Labour members are guilty of prejudice and discrimination

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 themself to be fit to lead and govern.

Brian Back.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Labour members are guilty of prejudice and discrimination

  1. I sympathise. of course, it’s the Iraq business and his subsequent “sod all of you” attitude. I didn’t vote for him as leader, but I do recognise that what his govt did held back the ravages of these bandits. Brown needs the censuring – good Chancellor, shite PM. Now we see what these arseholes really want, they knew they destroy the LDs, anyone of us didn’t see that is short of grey matter.

    What is be coming clear to me is that we need to question very fundamentally the notion of the supremacy of Parliament. With less than 50% of the popular vote, courts subject entirely to the laws they force through, we have a parliamentary dictatorship, no secure checks and balances. That’s why the ECHR battle will be so crucial.

    If they try to pull us out of that, we need to get a case to Strasbourg pronto, the day the Bill is published. Why? Because A5something, which is about ‘denunciation’ by a State Party, says that any case brought relating to a matter before that date still goes to Strasbourg.

    Never mind the Blair stuff (did you see the poll which asked public and Labour supporters which previous Labour they would most like back – Blair by streets! Isn’t that funny?) I count myself well to the left BTW.

    The EU tripe – let me see, rampant Brit capitalism or the former welfare-turning-monetarist EU capitalism – the free flow of capital, TIPP. Watch carefully everyone. Either way, it’s not good at all.

    What odds on a Greek default. Their referendum, a masterstroke, called early as well. Ho ho. Banks shut today. Hmmmmm

    Like

  2. I think the writer misunderstands the nature of prejudice and discrimination. To dislike those in power who work against your best interests is neither of those things.
    A few things, other than Iraq, that I hold against Third Way politics
    Believing you can have ‘responsible’ capitalism. Even if you are not a full blown socialist you should understand the role of a party of the people is to hold the market in check, not deregulate it.
    Privatising the NHS – by stealth, so no one realised what was going on. The 2012 Act was only so effective because all the pieces had been put in place -from their very first piece of legislation in 1997 to almost their last in 2009 Labour broke up the NHS and crippled it with debt. (Real, not Osborne fictional debt)
    Bailing out the banks without re regulating properly or nationalising them
    Refusing to implement – or even have – public health policy that works
    Being anti Union
    Abolishing Clause 4
    Paying nursery vouchers instead of creating public nurseries. The result is we now have the most expensive private childcare in Europe second only to Switzerland.
    Creating the Work Capability Assessment and employing Atos
    There’s more….

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Blair was PM from 1997 to 2007. The years leading up to the GFC. He is considered successful in Labour circles due to winning three elections.

    He achieved his success by expanding the economy through the creation of private credit. That works very well in the short term. Government reduces interest rates, deregulates lending and hey presto we have an economic boom as more lending creates addition money and additional demand in the economy. Government’s revenues surge. They even managed a surplus about the turn of the century.The snag is that private lending also creates private debts which build up in the economy and, in the end stifle it. In the end the boom has to turn to bust.

    So we have to ask if Tony Blair was really that successful? Or if he really was building his electoral success on the failure of the future?

    We need to put on our economic thinking caps, work out a new expansionary policy, and really ask if the modern day convention wisdoms are really that wise at all? To an extent there is no alternative. Interest rates can’t go any lower. We can’t create another credit led boom even if we wanted to.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s