In a Times opinion piece published earlier today Rachel Sylvester came up with a new term to describe those much-vaunted and relentless digital proponents of the hard-left: Digital Bennites.
Digital Bennites – I am sure you know who I’m talking about – are the bane of moderate (and, dare I say it, modern) Labour activists. They take a position of ‘in principle’ opposition to everything the government says or does because, it seems to me, it is a ‘government of millionaires’.
They espouse arguments based on a principle of hating ‘the rich’ or ‘developers’ because they claim to be ‘working class’.
It is a stance which is not only deeply sad but is also, I believe, deeply out of touch with the views of the majority of ordinary people.
Labour, rightly, has spent many years moving away from the politics of envy. We have said clearly that it is not only acceptable to be wealthy it should be positively encouraged that we strive to become so and then contribute to others having the same opportunity when we do reach a level of success.
We are a party that has placed just as much focus on entrepreneurship as equality of opportunity for all.
We are proud of our record of achievement in office of protecting the working and middle classes but we recognise in some respects we failed
The ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ doesn’t start from a position of a lifelong political affiliation (although voting record may indicate how views can be shaped) but rather he starts from a position of whether a policy is right or wrong.
A responsible opposition and a responsible Labour party must acknowledge that this government have not got everything wrong and, in some instances, have resonated with the general public.
We should, for example, be saying that the spare room subsidy is not necessarily wrong in principle – the vast majority agree that housing benefit should be paid on the basis of need – but because it has been subject to extreme short-sightedness in the case of reasonable exceptions and a massive shortage of appropriate smaller housing units
We can choose either to oppose strongly where the Tories have hurt ordinary people or oppose everything, but weakly and without credibility.
Only one tack is going to lead to us regaining the confidence of the public and only one tack is going to see us retaking office.
As a party we have a simple choice to make. Do we want to return to the chaotic but ‘principled’ opposition of the 1980s or do we want to protect the weakest in society from a position of power?
I know, without hesitation, what my choice would be. I am also fairly clear the choice the Digital Bennites would take.
———————————————————
Leon Spence is leader of the Labour group on North-west Leicestershire council. He tweets @CllrLeonSpence
———————————————————
Leon – through cyberspace I am sending you a big fat kiss on the forehead for this. Spot on.
It’s like the Social Democratic Party never happened…
Ric, the kind of spin and selective reporting you use to criticise me is actually the kind of behaviour typical of a Digital Bennite, in my experience.
My twitter feed is critical and supportive of a variety of different things, because I do not look at politics through a tribal lens. I said that during Question Time, Michael Gove came across as a ‘reasonable bloke’. I said there were good things in the Budget (raising poor people out of income tax) and bad things (not cutting VAT).
But to get to those tweets, you must have scrolled down past a number of other tweets explaining how I travelled 200 miles to speak at a CLP on Friday night about things like rural poverty. And others about how I’m building a website for a new Labour group at my own expense. You chose to ignore those as they didn’t fit in with the kind of image you wanted to paint of me. And that, frankly, is dishonest of you. Yes, despite my strong dislike of certain lefty behaviours, I am in the right party, and I do plenty for it.
I welcome the mantle your comrade (though no doubt you’d wince at such a phrase) coined for me – ‘Digital Bennite’ – something I am happy to be referred to as. And the “spin” you so selective accuse me of has its real home in Progress politics. Defending Labour values is by no means ‘tribal’ – it’s a set of values we share when we join the party. If we have a problem with private health or selective education not being part of Labour policy, we go and join the Tories and the Lib Dems. It’s really as simple as that. I read through a very small selection of your recent tweets – those were the ones that stuck out as completely out of place in a soi-disant Labour supporter’s feed. There are plenty of Progress supporters travelling up and down the country – mainly plugging Progress, it must be said – the real footsoldiers of the party are the centre and centre-left. The right prefer to stay at home and blog.
When ‘defending Labour values’ means you resort to slagging people off, twisting their words, and being unable to see that raising the poorest out of tax (the tweet you referred to) is a good thing, you need to question yourself a little. I’m interested in politics because I want to make the country a better place – and I don’t think your dogma is a means to achieving that. I think collaboration, respect for different views and a willingness to be influenced more by facts than ideology is a much better way of helping people.
Jonathan – if I was doing an empirical analysis of the advantages of raising the tax threshold, then I would write a scholarly paper on this outlining the pros and cons. Indeed, as a researcher to a variety of Councils – unitary and district – that was my day job for a number of years, and I have worked for Tory, Lib Dem AND Labour councils. But as a Labour Party member, I have a responsibility to campaign on behalf of the party across a range of issues. That does *not* include campaigning on the things we agree with the Lib Dems or the Conservatives on. I am sorry, that’s not “tribal” in any sense of the word – that’s politics. If you want to go around doing this kind of work, there are any number of centre-right think tanks that would snap you and your opinions up – indeed, you may already do so.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I just can’t bring myself to live my life in such a way that means I must constantly oppose everything other people do, stay silent when I agree with someone or be so persistently negative about those who happen to think differently. I want to live a more positive life than that. If I want to tweet that I think someone appears to be a reasonable bloke, or say that I agree with taking poor people out of income tax, I’m going to do so – even if that means drawing the ire of those whose judgement has been clouded under the weight of their own ideology.
…and I would always and inexorably support your right to tweet, friendface, blog, comment and say what you want on these and indeed any issue – but don’t expect me or the rest of the Labour Party to take you seriously when you do so. Putting the core Labour Party message about fairness and equity is not being “persistently negative” – anything but. I can see the attractions of operating without a coherent ideology – the Lib Dems have made an artform of it – but, like any belief – my humanity and concern for my fellow man (and woman) underpins my socialist ideology.
I don’t ask anyone to take me seriously – I just say what I think, as do you. I try to be nice to nice people, that’s all. It’s why I don’t have much ideology, because whenever I meet anyone with a lot of ideology they frankly don’t seem to be very nice – ideology breeds hate in my experience. That’s the real reason why I’m at odds with the online activist base of the party – I just don’t hate enough people. I’m from a small section of political society that thinks policy based on evidence and facts is the best way to help people.
If I was being unkind, I’d ask how you could care for humanity when you refuse to accept that, around the world, election after election, the vast majority of people refuse to vote for truly socialist parties? Surely part of caring for people is respecting their decisions? Unless, of course, ‘caring for people’ is simply a soundbyte vehicle for imposing your ideology on people who don’t want it.
But I do share your concern for humanity – so can’t we just agree that we’re both in politics for the right reasons? And we just disagree over how best to help people?
I don’t ‘hate’ many people – I think some people like yourself are misguided, but I don’t think “hate” anything – except perhaps dictatorship or fascism – and I don’t think hate motivates anyone long term. I ALWAYS base my ‘ideology’ on empirical evidence, and, unlike many in the party, having worked in research for the best part of 20 years, I DO know where to look for evidence to support it, and I will admit when I’m wrong. My big problem with Progress is that I see precious little evidence of an evidence-based approach on either their political or economic analysis – I do see selective use of figures and ideology to underpin a neo-liberal analysis of the evil of trade unions, the wonderfulness of Academies and the fantastic things that big business will do, if only we allow them to get rid of that pesky regulation or control…
I don’t see ” the vast majority of people refuse to vote for truly socialist parties” – by which I assume you mean people who offer a Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyist analysis of society – of which, incidentally, I am not a supporter. I see PLENTY of social democratic and democratic socialist governments the world over – France, Wales, Belgium, Croatia, just in Europe. That’s my kind of socialism, based on humanity and a high regard for human rights and an fair and equitable society. I see plenty more evidence of Conservative governments the world over imposing ideology in terms of reduction of life choices – it’s no soundbyte but the truth. I’m not in politics to be an MP or Council Leader – I just want to make a difference on a day to day basis in people’s lives and on a purely local basis, this will not necessarily be bound by ideology, but as a Labour Party member, by necessity, it must be.
By Leon’s reasoning, the best way for Labour Council of which I am a member to serve those most in need is to stay in power. To be responsible in power we have to stay solvent. But to be solvent in future years we have just raised rents, raised Council Tax, reduced Council Tax Support and on behalf of Central Government, implemented the spare room charge which, with other benefit changes, will result in a further reduction in the incomes of the poorest people. Well done us!
They said this about the netroots.
Second, this tells us nothing about whether bedroom tax is right or wrong, or good as bad. It’s just as ad hominem as the people it’s having a go at.
Third, opposition to it ranges some way both to the right and the left of Bennites.
Fourth thing – how about not worrying too much about what other people argue and concentrate on building you own thoughts and positive proposals?
Ditto. The part of the electorate that determines whether Labour will be trusted with office again will always be put off by tribalism as, by virtue of being swing voters, their own nature runs contrary to tribal instincts. They will vote for competence, pragmatism and a moderate and balanced approach. Depending on your ideological position, you may not agree with them and you may find them unprincipled but, like it or not, the alternative is a Tory government so in the real world, you better decide which you find easier to live with because those are the choices if you live in the UK. The ‘Digital Bennites’ are of course entitled to their opinion and make an essential contribution to political discourse (and in pure terms I find myself often agreeing with their principles) but I was raised in a family whose members have voted all three colours in my lifetime and I know what I’m talking about.
…and I suppose we who have been Labour since teens apparently don’t know what we’re talking about ?
I think it accords to a certain managerial style of politician that posits that local people vote for “competence, pragmatism and a moderate and balanced approach”. ‘Quelle surprise’ that a Labour Party faction that claims it is competent, pragmatic, moderate and balanced advocates just that. People vote on a range of issues – national issues – even in local elections – as the political space between parties is now relatively narrow, if what Ben says is the truth, then council’s would rarely, if ever, swap hands.
Sorry, I should be clear, I have always been the lefty cuckoo in the centre-ground nest. I guess my family would have described me as a Bennite if they had a clue what that meant, but like most families, politics was something that went on intermittently in the background of their lives. Also, you make a good point, I was I confess talking more about national politics rather than local.
My point was an observation on the voting habits of swing voters and that they will vote less along ideological lines and more on pragmatic grounds…and it must be said, often with nothing more than a gut response to political personalities (at least at a national level). Of course, it’s not a binary choice between ideology and pragmatism – far from it – and there is obviously a good deal of cherry-picking of policies from across the ideological spectrum from this type of voter…and I am sure we would all have our personal opinion on where certain policies appear on that spectrum.
My point wasn’t that any given party, ideology or faction has a premium on competence or moderation – rather, that these are the priorities that often inform swing voters’ decisions.
It’s just I’ve spent so much of my life sitting around the table arguing my left-wing position in a room full of family members to my right, that I’ve come to understand what type of rhetoric meets resistance from such people and what sort of argument brings them around. I concede this may be a reflection on my debating skills but there you are.
Bennites might bemoan the ‘managerial style’, the careful and overly polished rhetoric, the focus group followship, and the presentation of New Labour and Progress-type members, but that stuff does have some value if you want to convince the largely centre-right South (as you must) that Labour can be trusted with government. It’s nothing without substance and conviction of course, but in my view, an essential part of the mix and the style and substance must correlate or your sunk (see D Cameron). Only then can you prevent the Tories from riding rough-shod over communities that they would prefer didn’t exist. My claim that ‘I know what I’m talking about’ made no assumption that you didn’t, more a few observations from the inside of a vaguely interested, vaguely political, vaguely principled Medway existence.
You may be completely justified that the last thing that you want to do is accommodate such indifference, but….just a suggestion.
I have no need to avoid the lure of digital Bennism – I *am* a Bennite, and I am active online – therefore I probably fit the broad category the author reacts with such faux horror to. It is perhaps telling that he begins the article with that well known, unbiased and DEFINITELY not proprietor led newspaper, “The Times” – it should be a cold day in hell when anyone worth consideration by the modern polity regards the Times as a newspaper of record, rather than the Conservative rag it has become. So you’ll forgive me if I take anything from this august organ with a lorryload of salt. Of course, we Bennites consider ourselves to be the voice of moderate socialism, and YOU at Progress as the bane of moderate socialists, as you conspire to get selected as Councillors, appointed to sinecures and then lecturing us on the evils of Conservatism, whilst sending your kids to private schools and working for obscure centre right think tanks or merchant banks. It is the average Progress groupie and not us who are (and I quote) “deeply out of touch with the views of the majority of ordinary people”) – you are quite prepared to underwrite working class views when they coincide with your own, but argue that people are ‘mislead by the left’ when they oppose Progress support for anti-union legislation or yet another semi-selective academy in the name of raising educational achievement. Because, of course anyone who opposes you MUST be someone mislead by the hard left. Adopting the language of the Tories depicting the drift to the right as “years moving away from the politics of envy” – really is about as low as you can get. You have a promising future as a Daily Mail feature writer, Leon. What you don’t state (but we all know) is the raft of issues you agree with the Conservatives on. Can I suggest they may be your more natural political home than we in the party of democratic socialism ?
Possibly the worst opinion piece I have read. Ever. If you think this is a winning strategy you live on another planet from ‘ordinary people’
Mark, the purpose of the piece was to provoke debate and it certainly seems to have done that.
In recent months I have spent a great deal of time canvassing my ward, an historically marginal one, for the upcoming County elections.
We are three years into a coalition government which has cut and cut and cut, most of the time despicably hurting the very poorest in society.
My question is therefore why are the majority not detesting this government?
The answer is relatively simple. A great many people feel that this government are sorting out the mess we left them.
We know, at least in part, that the Tories have done a first rate spin job on us but we also must concede that we were partly to blame. Something the Labour front bench team are doing an excellent job at.
But how do we reconnect with great swathes of people who remain relatively apolitical?
I strongly believe we don’t do it by returning to base tribalism. We do it by opposing constructively when the government is wrong and supporting when appropriate.
To regain credibility we must show we are above tribalism and the historic approach, taken by some, of opposing as a matter of course.
I honestly believe we would be rewarded for it in the ballot box.
Like you, Leon, I am standing for a County Council division in May 2013, and like you, I’ve been listening to what people have been saying on the doorstep. I don’t know what it is about Coalville or Ashby, but in my part of the world, people are not telling me that “this government are sorting out the mess we left them” – far from it. They aren’t that naive – they see it for what it really is – the Conservatives using the latter excuse for an attack on things that the Tories have long detested – our rights at work, welfare benefits, and the public sector in general. “How do we reconnect with great swathes of people who remain relatively apolitical?” you quite rightly ask. We do this by listening to, and addressing their genuine concerns – a job with security, a living wage, an affordable home, a school place for their children, clean, green and safer environments. This has NOTHING to do with tribalism. It has EVERYTHING to do with Labour, and Labour alone being the people capable of delivering these (quite basic) aims and targets. We will win no kudos (and more importantly, elections) if we go around agreeing with parroting (even partially) what the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are telling people. Why would people vote for us if we did this? We NEED to tell them what a difference we as democratic socialists will make.
What my concern here is that yourself and a variety of other Progress members are using this line of thought to advance your particular agenda in public life in general and in the Labour Party in particular because you agree with a portion of the Coalition’s programme, not because you think we should be less ‘tribal’.
I’ve always had a big problem with this phrase ‘politics of envy’. ‘Envy’ is when I want what you have. I don’t want what rich people have – I want them NOT to have what they have , i.e. an obscene excess over the resources available to the rest of us. Social progress is not possible without an increase in equality, and that means dispossessing the rich. (Which is for their own good, since everyone is happier in a more equal society!)
Progress is killing Labour…. I don’t want Tory lite so I’ll be voting SNP.
So you call me a ‘digital bennite’? And accuse me of ‘the politics of envy’? But what do i have to be envious of? I own my own home (outright), I’m only 57 but I don’t work and don’t claim benefits. I’ve got enough to eat, my house is warm and I own a car even if I can’t actually afford to drive it profligately. I do however support a variety of digital groups who are fighting for the very basic means of staying alive for people who don’t have anything like the comfortable life I have. I support the idea that everyone should have a home of some sort, and not be forced out of it for political ideology, that everyone should have enough to eat, and be able to be warm enough for basic comfort. i support the idea of free HealthCare for all. That WAS Labour policy but not any more. I support the idea of progressive taxation were the wealthier members of society pay more in tax so that the poorer members can at least survive. I support the idea that it is Governments role to ensure enough jobs for all.. I’m not a Bennite – I’m more of a Bevanite! Look back to your roots, Labour. Aneurin Bevan, Keir Hardie et al, they’ll be turning in their graves watching the Labour Party trotting along meekly in the neo-liberal footsteps of the Tories.
You what?
Nobody expects any government to get all right, it would be nice though if they were receptive to and honest about what they are doing and how it actually does affect REAL people.
What is progressive about agreeing with the Condem gov and their ugly, unjust and double-standard war on the working class & poor? When we already know they are hell bent on selling off social housing to HAs/developers, are bribing/gerrymandering with increased RTB incentives and now have started the Spare home sudsidy’? Remind me again as to why conveniently access to legal aid for housing & welfare issues is as well being cut at this time? Progressive? Rhetorical question.
‘Politics of envy’; no more than a double speak, spin phrase which attempts to guilt trip others into not calling those who ‘assign’ themselves priviledge to account.
We can see where “protect[ing] the weakest from a position of power” is getting us – removal of legal rights, loss of legal aid, pernicious attacks on the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Thanks for your offer of help, but frankly, it is no help. Also, the “politics of envy” tagline is very interesting. The assertion that objection is a manifestation of envy is so ridiculous as to be laughable. What is it that we (the poeple who are actually raising awareness of the injustices being inflicted in the name of protecting the weak) actually envy? I think that envy is the wrong word when used in context of 1% of the population who, through physical, political, educational and economic oppression and divisive strategies such as the current argument against immigration control the masses. The word you are looking for is rage.
I actually cannot believe what I have just read. Who are you people ? The bedroom tax is not wrong ? If Labour had reversed the “right to buy” in 1997, and undertaken a comprehensive council house building initiative we may be some way to easing the housing crisis. Next you’ll be telling us the tax cut for millionaires is not wrong” in principle” If you views are centre right why are you in the Labour party ?
Jay, whilst we may disagree over the issues in my article I do completely agree that one of our greatest failings in power was not addressing the social housing crisis, something which the Tories are not dealing with either. Any future Labour government must make this issue one of our top priorities.
Like many neo-liberal administrations, we staggered on in the mistaken belief that the private sector would take up the slack for affordable housing, on purely ideological terms. The grotesque chaos of Labour councils advocating stock transfer and Conservative Councils advocating keeping housing management in house to keep costs low has never more in sharp relief shown the convergence of centre right thinking in the Tory and Labour parties.
A swipe at some imaginary foe within without putting forward anything constructive.
We should, for example, be saying that the spare room subsidy
says it all, why on earth would a Labour person take a Cameron lie ? FFS even Frank Field has said it is wrong
Ian, of course the bedroom tax is wrong. I said as much myself tonight at Council.
The question however must be why is it wrong? Is it because the government established a link between entitlement and need or is it because the process has been monumentally flawed in it’s introduction.
I would argue that the reason the policy is wrong is threefold.
First there is a major shortfall in suitable alternative properties which means there are not enough appropriate real alternatives for those affected.
Secondly, the policy effects established claimants – which our LHA did not.
Thirdly, the government did not take into account reasonable exceptions, for example due to medical need or extenuating domestic factors.
Had those three factor been addressed what would be wrong in establishing a link between family size and entitlement?
The main problem is that there are not enough houses and flats.
Until there are enough houses for all of us to live in arguing about how many bedrooms families should have and how much turmoil families should be put in when the family size changes, is neither here nor there. It’s more of a moral(ising) question.
Written with all the subtlety of a Soviet commissar, circa 1938. There’s no attempt here at anything approaching a valid criticism, only fallacious ad hominem attacks.
Don’t rock the boat. Trickle down works. I we keep quiet the Daily Mail will support us.
Utter (Blairite) nonsense! Being in power ís one thing – does that mean you have to leave basic principle behind? Why not try to do the right thing by everyone (not just the bankers) and be in power?
Who would pay Progress’s (not inconsiderable) bills if the group was (even mildly) critical of big business? I’ll give them one thing, they know what side their bread’s buttered on.
If this person is a Labour Councillor I’m a banana.
Well if you believe all that you really are in the wrong party mate.Its not about the politics of envy but the politics of fairness.The Labour Party is nothin if it doesn’t believe in creating a fairer society .Has a fairer society been made in the last 30 years? I know the answer and so do you if you look.The answer is no and why is that? Because of the neo liberal policies we have had to endure in that time.The Labour Party is indeed at a crossroads and we have to decide what direction we are going to go.People like you have got to decide if you are serious about helping the poorest and disadvantaged or just go along with the safe consensus.Cant you see that people are fed up with the same old same old.Why do you think election turn outs are so low.We have to offer a radical alternative with clear red water between us and the Con dems.This means getting back to our socialist roots but for the modern day.What did we achieve in 13 years? The answer is nowhere near enough, the biggest wasted opportunity of a lifetime.Cant you feel people want something more?If you cant i suggest you join the liberals.We mustn’t let the ordinary person down again or they won’t forgive us next time.
Leon
if you are a local Councillor (like me) then your Council (like mine) will already be struggling with its budget.
If your Council area is anything like mine, there will be many people who need to be moved to smaller houses under this rule, but not enough smaller houses to accomodate all those who need to have a smaller house.
Result: a merry go round of inability to pay the bedroom tax, eviction, rehousing, inability to pay the bedroom tax, eviction…..and so on etc. etc. etc. People in crisis and a Council unable to cope.
Whether the “middle classes” think it’s a good idea or not, it’s not only morally wrong but practically crazy. Stupid. Impractical. Dishonest.
In a democracy you need votes to win power. But if you win power on promises to keep immoral and unworkable ideas like the bedroom tax, you are unable to honestly address the real problems in society in any case. So what’s the point?
I usually have to give these lectures to my Tory acquaintances (not that they get the message). Do you get the message, Leon?
Alex, I couldn’t agree more. Take a look at the points I made elsewhere in this thread on why the bedroom tax is wrong.
the ‘digital bennites’ also oppose the bedroom tax, yet you attack them.
Unity is strength, brother, unless that is too socialist for you.
You can be sure if Lord Sainsbury backed the bedroom tax, so would Progress
One of the most common things I hear on the doorstep is “all politicians are the same”.Not once in my life have I heard “I’m sick of the left-wing elements within the Labour Party.” It’s not a dichotomy like Spence makes out – we can be principled in opposition, protect the most vulnerable and break with the stagnant consensus. We might even show that we’re not “all the same” while we’re at it.
Right let me get this straight. If I disagree with the government’s policies on line, just ignore it because I am a digital Bennite.
Hmmmm
Okay. So be it, but the government’s economic policies still suck big time, and my life has been made worse as a direct result.
What a load of utter bollocks. Tony Benn ‘hard left’? Perhaps you should follow your NEW Laobur role model David Miliband and resign. No doubt the US, that bastion of neo-liberal selfishness would suit you both better!
Have you ever heard the phrase ‘know your enemy’? Well you really should have done a better job on identifying your audience because you don’t know who or what you’re talking about. Now go and tell that to your tory pals – I’m sure you’ll have their ear.
The biggest problem facing Labour today are the Blairite faction. They are the new “Militant Tendencies” wedded to an outdated idealogy and trying to force it upon Labour, regardless of the electoral damage it would do.
Trying to be Tory-lite will damage the party, the damage done by the decision to abstain on the Jobseekers Bill shows this (Ed was lucky it was held during budget week), When Ed is at his best, he offers a social democratic alternative to what we see from the Conservatrive-Liberal opposition.
‘As a party we have a simple choice to make. Do we want to return to the chaotic but ‘principled’ opposition of the 1980s or do we want to protect the weakest in society from a position of power?’ says everything about this kind of politics which seems generally about doing whatever needed to get power. Progress are shameful
When you say: ‘The ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ … starts from a position of whether a policy is right or wrong.’ I totally agree.
You are absolutely 100% correct!
Thus the Poundland decision was *wrong* – the courts plainly said so.
And the ‘bedroom tax’ is *wrong* on a range of levels.
In fact, this Tory government has been introducing *wrong* policies which Mrs Thatcher could only dream of since 2010 – I list the 40 worst at: http://bit.ly/ListofShame.
What, however, is perplexing the left – and indeed most of the rank-and-file of the party and many men on omnibuses as well – is why, therefore, the Labour leadership refuses to come out and condemn them.
The decision to abstain on Poundland was, for many people, not just inexplicable, but the last nail in the coffin of their hope that a Labour government would ever ‘stand up for the workers’. whether this is fair or not, it is now a general and widely-held view.
Weak Labour positioning on DLA and benefits has already lost the committed support of many.
And, even with demonstrations all over the country and the support national newspapers, getting any kind of commitment to abolish the ‘bedroom tax’ when we come to power has been like drawing teeth.
The Tories have the Labour leadership’s measure with the simplest of tactics. They notice a general feeling in the country. They heighten and promote that feeling with a propaganda campaign. They then use that feeling to introduce a piece of ideologically right-wing legislation. Where the general feeling is things like hatred of the bankers, tax cheats etc., the Tory legislation is all smoke and mirrors, full of noble statements but really protecting their friends’ position. Where the general feeling is against benefit cheats, etc., the Tory legislation is directed and devastating, wreaking disproportionate and overwhelmingly unjust damage on poor and vulnerable people.
This strategy is so obvious and so primitive that I find it astonishing that the Labour leadership has not got it sussed. All Labour needs to say is: ‘this is a bit of iniquitous legislation which is using a accepted problem to introduce legislation to damage the poor and the vulnerable and enrich the plutocrats; when we come to power we will rescind it without compensation and enact new laws to address the problem properly’.
Such a strategy would reassure the left, and those who are suffering under the Tory attacks; and the words ‘without compensation’ would worry those businessmen who are moving in to take advantage of their puppet-government’s new regulations.
Instead, our leadership, like rabbits in the headlights, terrified of upsetting some mythical constituency which agree with the original principle, continually say that they will support the Tory proposals, or aspects of them.
Surely the Labour leadership are aware that they are losing the left? Not only have they failed to recruit those on the left who abandoned the Party under Blair and Brown, they are continuing to haemorrhage people whose left-wing views are in fact quite moderate – but who have come to see the Labour leadership merely as ‘wet’ Tories. Surely you have noticed that – in the very week you write this article – *two* new movements have been launched to try to provide a home for such people?
And yet you, sir, with the greatest respect, choose – not to seek accommodation, or to negotiate a stance on which all people of the centre and left can agree, to build a centre-left alliance under the auspices of the Labour Party which will remove this wicked government from power – no, instead you choose this moment to launch a general attack on an imaginary group you stigmatise as ‘digital bennites’, whom even you can only define as ‘you know whom I mean’.
You need to remember who the real enemy is.
People want and expect an opposition to *oppose*, not to desperately ‘seek the good’ in the government’s proposals.
This article is exactly why Labour will condemn itself to the history books if it does not change. You are right that ordinary people want to have a nice life, with security of tenure, enough money to go on holiday and enjoy ourselves. I am from a council estate and have a supposed middle income now, but I will never accept that the New Labour approach to the rich was anything other than complete garbage filtered through the eyes of the middle class. Oh I am sorry, is that too Bennite for you?
If you like them so much go and join the Tories – please.
The politics of envy is private sector workers resenting the so-called privileges of public sector workers, not people resenting the fact that millionaires pay less tax per pound than the person on £1000 per month. That is the politics of fairness not envy.
You say Digital Bennite like it’s a bad thing, I’d where the badge proudly. It’s a sad day when a Labour councillor sides with a Times opinion piece over the legacy of arguably the greatest parliamentary socialist. Capitalism is in crisis and the Labour party leadership has yet to offer or make the argument for a clear coherent alternative.
You accuse us of pretending it’s the 1980s but you lot are still acting like it’s 1997. The electorate (economically speaking at least) is far to the left of New Labour. That’s not so say they don’t see the debt as an issue but they would support fairer taxes and jobs, as opposed to cuts and privatisation.
Please take this in the kind manner in which it is meant. I like what you said but I would love to give you some information. The debt is actually an issue for the left. Read the postive money website and try to fully grasp the meaning of debt. 97% of the money supply is created by banks when they make loans. Martin Wolf gas said this in the FT – “THE ESSENSE OF THE MODERN MONETARY SYSTEM IS CREATION OF MONEY OUT OF NOTHING BY BANKS OFTEN FOOLISH LENDING.”
When money is created like this, debt is the only result. The poor live in debt peonage to the finance industry, this is why there is a growing gap between rich and poor. Government cannot redistribute wealth any more because they have lost control of the money supply and they allow massive tax avoidance and evasion. This is why the writer of this article is foolish. The system is rigged and corrupt. In 1945 when the bank of England was nationalised, the government got the profit on 45% of the money supply (cash). But this is now only 3%. With falling tax receipts, and lack of senirage, a labour government is harnessed, and they lack the conviction and courage to alter it.
Context is everything. It is not the politics of envy to contrast the way this government is treating ordinary people with the way they treat a wealthy elite. A good example of this is the bedroom tax v cut in tax rate for people earning over £150k per year. Or benefit scroungers v Tax avoiders.
As for wealth, most people have no problem with certain ” special” people acquiring wealth through hard work and talent. And yes, this includes top sportspeople, musicians and movie stars. But in the current economic and political climate people do have a problem with overpaid, mediocre company bosses, the self proclaimed “cream of banking talent” and a cabinet that epitomises inherited wealth and privilege. This is the most right wing government we have ever seen, using divide and rule tactics to pursue what is largely anti-star dogma. Please don’t confuse the defence against this as “the politics of envy”.
Ha. Re post. Not anti star – anti state!
This article saddens me enormously, and reminds me why I left Labour years ago. I have rejoined the party because I believed (I hope not mistakenly) that we were moving back to our grass roots principles. As Gandhi said, there is enough in this world for everyone’s need, just not for everyone’s greed. That is not the politics of envy, it is the politics of equality. The growing wealth gap is directly related to many of the problems in our society, and emulating the Conservatives in an attempt to win over their supporters will do nothing to address inequality. Likewise refusing to denounce the politics of demonising immigrants, the jobless and the disabled, will merely turn away those of us who have been lifelong socialists.
I have little time for easy labels, but I would be much prouder to be called a Bennite then a centre-right-ite.
Bear in mind that Progress have little or no discernible support (or indeed relevancy) outside the metropolitan elite – but sadly just bucketloads of cash heading their way that used to come to Labour directly. If they don’t ‘progress’ within the party, they will defect to the Libs or Tories – let’s make sure that this happens.
It’s not acceptable to be rich while other people are poor, sorry. The author needs to get out of the Labour party and join the Tories where he belongs.
Was it not Antonio Gramsci who said people have ‘dual ideologies’ in their minds some of which comes from the dominant hegemony (i.e. right wing media) and some of which comes from the radicals. Politics is a struggle or contest of ideologies and in this week when millionaires will have their taxes reduced and the disabled have money taken from them – it is incumbent on all members of the Labour movement to expose the nature of this very Right Wing government and the Lib Dems who are colluding with it. But we have to be there to tell the public.
Clearly Cllr Spence’s (sycophantic piece) is angling for as safe Labour seat in the House of Commons to become embeded amongst the political class Luckerly for me I can say what I like because I do not have any political career aspirations. So if you want to further your political career in the Labour Party just peddle the usual neo-liberalism line and you will go far (well this is the right forum to get noticed)..
I am more heartened by the comments here than I am by the article. What a nasty, doublethink load of tripe. Go and join the Tories dear, and calm down. The people starving with a back bedromm are not going to come at you with their hammers and sickles.
It is much more likely that you and your family will be impoverished by the onslaught of the top one percent. The privatisation of health (which kills or bankrupts millions in the states, the privatisation of schools which will lead to victorian levels of education for all but the rich, poverty homelessness, unemployment and dispair for millions. Yes, you had better get on that gravy train quick, before your own kids suffer!
And by the way, Tony Benn has got more wisdom, intelligence and humanity in his little finger than you will ever have in a life time, if this pathetic crawling article to Thatcherism/Blairism is the best you can do.
“eeply out of touch with the views of the majority of ordinary people” No doubt he ignores the opinion polls and surveys because they provide the ‘wrong’ results. The consistent results are most Britons remain firm social democrats, and want Thatcherism reversed. Including public ownership of core sectors of the economy that have been privatised.
People are only ‘out of touch’ if they take the contrary, right -wing, view
I hate the term politics of envy. The politics of envy is a politics that begrudges disabled people enough money to live with dignity, or unemployed people the security of being able to look for a new job and eat at the same time. It is a politics that says “I have something and my neighbour has something- why can’t he have nothing and I everything? After all, I am deserving and he is undeserving.” That’s envy right there. Jealousy, greed, entitlement. Call it what you will. It’s innate to all of us right across the political spectrum. It is a human characteristic, not a right-wing characteristic and we are foolish indeed if we claim the left is a paragon of virtue. But we don’t have to embrace that negativity, that envy, and we don’t have to express it in our politics or daily lives.
It’s easy to say that we will appeal to ‘the man in the street’- a constructed, imagined person who normally shares the same views with the author of whatever think piece he appears in- and then say in government we will protect the weak, the poor and the dispossessed. But once in government you end up working for the voters you try hardest to mobilise and suddenly the weak and dispossessed take a backseat. Things become what they are called, and both Progress and Momentum would do well to remember that. You can’t fully escape what you campaign on and completely change direction in government.
I actually believed this Blairite stuff until Iraq; I remember well the joy of Labours victory in 1997, and the mixture of coruscating anger and joyful renewal the collapse of the Blairite House of Cards brought in 2003. Because who is more poor and dispossessed in British politics than those who do not live in Britain, and yet are drastically affected by British foreign policy in ways we at home never could be? You won’t win or lose an election on foreign policy alone and perhaps for that reason it is one of the most telling indicators of a politicians mindset and we were shocked at what we saw when Britain went into Iraq. Shocked enough to turn to a leader who is as dependably anti-war and pro-human as we could find; some political decisions echo long after the Government that made them is gone
Here’s a real life Bennite quote, not a digital one; “The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they could get away with it”. For me, that goes equally for everyone else who cannot vote against the Government of the day- and the many who simply don’t vote.
The great fear of the right is that if we embrace everyone who is denied a voice they will be outnumbered and shouted down. I want to see more and more people included in politics but I do not wish to shout anyone down. To that end, Councillor, I will say to you that I do not wish to deny Progress a voice in this Labour movement- but the members of Progress must understand that they can be as destructive to Labours chances as any element of the party if they are not willing to constructively engage with the left. These new left wing movements are not going away unless the banks are un-bailed out, various wars retrospectively ended and markets across the world un-crashed. They are a product of an era of uncertainty and the Blairites ability to engender certainty left frontline politics with Blair himself.
I wish you continued success in your role on the North-west Leicestershire Council and hope that you will treat the above as the constructive- if strident- feedback it was intended as!