Blue Labour Blues

There is a kernel of a good argument in Blue Labour's analysis, but they have a messenger, motivation and messaging problem that blinds them - and their critics - to it.

This is the fortnightly paid version of my weekly email. I rely, in part, on the income I earn from my writing, so I would be delighted if you would sign up or upgrade!

The price of this newsletter is £5 per month or £50 for an annual subscription. Paid subscribers get double the content - full access to everything I write on a weekly, rather than fortnightly, basis.

When I read Blue Labour’s ‘about’ page, I find myself agreeing with quite a lot of the words on the page. But I do so with a fierce resistance. Because there is an awful lot that remains unsaid on that page that Blue Labour’s public figures relish saying and they revel in the fights that saying so brings them. Their ‘about’ is not what they often seem to be about.

In part, what I hear from Blue Labour rubs me up the wrong way because I am much more liberal than they are or want to be. Though I have my critiques of the way liberalism is thought about and promoted in the 21st century - some of which is shared by Blue Labour.

One of these is a concern about the commodification of individualism. Liberal capitalism morphed into a capitalistic liberalism where the marketisation of representative individuals mattered more than deeper societal change. But a rejection of this commodification should not lead to a rejection of the values of fighting for individual expression and against oppression that stems from individual traits such as race, sex or sexuality.

For Blue Labour, there is no value in individualism. Their politics is only about groups - be those family, religious or neighbourhood (though not those in cities, which - sorry - are strong neighbourhoods too).