP itself might count.

This.

The OP seems to be suggesting old Labour economic policies but with the fucking over of anyone who isn't white/ straight along with a pro traditional family and pro millitary line.

Oh and this

The new left aren't in favor for the working class anymore than the conservatives,

A million miles of this, the left has been hijacked by some rich London scum, who only ever meet the working class when their cleaner/ nanny/ garderner comes round. It is no wonder thant the working class hate the let when we are identified with these scum.

[Cromwell]

The OP seems to be suggesting old Labour economic policies but with the fucking over of anyone who isn't white/ straight along with a pro traditional family and pro millitary line.

I'm not suggesting anything; Blue Labour is an internal party tendency (I'm not a member of the Labour Party and, probably, never will be).

The fact is this: New Labour no longer speaks to the working class and the Conservative Party no longer speaks to the social conservatives, Blue Labour represents a desire by some in the party to capitalise on both opportunities.

[trombonepolitician]

When we talk about "social conservatism," to what extent are we talking, here? I'm an American, so the extent of social conservatism is very extreme here. The push to define marriage as one-man-one-woman, radically pro-life (I'm moderately pro-choice, sorry), and closed borders.

[Decky]

Here it does not have such a religous element to it. Our state religion (the Church of England) is for people that are Christian in name only (indeed the only advantage to a state church is that it obliterates religous enthusiasm all together).

So a conservetive would belive in keeping the monarchy, keeping the church of England as the state religion and keeping the unellected bishops in the house of lords but not give much of a shit about enforcing Christian behavior on to people in their day to day lives. Americans find it odd as your protestants are mentaly observent but ours are the oposite.

[Heisenberg]

The OP seems to be suggesting old Labour economic policies but with the fucking over of anyone who isn't white/ straight along with a pro traditional family and pro millitary line

In what way does it suggest that? Why is everyone in this thread intent on an exaggerated, binary definition of social conservatism? It's perfectly possible to believe in limited immigration without wanting to round people up and send them to gas chambers. Maurice Glasman's from a Jewish immigrant background himself, for God's sake.

[trombonepolitician]

In what way does it suggest that? Why is everyone in this thread intent on an exaggerated, binary definition of social conservatism? It's perfectly possible to believe in limited immigration without wanting to round people up and send them to gas chambers. Maurice Glasman's from a Jewish immigrant background himself, for God's sake.

Right. It's not like I want open borders. And I want immigrants that are encouraged to learn American language and customs. And I want them to pay taxes.