September 10, 2021 - 9:30am
That’s it! True conservatism is dead. Boris Johnson, closet pinko, has ditched the Tories’ traditional low-tax, small state philosophy and, in its stead, adopted some kind of Blue Labour agenda.
Can this be true? Well, certainly it is the case being made by some Right-wing commentators in the wake of the hike in national insurance contributions and the resulting inevitability that the tax burden will hit its highest-ever level.
Assuming that these commentators are referring to the distinct Blue Labour movement, and not using the term as some loose pejorative, I for one don’t buy the analysis. While it is undeniable that the Tories have, over the past couple of years, adopted a kind of “radical on the economy, conservative on culture” Blue Labour posture — to great effect, it must be said, across much of working-class, provincial England, as the 2019 general election showed — there is little evidence that they “get it” instinctively or that the messaging will ever translate into reality.
Would a government that truly placed itself on the side of the working-class seek to make the poorer sections of society pay for the social care crisis, or risk plunging thousands of families into debt by withdrawing the universal credit uplift? It strikes me, as a longstanding supporter of the movement, that these are not measures Blue Labour would ever support.
And the government’s so-called “levelling-up” agenda seems to comprise of not much more than shifting a few offices from Whitehall to the regions, and similar limited or tokenistic measures. Where is the discussion about full employment and how to achieve it? Where is the critique of globalisation and its impact on our communities? How does the government propose to reduce the gap between rich and poor? Is that even its ambition? What radical plan exists to address the chronic shortage of housing? Where are the proposals to rebalance our economic system away from finance capital and towards those who live and work in the real economy? Did someone in government mention an industrial strategy, reindustrialisation or the need to strengthen collective bargaining? If they did, I didn’t hear them. What about workers on boards, vocational education, regional banks, the common good — all key Blue Labour themes?
There is little sense either that the government understands the value that Blue Labour attaches to relationships and community. Where is the recognition of the family as the bedrock of society and the plan to strengthen that institution? How does the government propose to revitalise our disempowered local and relational institutions — the little platoons that fill the space between market and state and are the lifeblood of our civil society: credit unions, friendly societies, faith groups, co-operatives, and other voluntary or campaigning groups.
All of this stuff matters, and any government genuinely concerned about fostering the deepest social solidarity, reinvigorating democracy and restoring a true sense of community, while making our nation more just and equal, would place these questions front and centre.
But it won’t happen under a Boris Johnson government. That’s because, at heart, the prime minister, economically and socially, remains an instinctive libertarian. Blue Labour’s “socialism with a small ‘c’” runs counters to this. Johnson may have the nous to recognise that the movement’s message plays well. But he doesn’t really believe in it.
Paul Embery is a firefighter, trade union activist, pro-Brexit campaigner and ‘Blue Labour’ thinker
PaulEmbery
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAll of the issues mentioned also seem to absent from the agenda of red Labour which is seemingly only concerned with gestures.
I thought at first this piece at first was going to be “Myth of Blue Labour”. I have been trying, honestly, to take Blue Labour seriously but I see nothing in it. If the idea Blue Labour is to emphasise family, locality institutions and so forth then I can see no-one less likely to embody these virtues than Boris Johnson.
As far as family goes that is clearly an institution which has minimal influence on his life and politics apart from as a source of chummocracy. Johnson is, in fact, far more of a “citizen of no-where” than just about anyone else i can think of in political life. Born in New York, raised in Brussels his natural habitat is mainly with financial oligarchs in exclusive holiday places. He becomes visibly bored when meeting ordinary people and has taken a sledgehammer to what remains of the constitution including royal prerogative.
Seriously Paul, did you really ever believe him when he spoke of levelling up? Social Care? forgotten communities? I have questioned you and Blue Labour’s analysis but I never dreamt that you were that naive!
I don’t think Paul was every trying to reconcile Blue Labour with Boris’ Tories. Some commentators have made the claim, suggesting that Boris has swung left on the economy and right on culture which is meant to be the Blue Labour theme. Of course Boris is nowhere near either, as you say. Agreeing with the writer.
A man with a third in PPE, who hobnobbed with the rich and well connected all his life, is from a family of wealth and privilege has no idea about the working class other than he might have picked up in books.
He engaged in the rhetoric he thought would win them over, but that was all it was. He is an unreconstructed arrogant, paternalistic, upper class **** who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the lower classes by tossing them the occasional kind word and carrying on with his own agenda, which he appears to make up as he goes along.
He understands and cares about them about as much as Blair did. And Starmer would be no better.
That is the terrible dilemma we are in.
I thought it was a second in Classics and Oxford doesn’t split second classes.
“While it is undeniable that the Tories have, over the past couple of years, adopted a kind of “radical on the economy, conservative on culture” Blue Labour posture — to great effect, it must be said, across much of working-class, provincial England, as the 2019 general election showed — there is little evidence that they “get it” instinctively or that the messaging will ever translate into reality.”
As Richard Slack pointed out, above, it is a bit naïve to think that they will instinctively ‘get it’. And as willisgra pointed out, neither will ‘Red Labour’.
It is true that the “radical on the economy, conservative on culture” approach appeals to much of the working class, but much of the working class feels politically homeless because they know that neither the Tories nor Labour will deliver. I think Paul Embery is naïve to think that the Labour party could be changed to reflect such opinions. The Tories would not be able to hold the working class votes that they picked up at the last election if there were a credible alternative (which cannot come from Labour). I know that setting up a new party when we have an entrenched two-party system is difficult, but surely the need for a party that is “radical on the economy, conservative on culture” has never been greater? I know that there is the SDP, but they seem to be two men and a dog (and Rod Liddle). There are many other political commentators saying similar things, but no action. I know the riposte will be “why don’t you set up a party yourself” but when there are so many commentators with media clout (including Paul Embery) expressing these opinions, it can’t be left to someone that can only post comments in their spare time.
Paul Embery and Blue Labour peddle, in my view a narrative that is actually dangerously simplistic, indeed even wrong. It goes, roughly
1) The working class are basically conservative morally and deeply patriotic.
2) The Labour Party now consists only of middle-class intellectuals with “woke” opinions (whatever they are)
3) As a result large sections of “traditional” voters have deserted to the Tories.
In reality there is much wrong with this analysis, for example in the 2019 election, excluding pensioners, the Labour Pary polled majorities in all income classes up to £90k, in addition the traditional analysis of class by occupation (ABC1C2 DE) hasn’t largely been changed since the 1960s, a call centre worker on a Zero hours contract is probably now described as middle-class. Class E (semi-skilled and unskilled workers) is now greatly diminished and found mostly amongst the retired. Far from being the epitome of the middle classes a borough like Islington has far higher levels of deprivation that much of the former “red wall” In my constitency of Poplar and Limehouse the 29,000 Labour majority is not coming from middle-class professionals but from those working in services, health distribution retail and all of the really important things that kept the country running in the pandemic. But of course a lot of them do not have white faces.
I do not pretend that much of the Unherd readership is greatly concerned at that, and would not support a Labour Party under any circumstances. However, in my view the “conservative morals, flag, and family Embery proposes (and it seems Starmer supports) will not only not win the Party more support in the “Red Wall areas but lose it in those areas where the support is strong.
Well said
I appreciate your comments – I was born and spent the first 40 years of my life in London and am familiar with Poplar and Limehouse and Islington.
I am not suggesting that Paul Embery’s narrative is perfect, but there is lot of truth in it. Following your three points, I would suggest:
1) The working class are basically conservative morally and tend to be patriotic.
2) Labour Party activists now consist mainly of middle-class intellectuals with “woke” opinions that are not favoured by the working classes, and they are so embedded within the party that there is little chance of changing it.
3) As a result, many “traditional” Labour voters lent their vote to the Tories in the last election, did not vote at all, or voted Labour only because they could not bring themselves to vote Tory and there was no other alternative.
I think the narrative of Blue Labour goes wrong because may people assume (I think wrongly) that when they talk about the working class they interpret it as the white working class. The phrase ‘working class’ also conjures up the language of the 1970’s left, which doesn’t resonate today. I am sure Paul Embery includes those people working in the healthcare, retail and service industries as working class, whatever the colour of their faces. From experience of being born and raised in one of the poorest parts of London with a multi ethnic population, I am also sure that many of those people of Poplar and Limehouse and much of the rest of ‘working class’ London share a morally conservative worldview. I suggest that, in terms of this morally conservative worldview, there is not much difference between these parts of London and the Red Wall constituencies. There are potentially a million or more votes up for grabs for party that could reach out to those people, whatever party that is.
Boris is the most useless man in British politics, yet the most powerful. He has this huge mandate by the fact the Labour committed suicide by Corbyn, yet he is as useless as Corbyn himself.
A glib Popinjay led around on a dog lead by his silly wife, a total sell out to any power who will suck up to him, a man lacking any convictions, a coward who was broken by his brush with death by covid so has run UK into the ground by his hysterical and destructive response to it…
This is absolutely the wrong man at a time the nation needed the right man. Uxbridge needs to vote this fool out. May was 10 times the man he is, Thatcher 1000.
The PM cannot see a child’s arm without wanting to stick a needle with a test vaccine into it. Libertarian, really?
the government’s so-called “levelling-up” agenda seems to comprise of not much more than shifting a few offices from Whitehall to the regions
should read either:
…seems to comprise not much more than…
or:
…seems to be comprised of not much more than…
Otherwise, thought it was a good article. Thankyou.
—your friendly grammar Nazi
Having spent 5 years enabling the Tories and pathing the way for Johnson and for Brexit, Embery is now surprised that he is lumped in with them. Others are less surprised.