Wednesday, 9 January 2008

BLAIRITES?

Darren Johnson has replied to a recent posting on this blog that, he alleges, accuses him of being a ‘Blairite’. He is probably partially right that right that it does, but this and all other postings on this blog (unless stated) are the personal views of Peter Murry, not a collective view of Green Left. (an updated official Green Left blog should appear soon but Greenleftwindfarm is not it).

Initially my article about leadership was entitled ‘A Landslide in a Teacup’, but being rashly rhetorical perhaps I retitled it “Blairite Realos whack anarcho bhuddists”. More accurately perhaps it could have been called “Green Party Won By Reformist Tendency Which Has Some Similarities With ‘Early’ Blairites' In Terms Of Attitudes To Political Organisation Rather Than Policies As Such.”, but perhaps this wouldn’t have had quite the same ring.

That is I think the charge of Blairism is related to the way in which the reformers (i.e. those who advocated a "yes" vote in the recent leadership ballot campaign), appealed to an electorate of less active party members, ‘over the heads’ of party activists, many but not all, of whom tended to support the ‘no’. campaign. It also relates to the way that many of the leadership side appealed to a wider public opinion which they claim they were more in touch with than the ‘no’ campaigners. In both cases there is a clear similarity to the tactics and arguments used in reforms of the Labour party, perhaps started by Neil Kinnock and John Smith and continued by Blair.

There is also the concentration on winning over the middle ground of ‘middle class’ floating voters as means to electoral success, and pandering to the perceived wants of this section of the electorate. In Blair’s case in his initial election campaign and his early years this took the form of trying to avoid raising direct taxation, jettisoning Clause 4 and general friendliness to capitalism to the extent of continuing originally Thatcherite marketisation and privatisation projects. So far all I have noticed is Darren’s aversion to ‘scary’ anti-consumerist messages in election literature and other GP publicity which often now also actively encourages consumerism through adverts, advertorial. and special offers etc. So the Green party recommends types of Towel and brands of shoes, when even a pro-capitalist Green such as Jonathon Porritt (2007 p.xx), notes that the capitalism’s ‘manufacture of desire’ for ever-increasing consumption, is one of the key problems which need to tackled in any attempt to build a ecologically sustainable economic system.

As I suspect, others will have noticed Blair did seem to undergo an ‘epistemological break’ or conversion from his earlier ostensible populism, possibly occasioned by hearing a voice from a Bush, and for reasons which it would be really interesting to know, trampled over a substantial section of British public opinion to embark on the Iraq war.

Darren is of course quite right to claim to be no Blairite in as much as he has consistently opposed these and other aspects of Blair’s policies, but how does he compare to Tony on:

Commitment to economic growth?
Encouraging consumerism?
Believing that capitalism is compatible with solving the current worsening ecological crisis?
(I won't ask about new jeans which were so earnestly debated at a recent London Federation of Green Parties meeting, although this is evidently now an important political signifier, Darren and Tony seem to concur on that but I wonder if they have the same semiotic significance for both of them? Modernity? Normality? Acceptability to voters in target wards?)

Finally whilst in respect Darren’s opposition to rail privatisation and work for the minimum wage in London, a charge of Blairism is clearly unfounded, I would like to suggest that an appearance by a Green Greater London Assembly member or members when next the RMT lobbies City hall against rail privatisation would very clearly distance GP from any charges of Blairism with regard to its policies with the added possible bonus of appealing to a wider circle of potential voters in the forthcoming London mayoral elections.

Ref: Porritt,J. “Capitalism As If The World Matters”, Earthscan 2007

3 comments:

DarrenJ said...

Pete,

It is an utter lie that I find anti-consumersism "scary". I have never said or implied I found it scary. What I said was that the aggressive doom-laden way a certain member presented certain Green arguments made the Green Party sound scary. I oppose the ethos of rampant consumerism and the culture of more and more. We need to dramatically reduce our overall levels of consumption if we are to survive while ensuring resources are redistributed much more fairly.

If you are going to attack me base it on truth not lies and distortions.

Darren

DON'T dis US said...

Darren,

"Darren’s aversion to ‘scary’ anti-consumerist messages in election literature" does not mean that you find anti-consumerism scary, it means ,as you acknowledge, that you do not think it should appear in election messages. This is therefore niether a lie nor a distortion.

I'm not quite sure how this became so personalised because you are not the only prominent green politician who will "oppose the ethos of rampant consumerism" or words to that effect whilst camapigning via elction materials which advocate it through adverts and more damagingly through advertorial content.
pete

DarrenJ said...

I do not believe anti-consumerism messages should not appear in election materials. I have never said that anti-consumerist messages should not appear in election materials.

The point I was initially making when I used the word "scary" back in August 2007 was that whatever policies we choose to promote we must present them in a way that makes them appear inspiring and commonsense rather than hysterical and eccentric. That goes for whether we are presenting policies on consumersim, terrorism, nit-nurses
or whatever.

Darren Johnson