Home > Essays > All

Sunday 27 May 2012

Insanity has always been integral to New Labour

10 June 2009

/article_images/articledir_7378/3689123/1_listing.jpg

Martin Bright says that the party labels its enemies as ‘mad’ for Freudian reasons: ‘projecting’ its own collective and individual mental disorders upon foes and rebels alike

What is it with New Labour and accusations of psychological weakness? No sooner had Hazel Blears announced her resignation from the Cabinet but dark murmurings bubbled up from Downing Street that the Salford MP ‘couldn’t handle it’. She had clearly cracked under the pressure following revelations about her expenses, it was suggested. Peter Mandelson appeared to be supportive when he told Sky News that Hazel Blears had a right to be angry that her career had ended in humiliation after doing such a ‘superb job’. But he couldn’t help adding that her decision to go had been prompted by the stress of discovering the media camped on her doorstep. In the end she has just ‘found it too much’, he said.

The alternative possibility, that Blears had made the entirely rational decision to walk before she was pushed, would never have been considered by the party high command. In the New Labour universe, any dissent can only be the result of a diseased mind, because to disagree would be, quite literally, insane.

It is three years since I first wrote about Labour’s obsession with the fragility of the human mind. David Blunkett had just published his memoirs. Here, for the first time, he admitted to suffering from depression during the crisis that forced him from the Home Office in 2004. Dealing with the fallout from his affair with Kimberley Quinn and the intense scrutiny of his inquiries about a passport for her nanny had been like going over the top in the first world war, he said. (Further evidence of Blunkett’s delusional tendencies, some might suggest.)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Martin Bright | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (9)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Christopher Chantrill

June 11th, 2009 2:53pm Report this comment

Well, this is the "therapeutic turn," isn't it? You understand human action in terms of "healthy" and "unhealthy" instead of "good" and "evil."

Very modern, I'd say. Very "joined up."

Steve Wonder

June 11th, 2009 5:07pm Report this comment

I think Peter Mandelson was simply slightly the worse for drink at the Harlepool count. There is often, understandably enough, drink taken as nerves wear thin at the count. I grant that it was a somewhat hysterical delivery though.

SuperiorLibraryAssistant

June 13th, 2009 9:19am Report this comment

"Gordon Brown is no dictator, but he is not a natural democrat"

Hahahaha...no belief in democracy, but not a dictator?

Let us not forget, the only election he has ever won was in a Labour fiefdom...

Richard

June 13th, 2009 11:36am Report this comment

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.

Stronghold Barricades

June 13th, 2009 12:28pm Report this comment

So when will they admit to the flaws in Tony Bliar's character?

Or do we already know that he was just Compulsive?

Battle 2807

June 13th, 2009 2:26pm Report this comment

Martin, as someone whose mother is suffering from depression, I find it very insulting that you class depression as insanity.

Jim

June 13th, 2009 7:37pm Report this comment

Does this mean that you, too, are guilty of projection? I think this article risks sounding very sanctimonious. I agree with the person who said that you shouldn't equate depression and mental illness with insanity.

Simon Stephenson

June 14th, 2009 10:13pm Report this comment

"Gordon Brown is no dictator, but he is not a natural democrat. He and his allies simply cannot understand how anyone could not think the way they do."

Martin, do you think it's OK that a group of people who feel thus should have been able to become the political leadership of this country? Do you think that we would be better off if we had a system that caused more rounded people to rise to the top? Or is it the case that the job actually requires people who are certain about the correctness of their own beliefs?

Jeremy Poynton

September 6th, 2009 5:21am Report this comment

"Authoritarian governments will always describe opponents as insane, and totalitarian regimes go so far as to lock dissidents away in lunatic asylums. "

You think they don't do this as well? Just google FTAC

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-457934/Revealed-Blairs-secret-stalker-squad.html

Post comment