‘Blairite’ might be an insult but only his politics will get Labour back into power

by Brian Back

The Labour party has always fought for equal treatment, and against prejudice and discrimination, but, in their desperation to steer the party in a certain direction, and get their favoured leadership candidate elected; many party members are now betraying their own ideals and values.

Those on the left continually decry the prejudicial stereotyping of people; such as those who rely on benefits, who are universally labelled as ‘scroungers’ or cheats’. We hate the lack of opportunities available for young black men; who are labelled as criminals, gangsters, thugs and muggers, harassed by the police and discriminated against by educators, employers and politicians. We favour positive discrimination in our candidate selection procedures, as a way to address gender-bias and the under-representation of women in politics.

Equality and fairness is our rallying cry, but we are failing to practice what we preach.

We have created a negative stereotype regarding one group within our Party. We have turned them into the ‘Other’ and the unwelcome outsider, tarring them all with the same brush, failing to treat them as individuals who deserve to be judged on their own actions and merits.

The group I am talking about; is ‘Blairites’.

‘Blairite’ has now become an insult, or term of abuse.

The term ‘Blairite’, now has incredibly negative connotations attached to it, with anyone labelled as such, somehow seen as ‘not really Labour’, or even a traitor to the cause.

Blairites are castigated for the desire to take Labour onto the centre-ground, therefore supposedly abandoning left-wing values, ideals and aims. In short, Blairites are criticised for compromising; for making deals with ‘the enemy’.

Those who criticise Blairites for this are forgetting the fundamental axiom of politics: the entire point and goal of politics is compromise– to reach agreement between different factions and interests, so as to come to some kind of ‘middle-ground’ that all can accept and agree with.

That’s how society functions– through compromise and agreement.

Politics exists purely for this purpose; to reach a compromise and agreement. To reject compromise, is to invite strife, conflict, revolution, or even civil war.

Therefore, centre-ground politics is not only intelligent politics; it is also moral and ethical politics.

That’s why Blair was so successful, because he understood this fundamental point; to unite the nation, we must reach a centre-ground between hugely diverging opinions on what is considered to be the right, fair and just approach to organising our society.

That being the case, the only person who ever really earns the right to govern and lead the nation, is the person who is willing to compromise- to take all views and interests into consideration, so that all parties can feel in some way represented by the country’s government. Anyone who can’t, or won’t compromise is therefore not fit to lead or govern.

Without the willingness and ability to compromise, there is no peace and unity- in a political party, or in the nation as a whole; there is only conflict. For the perfect example of this, we need look no further than the troubles in Northern Ireland, whose intransigent politicians and fundamentalist militant groups doomed their country to years of violence and strife.

Crucially, it was Blair himself who played the key part in bringing some semblance of peace to that country, bringing opposing groups to the table, to reach some form of compromise and agreement.

Blair’s ‘Third Way’ was the perfect example of centre-ground politics, that not only sought to unite competing interests, but also sought to combine the best elements of competing approaches, to create a synthesis- in which oppositional approaches and interests are brought together and reconciled.

Blair united the interests of business, with the social movement for a fairer society; seeking to use the rewards of a thriving economy to enable massive investment in public services, particularly education. This then brought outcomes that were pleasing to all, as, for example: a better-educated society meant not only more equal opportunities and greater social mobility, but also a much more productive workforce.

This is how politics should be conducted’; it is the ‘holy grail’ of politics- a true ‘One Nation’ approach. Political movements or parties that only seek to advance their own ideology or cause, without thought for opposing interests, doom the country to an eternal cycle of political and social conflict and strife.

David Cameron’s government is a perfect demonstration of this, as its policy of pursuing ideological goals and factional interests, without thought or concern for those disenfranchised by our electoral system, has led to continual protest, unrest and conflict. The recent austerity marches are not only a clear illustration of the Tories’ flawed approach, they also provide incontestable proof that the Tories are not fit to govern.

Therefore, we can see that Third Way, centre-ground, Blairite politics; that seeks to compromise, unite and synthesise, should be applauded, not castigated.

The problem we face within our Party; is that many people have misunderstood the meaning of the term ‘Blairite’. Unfortunately, people have come to perceive those politicians labelled as ‘Blairite’, as being politicians who would agree with, or do, everything that Tony Blair did. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Just because Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq, does not mean that all Blairites would do something similar.

We have to disentangle and disassociate Blair, from ‘Blairite’.

To be Blairite, is to share his approach, not to copy all his actions.

To be a Blairite, is to be a Third-Way, centre-ground politician, who seeks to unite opposing interests, factions and classes; to promote both wealth creation and social justice; seeking a strong economy for a fairer society.

To be Blairite, is to be intelligent, moral and unifying.

And in case we forget:

To be Blairite, because of these things, is to be successful.

This being the case, we should see that an insistence on a no-compromise, ideologically-pure approach, is to choose ignorance (of the purpose of politics) over intelligence.

It is to choose division, over unification; and conflict, over harmony.

It is to choose defeat, over success.

So let’s look again at those who we name, and seek to shame; as ‘Blairites’.

The truth is; they have not sold out, or abandoned their ideals.

They have instead understood the fundamental principle and purpose of politics.

They have not shown themselves to be ‘Tory-lite’, or a traitor to the cause.

They have instead, shown themselves to be fit to lead and govern.

Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner who blogs at brianbackblog


Tags: , , , , ,


24 Responses to “‘Blairite’ might be an insult but only his politics will get Labour back into power”

  1. Biter says:

    ‘The recent austerity marches are not only a clear illustration of the Tories’ flawed approach, they also provide incontestable proof that the Tories are not fit to govern.’

    You were doing reasonably well up until then. Obviously that isn’t true on any level and illustrates the cosy comfort zone adopted by some on the left.

    Also, in the earlier part of the article you talk about the unemployed being characterised as scroungers or black youth as criminals as if this is a given.

    The majority of people on the centre ground whether they vote Labour or Conservative do not hold that view as they are able to distinguish between truth and hyperbole quite well on their own.

    Until Labour supporters, and I am one, get their head around that and incorporate it into their policies, they will be consigned to the wilderness I am afraid.

  2. Mike Homfray says:

    Then we will stay out of power, because over our collective dead bodies will you lot be allowed to get hold of the Labour party again

    If you are so sure of youur case then why do you wish to be entryists into a democratic socialist party? Set up your own with the remainder of the Orange Book LibDems. It would be coherent – socially and economically liberal, right of centre. Then we can be left to provide a socialist and social democratic alternative

  3. oliver says:

    ‘Those on the left continually decry the prejudicial stereotyping of people.’

    I would suggest that the Left are guilty of doing this more than any other demographic.

  4. Kevin T says:

    To be Blairite is to fool the electorate into thinking you’re a “centre ground” moderate and once you get in power, pursue the most radical left wing policies the country has ever seen, including throwing open the door to half a million immigrants a year and making it illegal to be politically incorrect. Why else do fanatics like Harriet Harman and Dan Hodges have no problem being Blairites?

  5. Harry says:

    Fascinating and a lot of common sense is written

    Except…..

    In seeking the middle ground, the consensus, do we begin by labelling those who were successful as flawed? Surely they were closer to the position you talk of BECAUSE of their appeal.

    Until Labour stops positioning itself as the ONLY alternative and at least recognises that other views might well appeal to voters, it will NEVER attain the position you aspire to.

  6. Fubar Saunders says:

    Oh puhleeze. You mention the words “Blair” and “ethics” in the same sentence???

    Really??? Iraq war, expenses scandal, “must be seen to be whiter than white”, cash for honours, 100 year Dunblane D-Notice…..?

    and….

    “Those on the left continually decry the prejudicial stereotyping of people; such as those who rely on benefits, who are universally labelled as ‘scroungers’ or cheats’.

    Apart from anyone who doesnt agree with the narrative who is instantly dismissed as a swivel eyed Mail reading lunatic/racist.

    “We favour positive discrimination in our candidate selection procedures, as a way to address gender-bias and the under-representation of women in politics.”

    Er, right. I’ve got two words for that. “Jack” and “Dromey”. Hows that all female candidate selection process coming along, guys? Not to mention the Red Princes, Straw, Kinnock and Blair the Younger being groomed for safe seats. How’s that “getting rid of the hereditary/establishment partriarchy” thing going?

    You can be as Blairite as you like, but guys, you gotta start by clearing out the yawning gulf between what you say you’ll do and what you actually end up doing. Hypocrisy is not a good thing to win votes. People are starting to see through it.

    Cameron is beyond doubt, the weakest Tory leader since Ted Heath. The only reason he was PM and remains PM is because he was the public’s perception of the Least Worst Alternative. In that way, he is indeed, the heir to Blair and has stolen back the Tory clothes that Blair stole from Major in the 1990s.

    You dont need to steal them back from him. You need to have a vision, to articulate it and to make it work and sell it to us voters. And, you’re not really any closer to doing that.

  7. John P Reid says:

    I’m not sure if Blair really believed, that “the right of the party hasn’t any ideas” that he was attracted to Marx through Lenin, that the police were wrong in the miners strike, and Scargill was right, that Benn was best for deputy,or that he really supported CND.

    He certainly was talking about getting rid of Clause 4,in coded messages in 1992 and didn’t believe the John Smith one more push way would win it for labour in 97, during 1993,

    whether those who campaigned for Laobur in 2001, when we were defending our 4 years in power so far,a nd it had been a sucsess, would have done so, had we known about Iraq, is questionable, but I don’t think the term Blairite is one of abuse I’m a Blairite and I voted for Ed to be leader 5 years ago, I stick by that decision as David didn’t understand how unpopular we were over the snouts in the Troff

    But there are those who were loyal to Blair who are backing Yvette, Luke Akehurst, Dan Hodges, Chris Leslie Chris Bryant, Liam Byrne, and there are those Backing Andy who were similar David Blunkett Charlie Falconer,
    similar with the Deputy, many People myself Included admire Tom Watkins from the things he did 20 plus years ago, at the time bringing conference into the 20th century, Now we need change to bring us into the 21st Century, and Ben Bradshaw is one person who can do that, but many Blairites are Backing Angela Eagle, Gavin Shukar Mike Gapes.

    yes The centre ground is needed, but he centre ground has shifted and we need a stronger more organised party , something Blair inherited (as did wilson 30 years earlier) to really win.

  8. Bill Quango MP says:

    David Cameron’s government is a perfect demonstration of this, as its policy of pursuing ideological goals and factional interests, without thought or concern for those disenfranchised by our electoral system, has led to continual protest, unrest and conflict.

    Utter, utter tosh.
    Cameron’s government did EXACTLY what you are suggesting labour should do. Move to the centre.He alienated his core hard line on the right, who went to UKIP.
    But he hoovered up lib dem votes that should have been labour’s.
    Cameron, the real heir to Blair, has done what you suggest. And you say that has caused him to fail ??

    I suppose what you mean by ‘middle-ground’ is Labour’s middle ground. Which is some way to the left of where the Tories are and the coalition were.

    Those blinkers need to come off. Otherwise another 10 years of wilderness seems certain.

  9. Owen Morgan says:

    Keep going with this heart-warming, denialist claptrap. You won’t get elected again for fifty years (Good Thing).

  10. Jen The Blue says:

    As right winger, I would suggest there are two issues here. The thrust of the article is correct. Labour will never win an election under a leader who is not centrist like Blair was.

    But Blairite is a toxic lable now. Not so much because of his modernising agenda within your party or his general policies, but because of what and who Blair turned out to be.

    A narcissist. A ruthless liar and hypocrite. Generally, not a trustworthy or decent man, but one who lied to lead Britain into unnecessary wars that killed thousands, then covered it all up.

  11. Tafia says:

    Cameron’s government did EXACTLY what you are suggesting labour should do. Move to the centre

    That is utter rubbish. Cameron shifted rightwards in an attempt to counter UKIP and this tory administration is now more right wing than Thatcher at her peak and far more right wing than the Coalition that preceeded it.

  12. woolfie says:

    “The Labour party has always fought for equal treatment, and against prejudice and discrimination”

    I only had to read the opening sentence to know this was another deluded post. Labour and the left got absolutely smashed at the last election because they DO NOT treat people equally they discriminate and are prejudiced . They hate business people and profit , despite 5.6 million British people owning businesses that generate the bulk of tax revenue that pays for social safety net. They hate with a passion white English men and have a vile discriminatory message about “posh toffs”. Labour hates the British working class ( don’t you Emily?) In short Owen Jones, laurie Penny, Polly Tonibee, Eon Clarke, Russel Brand et al are haters pure and simple, spending all their time hating, discriminating and vilifying the bulk of ordinary people in this country. Labour only care about minority groups, because they think they can manipulate their vote. Labour has been rumbled and returning to Blairite policies won’t save you

  13. Rob says:

    Blairism is dead and it will never be allowed to take root once more, namely because Blair and everything he stood for has been proven to be to the detriment of the real British people, who are still a majority despite his best efforts.

    You lot can either embrace the people and get with the changing mood or you can die on the vine. Choosing Burnham or Corbyn will prove that you have learned nothing. In fact you do not have one single candidate up for the leadership who is going to save you.

    You left the English class behind and you will pay for it.

  14. 07052015 says:

    Its dead let it go .Move on ,need new policies aimed at the voters we need and have lost .End of.

  15. Mike Homfray says:

    That means the electorate has shifted to the right

    While that is the case, Labour are unlikely to be re-elected. No point in being elected to do things we think are wrong, unless you are just interested in power for its own sake

  16. John PReid says:

    Enteyists,Mike homfray, you weren’t in th slob ur party between 2003-2009 and as soon as you came back, now the trying to be tht wright of the party ousted,you’re the entryist, and when you say ‘our’ dead bodies,if you think Burnham or Cooper won’t have different views to Kendall,you’re sadly mistaken

  17. John PReid says:

    KevinT labour is opening the borders to immigration ,it was the Tories of john Major who voted for Maastrict,and the reason the far right are against EU immigration is becUse they have to pay people the minimum we,ether sooner have Middle East immigration where they can pay people peanuts,

  18. Robert says:

    It’s simple labour are not needed, we do not need a Tory lite we have the masters of it back.

    The Tories are back and labour is now looking at trying to get Blair regime back into power with New labour, but Blair has gone.

    History tell us once the Tories get in they do well and so far they are looking like a party which can settle into power for a long time.

    It will take a recession or down turn, but even then will people see a Tory lite party needed.

  19. SumGeeza says:

    I am neither a Blairite nor a more left supporter of Labour as there is good to be found in both parts, but what I object to about this article is the religiosity of the piece.

    It is foolish and arrogant to think that only the Labour hard left are capable of being against prejudice etc. This arrogance itself verges on bigotry, and it feels more like the Christian hard right who thinks that god is only on their side.

    Until Labour can purge itself of this foolishness, they are likely to be unelectable.

  20. Twinkle says:

    Does it matter if you are not in power? Isn’t it better to be comfortable with yourself?

  21. John Reid says:

    Mike homfry, you get elected by accepting, centre right policies, like Ustaritz, and that if we tax the rich too much, they leave take their businesses with them, then when in power we swing the centre ground to us, who’d have thought, the Tories party of section 28 winning the biggest vote eve in 1992′ within 20 years ,were pro gay marriage,

  22. Mike Homfray says:

    That would have happened anyway – it was the case of the parliament following what was happening in the community

    Sadly, we simply didn’t make any lasting impact during the 13 wasted years, because there was no fundamental challenge to Thatcherite orthodoxy

  23. John P Reid says:

    The Thatcherite orthodoxy that was the elected 3 times,due to – the public wanting those policies, if we’d stood on a manifesto in 97′ we accept Thatcherism, then ,got in junked it, we’d have been out of power within 4 years the Tories would have got back in, re bought back, her policies and we’d have had 14 more years of Tory policies, and labour would have been finished,seen as liars, and anything good we did between 2001-2010′ sure start, child tax credits,getting the homeless accomodation, wouldn’t have happened,
    Yes you may feel they were wasted years, if corbyn wins we have 20 more years in opposition,I’ll feel they’ll be wasted too.

Leave a Reply