AN ENGLISH LABOUR PARTY?
The following article by Jon Cruddas MP is significant not so much because there is any particular novelty in his argument, but because the argument is being expressed at all in the mainstream of the Labour Party. A very welcome contribution to the debate The following is slightly abridged, read in full at the New Statesman.
There is Scottish Labour, there is Welsh Labour and there is Labour. But there is no English Labour. In May’s general election, Labour won in Wales and was ascendant in Scotland. But it lost the election in England. In England, Labour has been driven back into deindustrialised areas; its presence in prosperous parts of the country is tenuous. To avoid becoming a regional party, Labour needs to build a specifically English strategy to win back the support of the working class, the middle classes and those in the south-east.
At the 2005 Labour party conference, Blair described the world as “unforgiving of frailty. No respecter of past reputations. It has no custom and practice.” Blair didn’t see this world as destructive; he celebrated those who are “swift to adapt” and “open, willing and able to change”. These attributes belong mostly to the highly educated from the metropolitan elite. Only those who are open to this world will be rewarded by it.
Creative friction
Those sections of the population which followed Blair’s call have now discovered that the British economy cannot deliver the dream. Their hard work and adaptability have resulted in stagnant or falling incomes, debt and chronic insecurity. The majority simply did not benefit from the boom in the way the rich did.By the end, New Labour had a dystopian “winner takes all” ethos, which subordinated commitment, fidelity and loyalty to the rule of anonymous and unpredictable market forces. It promoted a free-market system that destroys ethical values and social cohesion, and deracinates cultural identity. This world-view played a large part in the collapse of Labour’s support and left behind an acquisitive individualism cut loose from social obligations. It opened the door for David Cameron’s compassionate conservatism, and left space for a progressive development of the Liberal-Conservative coalition.
Labour has to win back this terrain with a language that can encompass both cosmopolitan modernity and English conservative culture, linking them together in a sense of national purpose. It would incorporate all the things Blair dismissed as anachronisms: tradition; a respect for settled ways of life; a sense of local place and belonging; a desire for home and rootedness; the continuity of relationships at work and in one’s neighbourhood.
Devolution is creating new kinds of plural, alliance-making politics in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The great absence from this development is England. But Englishness is not silent among the people, only among a political elite frightened by the threats of ethnic intolerance and bigotry. This gulf between the political elite and the electorate is responsible for the threats to Labour’s future: resistance to immigration, racism, a politics of resentment, an uncontested right-wing press.
Labour has to engage with the electorate and fashion its own cultural language of Englishness. It must move away from the unitary British state towards a new kind of federated settlement of nations within the UK and towards a federated party structure. Labour’s prospects as a governing party will be determined in England. An English leader of the Labour Party offers the opportunity to build an identity to respond to white English ethnic nationalism.
Roots to unity
The new nationalist politics are a reaction to New Labour’s dystopian world-view. It is a corrosive expression of resentment caused by the cultural and economic devastations of globalisation and deindustrialisation. Following the defeat of the labour movement in the 1980s, this reaction is shaped by race, not by class. Labour has to build a democratic, socialist and republican cross-class alternative to reactionary English nationalism. It can do this only by meeting racism on its own ground: in the streets, in popular culture, in language and in the historical myths and insecurities of the English. In this struggle, Labour will renew both its cultural language and its local rootedness.Labour has attempted to tackle the question of national identity before. In 1995 Blair described living in “a new age but in an old country”. Then, in 1997, the opportunist branding exercise of “Cool Britannia” took hold. In Brown’s jaded administrative appeal to Britishness a decade later, the search for an overarching national story reappeared. These were all elite expressions of nationhood concocted in Westminster. This time, Labour has to go to the streets. Let’s debate the idea of an English parliament in, say, York. Why not have elected mayors and parliaments in our major cities and give them back their civic identity and vitality? We are a footballing nation - let’s elect the manager of our national team. Then Labour could campaign for a new national anthem - “Jerusalem” - and allow the English to stand tall again.
The Conservative Party have fallen back from the English Question. Back in 1999 many senior Tory MPs were calling for an English parliament. They then went through several years of arguing between “English Votes on English Laws” and an English Grand Committee. Then it was English Votes on English Laws. And more recently, thanks to Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force, it has been “English Pauses for English Clauses”, whereby all MPs continue to vote on English legislation apart from at Committee and Report Stage when only English MPs vote. And now the coalition is establishing a commission to ‘consider the West Lothian Question’ (as if they haven’t had 13 years to consider it).
It’s reckoned that up to 20% of the Parliamentary Tory Party support an English parliament, and the rest, more or less, support English Votes on English Laws. So the Tories - and the coalition government - are vunerable on this.
Could the issue of England be the issue that Labour can exploit to divide the coalition? Imagine a Tory Party having to argue against Labour plans to consult the people on the issue of an English parliament, the Tories would have to argue against a large body of their grass roots and MPs.
Comment by Toque — 29 July, 2010 @ 9:58 am
Yet another example small-minded provincial backwardness.
From being a country of explorers tha pioneered canals and railways, penicillin and a free national health service, Britain is turning inward on itself through lack of imagination.
Rather than replacing British imperialism with internationalism, we’re seeing a procession of yokels extolling the Scots dialect, Morris dancing and Eisteddofodds.
We need an international workers party and we need a Socialist British federation of England, Wales and Scotland.
The SSP was a big mistake and an English Labour party would be an even bigger one.
It would take out a whole swathe of the Left in one fell swoop.
Bring down the Con-Dem coalition!
Comment by prianikoff — 29 July, 2010 @ 10:24 am
“Labour has to win back this terrain with a language that can encompass both cosmopolitan modernity and English conservative culture, linking them together in a sense of national purpose.2
I really dont think any of this won the vote in Wales or Scotland or has any meaning to working people there or in England. What mattered was that Labour keep more to its core values in both Wales and Scotland - good old demorcatic socialism and time after time achived better results than in England where the market let rip. So the conclusion should be that Labour need to offer a progressive Socialist programe that both protects basic services and develops them for the future commuinity/cooperation and socialism as against individualism and the greed of the market.
Comment by Neil Williams — 29 July, 2010 @ 10:38 am
#3
“good old demorcatic socialism and time after time achived better results than in England where the market let rip”
Well in both Scotland and Wales that greater commitment to social democracy is also bound up with national sentiment that the changes were somehow English and alien, and that belonging to a community of solidarity is rooted in Weslsh and Scottish life.
In Wales in particular, the defence of the public sector was part of the One Wales agreement which was a coalition with Plaid Cymru, and Rhodrhi Morgan’s specifc objective of defending the social democratic character of Wales.
Yo
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 July, 2010 @ 10:44 am
New Labour provided the necessary funding for socialist policies to be implemented in Wales and Scotland.In return New Labour trooped their ignorant and arrogant socialist welsh and scots mp’s through the lobby to vote non socialist policies on the English ie student top up fees and foundation hospitals.Foundation hospitals set the English NHS onto privatisation. Why did the rank and file in England let Blair and Brown get away with it? Cruddas acknowledges that the left in England are to busy shouting Nazi and racist at the English to pay attention to what is happening.
Comment by tally — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:23 am
tally, new labour didnt provide any funding, the scottish executive decided how to spend their share of the national dosh.
Comment by asset — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:27 am
What corner and soap box is serious John,standing on, this weekened.Is there a definition about socia;ism and culture.
Comment by howard — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:31 am
asset, why did scots mp’s vote top up fees and foundation hospitals on England? unless you have been asleep for a long time it is ackowledged by one and all including people in scotland that they receive far more than other parts of the uk. Even the world socialist web site described scots and welsh devolution as “self enrichment masquerading as social change”. I maintain that socialist policies were to expensive for England because of the consequentials of the barnett formula and the cost of maintaining the EU.
Comment by tally — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:39 am
Lest we get carried away with the idea that the Labour Party is now a ferment of ideas affected by an outbreak of internal electionitis, with the startling development of more than one candidate for National Leader and London Mayor, we should remind ourselves of the real character of the Party.
We need look no further than the ongoing selection contest for the Labour candidate for the Mayoral candidate for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
According to the latest information from local journo Ted Jeory - http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/lutfurs-men-play-the-race-card-and-more/ - the National Labour Party has now gone through its third effort to create a centrally imposed shortlist for its bewildered Tower Hamlets membership to swallow.
The latest episode of ‘are-they-a-candidate-or-are-they-not’ turns tragedy into farce, as a party official announces new candidates and shortlist and then withdraws it in short order following central instruction, further putting back the selection contest as the clock ticks towards the 21st October election and the likelihood of an NEC imposed candidate grows every day.
The real issue here is that NOT one soul in the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets itself has the slighest say in the process of shortlisting candidates, just as they had no say in the selection of candidates for May’s election or the policy of opposing an elected Mayor which they are now forced into selecting a candidate to run for.
I’d have more time for the likes of Jon Cruddas and the various leadership challengers Andy seems obsessed with quoting every time they open their mouths to utter vacuous phrases devoid of meaning in the real world, if they concentrated a bit more on getting their own rotten stinking undemocratic corpse of a party back in order, rather than lecturing others on the benefits of “cosmopolitan modernity” and the creation of the “democratic … alternative”.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:39 am
tally, you have a poor understanding of how the settlement works, Uk MPs who represent Scottish constituencies do get to vote on English only matters, that should be changed in my opinion.
But, the Scottish Executive chose to fund things like university fees and personal care at the expense of other things.
The question of barnett is a different matter from what you were claiming. You said that New Labour funded those policies in Scotland. Barnett wasnt a New Labour idea and the same funding would have gone to Scotland no matter who the govt was, the Scottish Executive are tasked with allocating those resources.
The additional ‘per capita’ spend on public services in scotland was not affected by the decisions to not have top up fees or to have free personal care.
You seem to be confusing several issues here.
Comment by asset — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:46 am
@2 Shut yer fud prianikoff, ya bawbag!
Comment by Wullie McG — 29 July, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
An English Labour Party eh?
Is that a skein of flying John Prescotts I see in the sky?
Comment by Alfred the OK — 29 July, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
To me the question of top-up fees perfectly demonstrates how people have utterly missed the point.
The situation as described is; Scottish MP’s voted on a matter for English students, of which it is no relevance to them, while their constituents were unaffected.
This is simply a distortion and untrue. The real problem we should have been discussing is that these MP’s voted against the interest of the constituents and the principles of the left.
Of course this decision had an impact on Scottish students. The University system is UK wide. This created a funding gap between English and Scottish Universities, to the detriment of Scottish institutions. Scottish students also attend English universities, so these fees will still directly affect them.
We should have been complaining about a party of the ‘left’ selling out on it’s moral principles; instead petty and false nationalist sentiments were brought in to it, which is simply divisive.
Discussing the arguments of ‘where next for the left’ after the election in nationalistic terms is a waste of breath and a retrograde step both sides of the border.
Comment by matt — 29 July, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
asset “Barnett wasnt a New Labour idea” lord joel barnett was a labour mp?
I am not getting several issues confused. Scotland and Wales can have socialist policies that English workers are taxed for but can not have the same for them selves.
for instance,a hospitalin England might need 50 extra beds but can only have 30 because the consequentials of barnett means approx 20% of the cost would have to be raised to send to scotland wales and NI to spend on whatever they like. The scot government is even in surplus. deprived areas of England stay deprived to pay for scots msp’s welsh and NI am’s. can this be right?
Comment by tally — 29 July, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
If the English, Welsh and Scottish labour parties stood for full independence within a federal UK (i.e. exclusive tax collecting powers and negotiated voluntary contributions to central government) as part of a socialist europe then it would be a good idea. Otherwise we’re going to have satraps of the Westminster government (The Norman Monarchy and land-monopolising aristocracy, its Parliamentary strap on, the Political Executive, Civil Service GoDs, stock exchange bosses, army and police chiefs and secret service boffins) making gigantic cuts in jobs, welfare and public spending on behalf of the coalition as Scotland and Wales are about to find out and the residents in Labour boroughs already know.
Comment by Harold — 29 July, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
matt, I have no concerns that there is a funding gap between scots institutions universities and english universities. The scots can charge top up fees if they like, but what is more likely is that the uk government would make sure they have enough money from English taxpayers to enable the scots not to charge student fees.
“The real problem we should have been discussing is that these MP’s voted against the interest of the constituents and the principles of the left”. Yes they voted against the principles of the left but not for their own welsh and scots constituents, only for England. Bastards.
Comment by tally — 29 July, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
I’m pleased to see this debate within the Labour Party and will be interested to see where it goes.
“Well in both Scotland and Wales that greater commitment to social democracy is also bound up with national sentiment that the changes were somehow English and alien, and that belonging to a community of solidarity is rooted in Weslsh and Scottish life.”
That is true enough but the old values of the Labour Movement are also still alive in England and held by many people outside of the formal Left. Those people and the communities they come from have not been well served by New Labour, had previously been systematicaly hammered by the Tories and are about to set upon by the Coalition. If this debate serves to raise their concerns it will be a good thing.
Oh and Scotland with its oil contributes considerably more than it takes in terms of the UK economy.
SA
Comment by Anonymous — 29 July, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
“At the 2005 Labour party conference, Blair described the world as “unforgiving of frailty. No respecter of past reputations. It has no custom and practice.” Blair didn’t see this world as destructive; he celebrated those who are “swift to adapt” and “open, willing and able to change”. These attributes belong mostly to the highly educated from the metropolitan elite. Only those who are open to this world will be rewarded by it”.
What utter drivel (on Blair’s part that is). I wonder if Giddens wrote that bit for him.
Comment by Rorschach — 29 July, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
Cruddas says, “Those sections of the population which followed Blair’s call [openness to change, adaptability] have now discovered that the British economy cannot deliver the dream.”
This is right-wing social democracy not even bothering to pose as left-wing.
There was of course a huge disconnect between the rhetoric of openness and change and most people’s ecomic experience of it over the last 13, or more accurately 30 years.
But for Cruddas it’s the eonomic system that’s immutable, not the necessary response to global economc forces. He says we cannot deliver progressive change for you with this economy, therefore we angle for reactionary change.
This is England.
Comment by frank — 29 July, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
tally … you’re an idiot.
Comment by matt — 29 July, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
“matt, I have no concerns that there is a funding gap between scots institutions universities and english universities. The scots can charge top up fees if they like, but what is more likely is that the uk government would make sure they have enough money from English taxpayers to enable the scots not to charge student fees. The real problem we should have been discussing is that these MP’s voted against the interest of the constituents and the principles of the left”. Yes they voted against the principles of the left but not for their own welsh and scots constituents, only for England. Bastards.”
Scottish MPs don’t vote on student stuff in Scotland because it’s devolved.
Comment by Lynsey — 29 July, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAW2D1-PbWg
Comment by Lynsey — 29 July, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Tally, barnett is a per capita calculation and it would be just under 10% for Scotland. However, Any English hospital can ohow to allocate resources with no considerations re Barnett.
Barnett only comes into play when a UK government department makes inceases or cuts in overall budget, Scotlands budget on the same issue will be adjusted by a calculation based on their percentage of the UK population.
You clearly ARE getting different issues mixed up.
Comment by asset — 29 July, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
Asset, Tally may not be explaining himself very well, but it’s true to say that many of the more progressive policies in Scotland would not be affordable if it weren’t for the £5 Billion a year of overfunding that Scotland receives via Barnett.
Over ten years that’s £50 Billion (at current levels) spent in Scotland that may have been more fairly spent in England and Wales.
You can make all the arguments you like about the Scottish Government choosing how they spend their money in Scotland and what their priorities are - and your right to point that out - but it does not diminish the fact that they have far more money per head with which to take their choices.
Comment by Toque — 29 July, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
#24, so where do the oil revenues come from that bankroll the Westminster government?
Comment by Eddie Truman — 29 July, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
#25. They come from the North Sea. There’s a valid argument that those oil revenues should be spent in Scotland, rather than on UK as a whole, but that’s an argument for Scottish independence.
Comment by Toque — 29 July, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
#25 Do you also take the view that the £60bn of taxes that the City of London generated last year should be spent on England alone, or London alone?
If you do then I find yours a rather pathetic argument.
Comment by Toque — 29 July, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
“Labour has to engage with the electorate and fashion its own cultural language of Englishness.”
“Its own cultural language of Englishness”? Ha! Ha! What a lot of rot!
“This time, Labour has to go to the streets. Let’s debate the idea of an English parliament in, say, York. Why not have elected mayors and parliaments in our major cities and give them back their civic identity and vitality? We are a footballing nation - let’s elect the manager of our national team. Then Labour could campaign for a new national anthem - “Jerusalem” - and allow the English to stand tall again.”
What utter shite! “Lets debate the idea of an English parliament”? Who the hell does this arrogant #@&% think he is? He talks such rubbish. When the new labour scum were in power they consistently REFUSED to even talk about the “idea” of the English parliament. Now they want to talk about it? I don’t believe that for one nano-second. Oh now they have been shafted they want to talk about it? Well they can go to hell!
The English are already standing tall you @#$%@#$. We do not need some new labour half-wit telling us what we need to do to feel good about ourselves. What patronising crap!
I want to ignore this immature sh*te; but I am not going to. This is the same boring, anti-English, new labour rhetoric as always. New labour *could have” done this and done that when they were in power; they didn’t. They obviously hold “the ordinary people” - as C%^& Gordon Brown smugly referred to the English - in utter contempt. Well, that works both ways, i.e. look at the election results.
Elect the England national team manager? What a pathetic notion.
“Why not have elected parliaments in our…cities?” Oh dear! Crud seems to be about a decade behind. New labour tried to force that on us English in the north east of England. The idea was trampled upon and destroyed! Oh and now of course the @#$% who gloated about forcing it on the English is in the house of lords. What a piece of crap he is! Just as an aside, how do all you “socialists” feel about John “LORD” Prescott?
“So where do the oil revenues come from that bankroll the Westminster government?”
Eddie Truman
So, where does ALL the money for searching for oil/building oil rigs come from? Was it only from tax-paying people in scotland? No! What a pathetic argument.
Comment by M Anderson — 29 July, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
I’m sure whatever money was spent on searching for oil in the north sea has been comfortably exceeded.
Comment by AndyB — 29 July, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
#21 “Scottish MPs don’t vote on student stuff in Scotland because it’s devolved.” Evading the issue.
#13 “This is simply a distortion and untrue.”- How?
Tally and Lynsey
Are you saying (a) that it is not the case that Scottish MPs voted for top up fees for England when their colleagues in Holyrood voted against having them in Scotland, (b) that it was not wrong for them to do so?
Please clarify.
Comment by Evan — 29 July, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
I should have said Scottish Labour MPs
Comment by Evan — 29 July, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
‘We are a footballing nation - let’s elect the manager of our national team.’
Oh Jesus, imagine the carnage. Every time England got less than two-nil we’ve go all ‘Year Zero’ and obliterate the management.
I’m all for the Left engaging with issues of national identity, so long as we realise that, whatever our specific gripes, England isn’t oppressed or hard done by, as the Tories, UKIP, the English Democrats and the rest claim. You can’t fight for socialism through nationalist means: we learned that in Ireland, and less dramatically in Scotland. It’s insular and self-defeating.
By all means let’s utilise ‘English’ culture to make a progressive narrative we can unite broad fronts of people around, but our goal is social justice for the working people of all nations, at the expense of the rich and powerful of those nations, not one another.
That said, the idea of English Labour won’t work so long as Labour in the south exists more on paper than on the ground. It would just be London/Northern Labour, which is pretty much what we have now.
Comment by Manzil — 29 July, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
“England got less than two-nil we’ve go all ‘Year Zero’ and obliterate the management.”
No, I advocated year zero on this blog and it was more the current players I was aiming it at!
Comment by Evan — 29 July, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
#28, M Anderson; “So, where does ALL the money for searching for oil/building oil rigs come from? Was it only from tax-paying people in scotland? No! What a pathetic argument.”
Good grief, the promoters of the England-is-subsidising-Scotland argument are not done any favours by those who are vocal on their behalf.
The UK government granted licences to private companies to prospect, explore and develop the areas under it’s jurisdiction when it became clear, from discoveries in Norway and Germany, that there was a large oil field under the North Sea.
I am not aware that the Westminster government has ever built any oil rigs.
In answer to #27, Toque, the reason I brought North Sea oil into the argument was to destroy the myth that Scotland is subsidised by England.
It isn’t.
The Barnett formula applies to public spending by the Westminster government on the very basic principle that it costs more to deliver the basic foundations of UK civic society in areas of lower population density than it does in the built up areas of urban England.
Health, education, transport infrastructure are more expensive per head of population.
In 2005, in his book The Oil Men, Bill Mackie reckoned that the Westminster exchequer had benefited to the tune of £100 Billion from North Sea revenues.
If you want to rip that up and start again then fair enough but don’t be surprised when Scots decide that they won’t be bankrolling you with their oil, a somewhat more reliable resource than taxes from the casino economics of the Square Mile.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 29 July, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
“In Wales in particular, the defence of the public sector was part of the One Wales agreement”
Actually Andy it was a far gerater part of the Socialist tradition of the Labour Party in both Wales ans Scotland and very little to do with nationalism as much as you would like to think otherwise.
Comment by Neil Williams — 29 July, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
#35
“Actually Andy it was a far gerater part of the Socialist tradition of the Labour Party in both Wales ans Scotland and very little to do with nationalism as much as you would like to think otherwise.”
So says an Englishman. If you followed Welsh and Scottish politics more closley you would see that specific cultural traditions have reinforced the social democratic resistance to every wheeze coming out of London.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 July, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
#2 “Rather than replacing British imperialism with internationalism, we’re seeing a procession of yokels extolling the Scots dialect, Morris dancing and Eisteddofodds.”
That’s the Socialist Appeal pitch for a “Socialist British federation of England, Wales and Scotland”.
Way to go comrades, I hope that your brilliant Edinburgh youth Socialist Appeal members realise that youse think of them as yokels.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 29 July, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
#2 `Rather than replacing British imperialism with internationalism, we’re seeing a procession of yokels extolling the Scots dialect, Morris dancing and Eisteddofodds.’
Cultural imperialist.
Comment by Personage — 29 July, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Doncha know Eddie, the fact that Scots is a dialect is a PROVABLE FACT known by INTELLIGENT people (never mind what linguists say, ssh) and why would you want to speak Scots when you have PROPER ENGLISH at your disposal?
Comment by Lynsey — 29 July, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Awae tae fuck
Comment by Rab C Trotsky — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
#36 yes but those specific cultural traditions are not inherently progressive, and they are different in different parts of Scotland & Wales too.
I’d suggest it was the dominance of Labour in urban Scotland and Wales, the impact of Thatcherism and the perception of both countries as underdogs to England in the union that has allowed space in the mainstream for nationalist social democracy.
How does this work in England? Although there are the same cultural traditions in some urban & northern areas, the tories dominate the south east and the national question has no-one to play off, other than migrants & minorities.
If we think English nationalism is a fact of life, maybe we will have to relate to it, but maybe it is shallower than that? look how quickly the flags have dissapeared, why would we want them back ourselves?
Comment by Danny — 29 July, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
#2 Pioneer of canals - wrong, China way ahead, Penicillin wrong, France, Ernest Duchesne, in 1896 and rediscovered by Fleming it was an Aussie and German who pioneered it as a medicine, railways right, free NHS - wrong, all Britain has ever done is adopt piecemeal Bismark’s social legislation, the Prussian system being designed to support the militaristic aims of that State.
Yokelism, wrong, watched the Grid Iron Theatre Co do a free open air perormance of Decky does a Bronco today, brilliant and relative and in Scots, although the kids that were watching pointed out that in Fife it is a Brinky and not a Bronco. I fear that some comrades would support Newspeak. Federalism I could live with.
Comment by jim mclean — 30 July, 2010 @ 1:08 am
Anyone else think that Jon Cruddas is talking a load of really dubious right-wing shit?
Comment by Anonymous — 30 July, 2010 @ 5:54 am
Yup.
Comment by KrisS — 30 July, 2010 @ 7:43 am
If you followed Welsh and Scottish politics more closley you would see that specific cultural traditions have reinforced the social democratic resistance to every wheeze coming out of London. And if you followed politics in the country of England more closely, rather than ‘English politics’ you would see that a specific political tradition reinforces inner (and some of outer) London’s social-democratic resistance to every wheeze coming out of Westminster.
I’ve long believed that the ‘England’ that some people on the left praise doesn’t actually include the largest city in England, or those of us who live there, but this thread does make it rather more explicit.
Comment by chjh — 30 July, 2010 @ 8:17 am
The imperialist neo liberal capitalist New Labour party
Comment by Donkey — 30 July, 2010 @ 9:19 am
#15 Talk of English Scots Welsh full independence….as part of a socialist Europe is infantile and dangerous in the extreme. In practice this would create 3 balkanised British statelets under the tutelage of the E.U. and destroy any possibility of socialist advance in Britain for the forseeable future.
Comment by daveH — 30 July, 2010 @ 9:40 am
#43 “Anyone else think that Jon Cruddas is talking a load of really dubious right-wing shit?”
Most definitely. He writes,
“An English leader of the Labour Party offers the opportunity to build an identity to respond to white English ethnic nationalism.”
So that presumably rules out Diane Abbott for starters - and then anybody else who is either not white or not “from Ingerland”. Truly pathetic and disturbing.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 30 July, 2010 @ 9:43 am
#48
“that presumably rules out Diane Abbott for starters “
No it doesn’t. Diane Abbott livesi in London, which is in England.
What Jon is arguing is not that we adapt to concepts of ethnic nationalism, but that we counterpose our own civic definition of national identity.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 July, 2010 @ 9:44 am
#49 Erm . . . but she is not white though, is she? Cruddas is talking about building “an identity to respond to white English ethnic nationalism” so presumably this English person who is going to lead the Labour Party would have to be white too. If it isn’t what he means then it is still open to that interpretation.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 30 July, 2010 @ 9:51 am
No that is bollocs.
What Jon is arguing is not that we adapt to concepts of ethnic nationalism, but that we counterpose our own civic definition of national identity.
i.e tat we don’t ignore the subject and let the right wing impose their own definition of Englishness, but that we shape that debate to make it clear that a charecteristic on modern England is its multi-racisa and multi-cultural character.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 July, 2010 @ 9:55 am
#51 Righto - keep your hair on. Words can often be interpreted in different ways and it was not clear to me what Cruddas was wittering on about.
In any case, the best way in which “to respond to white English ethnic nationalism” in the coming period is to build vibrant anti-cuts committees and anti-racist campaigns around the country AND TO START WINNING.
I know that this all sounds like hopeless r-r-revolutionary posturing to someone like you - but it takes all sorts, doesn’t it?
Btw, my ex-partner spent the first two years of her life in the Caribbean (Grenada) and has spent the next fifty years in Blighty. Would she acceptable as a Labour Party leader using Cruddas’s “English” criterion? And what about if she had only lived here for, say, fifteen years? Only asking.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:14 am
#52
“Would she acceptable as a Labour Party leader using Cruddas’s “English” criterion? ”
Is she a labour MP?
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:15 am
#53 Answer the question please.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Well if she is not a Labour MP she could not be a leader of the Labour Party. There are Labour MPs who were born out f the UK, Keith Vaz immediteley springs to mind, born in India; or Peter Hain, born in South Africa.
Other than that, surely the question is already answered by:
i)Jon is discussing Englishness in terms of civic identity, not ethnicity
ii) even in the current cntest, three of the five candidates for the Labour leadership are children of immigrants
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:20 am
38.#2 `Rather than replacing British imperialism with internationalism, we’re seeing a procession of yokels extolling the Scots dialect, Morris dancing and Eisteddofodds.’
Cultural imperialist.
Did I say I wanted to ban Scots dialect, Morris Dancing, or Eisteddfodau?
No I bloody didn’t.
Rabbi Burns was a populist progressive poet (who also helped run a West Indian plantation) His “Tam O’Shanter” had an important influence on the Lyrics of “Iron Maiden” too.
Morris can dance wherever he likes and Eisteffoddau are cool with me too.
But I can’t see any good argument for breaking up the British Labour party into nationalist components. I don’t think that’s what the population of Scotland or Wales want either. They want a federal system and if the prospect wasn’t continually being sold out by Labour’s leadership, they want Socialism.
Comment by prianikoff — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:27 am
#56 no you didn’t say you wanted to ban “Scots dialect, Morris Dancing, or Eisteddfodau” but you used that as a derogatory put down, “a procession of yokels”.
You’re just another London chauvinist at the end of the day, a good example of why socialists in the provinces feel the need to organise autonomously.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:43 am
You’re deeply misinformed Eddie.
The fracturing of the left on nationalist grounds is an ongoing disaster.
The voting record of the SSP is all you need to look at.
Comment by prianikoff — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:48 am
Jim Jepps once made a valuable obswervation that is ten campiagners in Norwich set up a campaiging group they would be very unlikely to adopt the pretentions of a national organisation, but if ten Londoners set up a group, then they do seem to feel they are “the leadership”.
Phil Edwards aso wrote a very interesting article for the Socialist Society some years ago pointing out that London has a very disfucntional reltionship with the rest of England, and also that most of the towns within less than an hours travel from London have a subaltern character in their relationship to London, which further stresses London’s sense of divorce.
Londonners tend to be very parochial, rarely leaving London, more likely to have been to Milan than Manchester, and more ikely to travel to Paris that Portsmouth, and unconsciuly looking down on people from outside the city.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 July, 2010 @ 11:01 am
# 56 As the National Eisteddfod is almost upon us here’s a little trip down memory lane (but with some relevance to the debate on this thread)
http://www.clickonwales.org/2010/07/the-aneurin-bevan-and-paul-robeson-connection/
Comment by Hendre — 30 July, 2010 @ 11:29 am
“Rabbi Burns was a populist progressive poet (who also helped run a West Indian plantation) His “Tam O’Shanter” had an important influence on the Lyrics of “Iron Maiden” too.”
What’s that got to do wi the price of mince?
I’d like all the English lefties in here arguing that independence for Scotland, and indeed the SSP, are somehow massive disasters for socialism in the UK to turn the tables for a minute and try and explain to me how, exactly, the British state HELPS socialism in the UK. Go on then. And btw, if your argument is going to be anything near saying that because we’re all part of ‘one country’ then we’ve got some collective identity and that’ll make us fight for socialism for everyone, then you should just stop because I think you’ll find there’s a lot of people who don’t really feel any connection with the idea of the UK.
And if we look at the voting record of the SSP, btw, we see huge success and then a massive dip after all the TS stuff, and also at a time when all the smaller parties were squeezed and lost most of their seats. It’s got nothing to do with (aaaages ago) saying “Actually, we don’t want to be in the SP any more.” We are capable of having politics that have nothing to do with youse.
Comment by Lynsey — 30 July, 2010 @ 11:51 am
#61 It helps by not being 3 balkanised statelets ruled by the E.U. see #47
Comment by daveH — 30 July, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
DaveH, so what we need is a united British state to stand up to the EU? Where have we heard that one before eh…
Comment by AndyB — 30 July, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
And speaking of Nye Bevan … here’s his impressions on entering the House of Commons as an MP:
“The House of Commons is like a church. The vaulted roofs and stained glass windows, the rows of statues of great statesmen of the past, the echoing halls, the soft-footed attendants and the whispered conversations, contrast depressingly with the crowded meetings and the clang and clash of hot opinions he has just left behind in the election campaign. Here he is, a tribune of the people, coming to make his voice heard in the seats of power. Instead, it seems he is expected to worship; and the most conservative of all religions - ancestor worship.”
# 62 The trouble with the British Labour Party it’s been too ready to continue the ancestor worship.
Comment by Hendre — 30 July, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
#56 `But I can’t see any good argument for breaking up the British Labour party into nationalist components. I don’t think that’s what the population of Scotland or Wales want either. They want a federal system and if the prospect wasn’t continually being sold out by Labour’s leadership, they want Socialism.’
The only good arguement is that the British Labour Party has sat on its fat arse hoovering up crumbs whilst places like Scotland, Wales, the north of England, or more specifically the working class and rural parts of those countries and regions, have been shafted for decades first when they had jobs and now when they haven’t and all the time they’ve had to listen to the cultural arrogance of the Labour and tu bureaucrats who have done everything possible to stamp out (and not just through ideological arrogance but through policy too) all but the default `British’ identity in pursuit of some kind of Stalinist fantasy of a culturally hemogenous British working class but really in case it costs them votes and fat wage packets. Respecting cultural differences and unequivocally fighting the economic corner of workers in Scotland, Wales and the English regions might save the Labour Party as a `British’-wide organisation. If not it deserves to perish.
Comment by David Ellis — 30 July, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
#61
Where have I said anything about a “United Kingdom”?
Nowhere.
I said that the majority of people in Britain are in favour of some form of Federalism. If a majority voted for an independent Scotland and/or Wales, so be it. But there’s absolutely no evidence that’s what they actually want (which is one reason why demands for an English Parliament or an “English” Labour Party also tend to fall flat on their face)
Under the circumstances, for Socialists to suggest that there is something positive or progressive about independence is stupid. If anything, it runs counter to the interests of the working class and is a vote loser.
But regional autonomy has to be balanced by centralism too.
The same thing applies to the Labour Party, which remains the party supported by the majority of the working class in England, Scotland and Wales.
Fact.
Comment by prianikoff — 30 July, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Londoners tend to be very parochial, rarely leaving London, more likely to have been to Milan than Manchester, and more likely to travel to Paris that Portsmouth, and unconsciously looking down on people from outside the city.
The media stereotype of ‘luvvy’ Londoners, maybe. Actual flesh-and-blood Londoners are more likely to be migrants or the children of migrants (from both within and without the UK), more likely to have moved in the last ten years, more likely to have friends and work colleagues from different cultures, more likely to be out as LGBT, and less prone to making stupid bloody generalisations about people from other parts of Britain.
Comment by chjh — 30 July, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
#67
yeah whatever. You should talk to more people outside of London and you will find that the perception of Londoners’ parochialism is very widely shared.
Phil Edward’s article is reproduced here:
http://gapingsilence.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/god-save-history/
Here’s the article, anyway, fresh from the vault.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 July, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
#63 Probably in Greece these days……your’e confusing political will with the wherewithall to pursue it….I think. Unless you mean national soveriegnty & independence are the preserve of the right?
Comment by daveH — 30 July, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
“English socialism, a radical politics of the people of England, has still to be developed. And it will be developed outside London, because that’s where England is.”
Indeed - there is a historic English socialism, but it needs to be reinvented. The rise of the EDL has given this a new urgency.
Comment by Mhairi McAlpine — 30 July, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
For those of you who are unaware the Petro-chemical industry was founded in the 1840s by the Scots chemist James “Paraffin” Young whose company Young Paraffin Light and Minerals Co got the patent in 1850(if I remember correctly)thereafter licenses were granted all over the USA and Europe.Long after his death his company was forced by the Govt to amalgamate with Anglo-Persian during WW1,and they of course became British Petroleum.So when Oil exploration and production came to the North Sea(Iworked there myself for 10 months myself in 1977)it was simply a matter of the industry coming home.
If you think of all the uses of the Petro-chemical industry the Scots Chemist James Young must be considered an all time historical great for his contribution to human development(incidentally he was the money behind his much better known old friend David Livingstone)
All this money the EnglishNats reckon is owed to them through the Barnett Formula etc if they get it they should spend it on the English education system because as this thread once again proves they are pig f**king ignorant.
Comment by ScotinLondon — 30 July, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
“Good grief, the promoters of the England-is-subsidising-Scotland argument are not done any favours by those who are vocal on their behalf.”
Will you grow up one day? I am sick of having to tell you children about personal attacks. How old are you Eddie Truman? You really need to stop with the immaturity and at least try to act you age. Do you think you can manage it? I doubt it. Oh and before you start with the you whine about people attacking you, then you attack me crap, you gave me more than enough reason to put you ion your champagne socialist place.
Okay! So here is your post:
“So where do the oil revenues come from that bankroll the Westminster government?”
Eddie Truman
Here is my reply to your post:
So, where does ALL the money for searching for oil/building oil rigs come from? Was it only from tax-paying people in scotland? No! What a pathetic argument
I fail to see ANY comment relating to “the promoters of the England-is-subsidising-Scotland argument”. That is because there isn’t any comment relating to it.
“The UK government granted licences to private companies to prospect, explore and develop the areas under it’s jurisdiction when it became clear, from discoveries in Norway and Germany, that there was a large oil field under the North Sea.
I am not aware that the Westminster government has ever built any oil rigs.”
I knew all about the above. Since when did I say that the “Westminster gov’t” built oil rigs? I didn’t.
I direct you to the following link
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#ambig_assertion
It is all about Fallacious Arguments.
Here is what I really asked you?
“So, where does ALL the money for searching for oil/building oil rigs come from? Was it only from tax-paying people in scotland?”
You failed to answer the question. How surprising, not!
Of course my point was ALL tax-paying people in the UNITED KINGDOM have helped subsidise the oil industry. It sounds to me like you think that only scottish folk should get the benefits of that particular industry ! Not very socialist of you is it?
By the way, maybe English folk should argue that scotland should not get ANY of the monies earned by the city of London.
“In 2005, in his book The Oil Men, Bill Mackie reckoned that the Westminster exchequer had benefited to the tune of £100 Billion from North Sea revenues.”
“Reckoned”? That is not proof. Also, why use that one figure? Why not talk about oil revenue monies from years ago? Oh I think it is because they do not support your argument.
Comment by M Anderson — 30 July, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
“By the way, maybe English folk should argue that scotland should not get ANY of the monies earned by the city of London.”
You mean the City of London where The City is, which pretty much fucking bankrupted us all?
Comment by Lynsey — 30 July, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
“By the way, maybe English folk should argue that scotland should not get ANY of the monies earned by the city of London.””
Do we get our bailout money back?
I reckon that £3.25K owed to each of us Scots then.
Comment by Mhairi McAlpine — 30 July, 2010 @ 11:57 pm
74# Do we get our bailout money back?
nope that has been swallowed up by the 40 billion RBS bailout.
Comment by jim mclean — 31 July, 2010 @ 12:06 am
The Socialist Party of England and Wales could split into separate national sections of the CWI. Then simple act of marketing itself as the “The English Socialist Party” without changing any policies could probably mop up a fair bit of extra support in the current climate.
The Welsh section may have trouble coping with the loss of support that such a split would create however. Seems unlikely.
Comment by Tom — 8 August, 2010 @ 12:51 pm