Blue cider and Labour paradox

“Blue Labour: Forging a New Politics” is a somewhat peculiar book, edited by Ian Geary and Adrian Pabst. Blue Labour is a political tendency within the British Labour Party. It's really the twin of Phillip Blond's Red Tory tendency within the Conservative Party. Both are inspired by John Milbank, an Anglican theologian of the “Radical Orthodoxy” variety. This gives Blue Labour a somewhat surreal quality, since its main talking point is that the Labour Party must adopt more conservative-sounding policies in order to defeat David Cameron's Conservative government. Yet, Red Tory simultaneously lobbies the very same Cameron, hoping that *he* will implement a similar political agenda! While Blue Labour claims to be based on the best traditions of the British labour movement, the contributors to “Blue Labour: Forging a New Politics” pays tribute to Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, Benjamin Disraeli, G K Chesterton and the Romantic tradition, while occasionally referencing Blond's book “Red Tory”. Catholic social teaching, including Leo XIII's “Rerum Novarum”, is another important source of inspiration. The book comes with a foreword by Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Many of the articles are written in a super-theoretical style and/or employ unfamiliar political terminology. Very often, the contributors call Blue Labour's politics “paradoxical”, but see this as something positive. The occasional references to good wines or fine ciders, or paeans to Wordsworth's poetry, make you wonder exactly how far removed from Labour's working class constituency these guys might be? It's as if we stumbled across a more political subset of the Inklings…

But yes, “Blue Labour” also contains political proposals. The main line of argument is opposition to both economic and social liberalism, and a return to more traditional values (sometimes identified as traditional working class values). The contributors oppose both the welfare state and neo-liberal capitalism in favor of Distributism, although this word is never actually used. The state-financed public sector should be decentralized and taken over by cooperatives of employees and users. Private businesses should be co-managed by workers. Guilds should take over vocational training and (perhaps) control employment opportunities, while immigration from both “East” Europe and the Third World should be significantly reduced. Regional banks that only lend to people living in “their” region should be established. Family values, a living wage, and opposition to a debt-ridden economy are other tenets of the Blue Labour message. For a supposed labour tendency, the book says little about unions, collective bargaining rights and the right to strike. Instead, it concentrates on community organizations, including some that are faith-based. Sometimes, contours of an alternative political system become visible, with “guildhalls” becoming some kind of second chambers to the local or regional councils. In other words, corporatism (but that word isn't used either).

Blue Labour's program strike me as utopian as it stands. It attacks the state, but the only way to implement the proposed program is through a strong state. Or does Blue Labour seriously believe that transnational corporations or “the City of London” will voluntarily accede to its demands? Certain elements of Blue Labour's program can easily be misused by the establishment, such as “family values” (to get female unemployed off the welfare rolls…back to the kitchen) or “decentralize the public sector” (to cut back on public expenditure and hence on corporate taxes). Just as Blond's “Red Tory”, “Blue Labour” never mentions what role, if any, Islam will play in a future Britain. Many Muslims can probably support Blue Labour's program, provided that it gives equal consideration to their communities and the sharia. Nor does the book say anything about foreign policy. “Red Tory”, for its part, sound isolationist. Of course, if the centralized British state collapses due to war, famine, peak oil or social conflict, something similar to Blue Labour's paradoxical agenda might emerge automatically, but that's a somewhat different proposition!

I'm not saying that every proposal found in this volume is wrong. I happen to agree that the hedonistic version of “liberalism” (right or “left”) is unworkable in a world hit by ecological crises, energy crises, permanently high unemployment, rampant terrorism and mounting great power tension. Nations (whether elective or ethnic) who want to survive will have to rebuild community and solidarity. More frugality, both personal and societal, is also necessary. Personally, however, I still feel that a democratic state has an important role to play in the process. So have nation-wide interest organizations, such as unions. If theologians with a taste for fine ciders can play a role, only time will tell…