You are here: Home » Comment »

Ed’s got a new guru? It’s much more complex than that…

August 20, 2012 12:37 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Recently the New Statesman’s George Eaton revealed that Tim Soutphommasane was Ed Miliband’s new “guru”. Yesterday the Observer carried a piece by Soutphommasane, a thoughtful Blue Labour response to the Olympics, and a call for progressive nationalism.

That’s all well and good, but everyone seems to be going guru-crazy again. We know where that leads. We’ve been there before. Remember Lord Glasman? Of course you do.

Now I happen to have a soft spot for Maurice. But I realise that I am in a minority with that viewpoint. Many within the Labour movement were keen to see the back of him and knew exactly what he would do if given sufficient opportunity – so they have him enough rope and watched as the inevitable happened.

Now there’s no suggestion that a similar thing could happen with Soutphommasane. I don’t know enough about about his work to determine where the points of likely contention and conflict are likely to be. But I do know that they will be there – because any clash between academia and politics always causes such conflicts. Objective truth and political reality clash as readily and painfully as biblical twins. It’s hard to keep a guru for long in this town once they are identified as such – just ask Steve Hilton.

Which is why I’m not sure it’s good for anyone that Soutphommasane is put up on a pedestal as Miliband’s latest guru. For a start it’s too simplistic. Whilst Soutphommasane will certainly play an important role in Labour’s policy development – especially in terms of nationhood, a subject Miliband has already spoken out on – he is by no means the only “guru” in the Milibandiverse. In fact, you might say that Ed Miliband is a man of many gurus, depending on how you define the term.

Some, such as Glasman and Soutphommasane are unveiled in the media. Some, such as Stewart (now Lord) Wood are well known in media and Westminster circles. Others, such as Miliband’s Old friend Marc Stears - who appears to influence and reflect Ed’s thoughts as well as anyone - has managed to remain largely out of the spotlight, for now. And that’s before you even start to get into the office politics of Ed Miliband’s inner circle…

There are a gaggle of gurus, if one was inclined to catalogue them. Miliband is a voracious consumer of ideas, from a wide variety of sources. He’s even known to read LabourList, which obviously speaks to a keen mind…or something…

Where Soutphommasane is of interest is how closely his worldview and Jon Cruddas’s seem to align. Like Miliband, Cruddas too devours ideas and intellectual concepts, and his interest in Soutphommasane is no fly by night thing. In fact months ago – before his promotion to the shadow cabinet – he was pointing people in the direction of Soutphommasane’s PhD thesis.

Soutphommasane is interesting because he talks about right wing shibboleths like the flag and nationalism in a way the left can be comfortable with. Much in the same way as Cruddas does.

And right now – the most important guru in Ed Miliband’s gaggle is potentially Jon Cruddas. If we must go guru crazy, the honourable member for Dagenham might be the best place to start…

Related posts:

  1. ‘Cameroon guru’ gives the game away
  2. How to vote for Labour’s leader: It’s more complex than it looks
  3. Does Labour really need Obama’s digital guru?
  4. Tim Soutphommasane, Labour – and a new patriotism
  • JS

    “Now I happen to have a soft spot for Maurice.”

    So irritating. You may want to name drop and show you are on first name terms with him.   :)

    But to your many and varied readers who the !$%%*! is Maurice? (Presumably Lord Glasman?)

    As a writer remember to put yourself in the place of the reader. Maintain some sort of continuity and flow in the narrative.

    • Emmaburnell

      But he just called him Lord Glasman in the last line of the paragraph above?!

      • JS

         Oh yes, so he did! Perhaps that is why I wrote “Presumably Lord Glasman”.

    • http://www.labourlist.org/mark_ferguson Mark Ferguson

      I called him Lord Glasman in the sentence above. It was call him Maurice, or risk repetition. And I often use people’s first names – often with people I don’t know…sorry if that offends you, but that’s just how I write.

    • trotters1957

      This is a blog not a Booker prize entry.

      A teacher off school?

      • JS

         No, not a teacher off school. Try addressing the point and not be patronising to me and to teachers.

        I am just raising the irritation that people “in the know” forget to give the details a lay reader might need.

    • JC

      The “soft spot” is a foetid cesspit full of human faeces and urine in East London.

  • SR819

    To be honest, I think Labour would benefit more from adopting a form of economic patriotism (as Ed Miliband has talked about) rather than focusing too much on this sort of progressive civic patriotism. The latter is all well and good, and I’m not saying we should let the far right adopt national symbols as their own, but I do think there’s a lot of demand for economic nationalism and yet no party is taking the bull by the horns.

    Recall the anger when Cadbury was being taken over by Kraft, or when the Corus steel plant was being mothballed (Corus being owned by the Indian company Tata). Look at all the anxiety about the lack of any indigenous car makers anymore, and the large number of foreign takeovers. Moreover, I think we all know the irritation regarding Indian call centres and the communication problems owing to their poor English,  and the demand that companies keep their call centres in the UK.

    All these issues can be framed as an issue of economic sovereignty. The same with economic protectionism. Market research has found that many consumers would like to see goods marked as “made in the UK” so that they can support British businesses.

    Miliband said people should try to buy British, but he distanced himself from genuine economic patriotism. How about some stronger protectionist economic policies, like higher tariffs on imports from China so that our domestic car-makers can flourish? How about giving tax incentives to companies that don’t offshore services like call centres? Maybe even look at subsidies to British companies to give them the head start needed to compete against foreign companies.

    30 years ago these policies wouldn’t be controversial. Even Conservatives like Alan Clark used to support some forms of protectionism (indeed, the Tories used to be the party for protectionism, before it became neoliberal). A large majority of people would support the aforementioned policies, and they would have the effect of protecting British workers from globalisation, reducing inequality and stimulating domestic demand.

    The only ones to lose out would be the global financial capitalists, but we should not worry about representing them. The Tories can’t advocate the above policies because their paymasters in the CBI and the City would stand to lose out from a retreat from globalisation. We, however, have no such problem, and indeed the policies I outline would surely have union support.

    • treborc

      Well if you read Tim’s musing you would say he was New labour until Blair went to war, then he did not like Brown to much, and now he’s helping Ed, I suspect because he’s Ed special advisor , but it’s better to call him a guru.

      I suspect £170,000 is handy when your guruing

    • trotters1957

      Not sure how we stand with the EU and your policy suggestions but no problem in principle. Free trade has always been a con perpetrated by the haves.

      • SR819

         Yeah the EU is a strong advocate of free trade, and is either in the process of or has already signed a free trade deal with India. The sticking point was that the Indian government wanting to liberalise certain employment protection regulations, so that companies who employ Indian workers on intra-company transfers would not need to give these workers the same rights as other workers. This means that Indian workers, on lower wages and with none of the social protections of European workers, would be much more attractive for businesses. This trade deal, therefore, means that in certain aspects India will become a member of the EEC, and if we were worried about undercutting of wages due to Eastern European migrant labour in the construction sector, the same effect will be amplified many times over in the IT services sector.

        If the British people actually knew about this trade deal, I’m sure a large majority would oppose it. Like I said, people are strongly opposed to Indian call centres, and if this trade deal goes through it effectively creates a loophole whereby companies can run call centres with Indian staff but located in the EU.

        Perhaps we do need to renegotiate our involvement in the European project if the same ideological commitment to free trade continues amongst the EU bureaucrats.

        • derek

          Never a better time to negotiate with the EU, especially with Hollande around.

      • John Dore

        Scary, scary, scary. Are you for real? If its such a con, can you give us what you think is a better system?

        • trotters1957

          There has never been free trade. All the major trading blocs have trade barriers both tariff and technical. 
          The British Empire supposedly had free trade with in it but that was a con, the US advocates free trade but has bigger trade barriers than Europe and it’s so-called free trade policy is backed up by the US military particularly in South America and Africa.
          Free trade is supposed to go in both directions and in all goods not just in natural resources.
          I’ll repeat its a con, perpetrated first by the British and now by the US.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            The EU could very easily be converted into a pro-European trading bloc . I think this makes more sense than restricting the barriers to the UK alone

          • John Dore

            We are in deficit against the EU on Trade. The Germans outdo us on manufacturing, the French on agriculture. We are good at finance but you hate that. Where exactly is the opportunity to turn this round? 

            Our opportunity is to export to the common wealth. We don’t make enough of our ties.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            Might have worked 50 years ago, but not now. 

          • derek

            I think you need to ask yourself whether the UK has the potential in engineering talent to create an Industrial new age, personally, I think the UK does have that talent. 

          • Brumanuensis

            In some senses it already is, notably with the CAP.

        • Diesel Dragster

          Is “Scary, scary, scary” three times more scary than just plain “scary”?

      • Alexwilliamz

        Unless it breaks laws being used to protect the privileged interests of course. Corn laws anyone?

    • John Dore

      I dont think that any party could advocate Economic patriotism because it would fall flat on its arse. Are we saying buy British? That campaign failed in the 70′s. Consumers wont react to that, the herd will always buy the best it can afford and moreover so many of the consumer godds that we buy are made abroad. Its not going to stoke up new enterprise and employment, which is what the part time xxxxxxxx in number 11 needs to concentrate on. 

      “How about some stronger protectionist economic policies, like higher tariffs on imports from China so that our domestic car-makers can flourish?” If we did that and the countries that we put those trade barriers against stopped trading with us or put up recipricol barriers against other British Industries. What could the cost be?

      “How about giving tax incentives to companies that don’t offshore services like call centres?” I like this idea. “Maybe even look at subsidies to British companies to give them the head start needed to compete against foreign companies.” You’re forgettin European Law.

      “A large majority of people would support the aforementioned policies, and they would have the effect of protecting British workers from globalisation, reducing inequality and stimulating domestic demand.” They might do until the full effect was discussed with them. The net result would be that on average we would be massively poorer overall. The clear signal to the world would be that Britain does not want to trade and was now focussed inwardly. Our currency would devalue due to a loss of confidence, raw material costs and imported goods costs would spiral, stoking inflation. We would have to wait until British industry could start to produce the goods that people want, assuming  we could pay for the use of IP owned by foreigners.

      “The only ones to lose out would be the global financial capitalists, but we should not worry about representing them.” This is lunacy, our whole economy would collapse like a deck of cards. Imagine what happens if British companies cant raise finance? All the big companies fail, all the small companies that trade with them fail, 35m on the dole, can you afford that?

      You should get together with Mike.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      Totally agree SR819. Give it time – I think that the demand for employment and the social consequences of decline will mean this sensible approach will be very popular in future years. The danger is that if the left don’t offer it, then the right will, wrapped up in a much nastier form of nationalism. 

      • John Dore

        The left has never, and never will offer sustainable employment. It cant innovate, be efficient or compete. Their is no example of what you think and moreover any experiment of the left has resulted in the exploitation of the people to a greater degree than a decent social democracy such as ours.

        This is just a pipe dream, the Arab spring came about because of better information, people could communicate, collaborate and be freerer. We have almost unlimited access to information, Information that shows epic failure of every left wing experiment. The country looks to real socialism as a disaster and their no way they would cut their throats for your ideology. Which is nice.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

          I see no reason why they should opt for your ‘alternative’ since it differs so little from the Conservatives. You have a touching faith in the abilities of technology and globalisation to produce a positive outcome for everybody. Won’t happen – the current scenario of countries like China producing mass-produced cheap goods to sell to us while we provide financial services has already shown itself to be a busted flush. China wishes to have more to offer its people than to be the electronics  sweatshop of the world.

          The mentality that we change the TV because of fashion or technological advance, not because there is anything wrong with it, is not sustainable.  It has become virtually impossible to get anything cheaper than a computer repaired out of guarantee. That isn’t sustainable either. It is the mentality which the current trade patterns has promoted and celebrated.

        • trotters1957

          “The left has never, and never will offer sustainable employment. It cant innovate, be efficient or compete. Their is no example of what you think and moreover any experiment of the left has resulted in the exploitation of the people to a greater degree than a decent social democracy such as ours. ”
          Pardon, Europe 1945-1979, full employment, higher growth than the 30 years since. 
          You make grand statements backed up by no substance.

          You advocate more “trickledown” more neo-liberalism, it’s failed everyone but the 1%.
          Did you miss the credit crunch, the euro collapse, the monopolies in every area of British capitalism.
          These are the consequences of the last 30 years idiocy and dogma. 
          You don’t have any better ideas than more of the same which will continue to fail most of the people of this country.

        • Alexwilliamz

          I thought social democracy was a left wing philosophy. Ahh well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    I like some of these ideas because they suggest that we can be conservative about that which is good, and our contribution to the good society. the NHS, public services, the idea of active government, a diverse society with clear standards, equality.
    I think the time of constantly stressing the need for endless, rolling reform must cease.

    However, I also think that (and I know we will get the usual cry from those naive enough to think that free trade is the answer when we compete against slave labour wages) we will have to look again at economic protectionism and more sustainable and self-reliant policies aimed at promoting localised production by and for the people of Europe

  • Casio

    Having a guru normally means that you have no clear idea yourself precisely where you’re going or where you want to go. Which is obviously a very bad thing for anybody posing as a leader.

    • John Dore

      Rubbish, leaders don’t need to have ideas. The idea of leadership is to make decisions, ensure everybody knows the mission, how we’re going to there and to have a strategy on that. The initial idea can come from anywhere.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

        It does help if leaders have some sort of core belief, though, and a sense that they have something to achieve. Thatcher’s strength was that she did have a clear idea of the sort of society she wanted to create and how to get there. The leader doesn’t have to invent the ideas, but to reduce their role to a sort of managerialism leads to Blair, who simply didn’t have the sincerity of Thatcher and so ended up being thought of as a liar.

      • Brumanuensis

        You can’t make decisions if you have no guiding philosophy to base your decisions on. If leaders just get their ideas from everyone else, then policy can become incoherent.

        • Alexwilliamz

          Hmmm this probably explains a lot about our last decade or so of political malaise….

      • Casio

        Like you’ve been intimate with one or more leaders, Dore, or have been listened to by any person of significance ever. What a laugh. You’re beginning to sound like that other loony tune ThePurpleBooker.

  • SR819

    If other countries retaliate, so what? The volume of international trade may decrease, but realise that the percentage increase in trade volume has completely diverged from worldwide economic growth. If there is a global decrease in trade, that will probably be a good thing, especially environmentally and in terms of protecting labour standards.

    British companies can raise finance if we had a state investment bank to direct financial resources to those domestic companies that are deemed to be most profitable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this sort of arrangement, many developing countries used Infant Industry strategies to improve their industrial base. In fact by relying on domestic capital is more likely to protect these businesses from the whims of international finance, and are less likely to shut down factories at the first sign of economic trouble.

    Even if these policies do reduce growth rates, again I ask is this such a bad thing? Most of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the rich. If the economic pie becomes smaller but more equitably distributed, I think that’s a fair trade off.

  • Mr Chippy

    If you are saying we should avoid listening to the flavour of the month I agree. What is a guru anyway? Probably a highly remunerated version of myself in the pub after a few pints.

    Blairism heralded the advent of political weather forecasters - presentable and articulate individuals who tell you something which you could probably find out yourself. Labour needs political meterologists - people who not only tell you which way the wind is blowing but why? Part of the problem is the absence of any coherent ideology. Blair started by associating ideology with dogma merely as a cover to diss anything he didn’t agree with. He then tried a pathethic attempt at ‘ the third way’ which run into sand. So he finished on technocratic arguments or as I put it tailing ending markets.

    Currently Labour is ideologically barren. We should not rely on individuals no matter how gifted. Trade unions have a key role to play as collective orgainsations. However they appear to be bereft of ideas. That is why the newly formed Class has an interesting challenge to deliver. The jury is currently out on whether they provide a coherent platform which is electorally popular. If so they will challenge the current guru class.

    ps Why do all these gurus appear to be men?

    • Brumanuensis

      I like the weather forescaster analogy, Mr Chippy. Who’s Michael Fish then?

      • Mr Chippy

        We could start a competition here. But I would suggest that ex-FT journo who wrote that book living on air about the UK competing as a post industrial economy.

      • treborc

         Did he not have problems with wind.

  • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

    Before we get to discussing the ways in which we might achieve the right sort of national unity perhaps we should start by making room for Labour supporters and membership within the Labour Party – if Labour can’t welcome the people it depends on for votes into the party and then as Parliamentary candidates, what chance is there of the LP developing any kind of inclusive national perspective.

    Labour remains too much of a top-down party – Oxbridge PPE and you’re ushered in through the front door and the rest are door-knocker cannon-fodder. Well, my reaction to all this is, increasingly, f**k ‘em!

    Tim Soutphommasane has some interesting ideas, if he has influence then I’m just hoping that, in the hands of the usual apparatchiks, this doesn’t get converted into more top-down bollox with added nationalism.

  • Amber Star

    Tim Soutphommasane – he may become a ‘fixture’ in Ed’s team but I think his name will prove too challenging for the media & the twitterati. A name with more than 2 syllables = obscurity.

    • Brumanuensis

      Like Am-ber? ;)

  • Johnno

    To be honest the Ed Miliband and the Labour Party are so hopelessly lost I reckon they could do with all the help, counsel and guidance they can get!

  • Kushiel

    “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
    “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.

    LEWIS CARROLL , Alice in Wonderland

    Same goes for Miliband and the Labour Party.

    Does anybody have the remotest clue which way we ought to go from here?

    • Kushiel

      No suggestions please from sundry nutcases like ThePurpleBooker. Thank you.

    • Brumanuensis

      To be honest Kushiel, I think the emphasis on the ‘squeezed middle’ and ‘predators vs producers’ is fairly sound intellectual ground. The problem is that the Party’s inherent inability to stand up for what it believes in, means we spend half our time equivocating about competence issues. Of course, incompetence is a good charge to lay against the government, but from a strategic point of view an equal amount of effort needs to be put into fleshing out existing ideas, instead of endlessly spinning off new concepts that last little more than a week before being forgotten.

      • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

        ”
        inherent inability to stand up for what it believes in”

        I get the feeling that this inability is a consequence of the reluctance to acknowledge the failures of New Labour, e.g. the misguided privileging of the market as a mechanism that delivers well-being. How can Labour criticise the Tory-led Coalition when many of the Tories ‘reforms’ were first initiated by New Labour.

        To do so would be dangerous: the  Labour right who are very reluctant to leave the neo-liberal fantasy land and are still firmly ensconced within the Parliamentary Labour Party may, if provoked by an ‘emperor has no clothes’ call from Ed, go off in a huff and found SDP mk2.

  • Daniel Speight

    For some reason whenever we are fed this line on patriotism and flag-waving being good for party of the left, all I can think of is Joe Stalin using Mother Russia has his rallying call.

    I guess the difference between us and those Russians is we are British.

Latest

  • Featured Is party politics dying out?

    Is party politics dying out?

    By Mark Ferguson

    This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    By Mark Ferguson

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]

    Read more →