Subscribe to The Spectator

Thursday 9 February 2012

Latest issue

Buy the current issue

Jobs at Telegraph

Tribalism: The Curse of Labour

Saturday, 11th April 2009

The official line from Number 10 is that Damian McBride's emails were "juvenile and inappropriate" and that all staff will be reminded of the "appropriate" use of resources. Presumably they will also be reminded of how to be grown up.

It has been an open secret for some time that there has been mission creep from McBride's supposed backroom role. The formerly neutral Treasury civil servant was moved last October from his job as Gordon Brown's frontline spinner because some, including cabinet ministers, believed he had become a liability. But McBride is an obsessive texter and emailer and it seems he couldn't resist letting his fingers do the walking.

Regular readers of this blog may remember the text message I received from the Number 10 charmer after I reported that officials had been taking an interest in footage of Obama's televised apologies.

Chris Grayling was right this morning to point out that the senior team around Gordon Brown should have better things to do than send emails suggesting that it might be a good idea to smear Conservative politicians. It's tempting to say this sort of thing always goes on, but the point is not to get caught. However, there is a difference between the legitimate cut and thrust of the political and ideological battle and tribal dirty tricks, which is why Number 10 has been forced to issue a statement.

It may seem an odd thing for a Labour-supporting journalist to say, but tribalism could kill the Labour Party. One of the secrets of New Labour's early success was the recognition by those around Tony Blair (and that included Gordon Brown) that Conservatives - and certainly Conservative voters - are people too. When I suggested this on a panel at last year's Labour conference I was booed. At that point I knew it would be very difficult for the Labour Party to win the next election, not because it booed me I hasten to add, but because its activists had reverted to tribal type.


Filed under: Conservatives (2071 more articles) , Damian McBride (19 more articles) , Gordon Brown (906 more articles) , New Labour (120 more articles)

Blogs: Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink   |   Comments (14)

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

Comments Post comment

Ronnie

April 11th, 2009 9:39am Report this comment

Martin, you do make me smile whenever you put 'Labour' and 'winning the next election' in the same sentence.

Forlornehope

April 11th, 2009 10:32am Report this comment

Having been a member of the Labour Party, a long time ago, I have to ask if it is not tribal, what is it? Up until the 60's it was still possible to believe that a planned economy and nationalised industries would benefit the vast majority. Any coherent belief in that died in the 70's. What is now left is simply a special interest group for professional people working in the public sector. Like all ruling groups, they genuinely believe that their interest and that of the nation is synonomous (Marx got some things right). They truly believe that the answer to every problem is more "investment" in public services. Anyone who disagrees is heartless and does not care about "the problem". Eventually this will be blown in the same way as the planned economy was blown. There is no reason for anyone who does not belong to this tribe to vote for them.

Richard Harris

April 11th, 2009 10:48am Report this comment

Yet another indication of the desperation of what's left of the New Labour "project". Don't try to big-tent spin this, it's not "tribalism" Martin, it's the way this controlling rabble have always worked. Draper's name in the frame (again) should tell you that much? Hey, didn't Gordon/ Mcbride/Whelan "gift" you a NS stakeholder P45?

Graeme

April 11th, 2009 11:31am Report this comment

What always seemed to disturb me about Labour party members and supporters I have know for many years since way back to student days, is their strange and annoying belief that if you don't agree with them then one must be a 'Tory Bastard' (the most commonly used phrase in my experience). When they can't win an argument through debate or get their point across they simply become abusive. Labour will implode because they are exposed as a small self-interested elite. They rejected the white working class years ago and will cultivate any demographic which keeps them in power no matter how damaging that is to the national interest. The BNP are an insidious lot, but one must breathe in - and then ask the horrible question, how much more damage has the BNP done or could do, compared to that done by Labour already?

Nicholas

April 11th, 2009 11:54am Report this comment

It's the timber in the eye syndrome. Labourites are incapable of seeing their own worst shortcomings and instead see everything in terms of what is wrong with their political opponents. This exposes their lack of real belief in themselves and their activities. If they were confident and achieved the results they boast of there would be no need for spin (aka lies) and no need to attack their opponents in this way.

As a Labour-supporting journalist Martin (and I have no idea why the Hell you are here but suppose it has something to do with d'Ancona's identity crisis) you need to tell some of these home truths to your Labour pals - not to us!

And some of your Labour pals, who perhaps still believe in the old ethics of the party of the working man, need to find some backbone and get rid of the bodysnatchers who are going to take you into political oblivion.

Tom Pride

April 11th, 2009 12:56pm Report this comment

Forlornehope – well said.

There is no surprise at the depths to which Gordon Brown (he of the bricks in a bag) and New Labour will stoop. The most dangerous thing one can do is to come between a socialist and their money. With the prospect of their teeth being prised off the public purse teat, expect more nasty behaviour from the Truly Nasty Party.

With unemployment now above that in 1997, what was it all about? Free light bulbs and bath plugs?

JohnAnt

April 11th, 2009 1:51pm Report this comment

I have no particular interest in Labour overcoming its 'tribalism'. The Labour Party is a 'spoiler' movement attempting to take the nation down by growing the number of the state-dependent. We can't see this too clearly, or act too faintheartedly. For better, for worse, Cameron is the only current solution.

Rhoda Klapp

April 11th, 2009 2:39pm Report this comment

When I asked why you align yourself with this bunch of incompetent crooks you answered in terms of not being ready to support the tories. Well, you don't have to give your loyalty to anyone or any party which does not deserve it. But to continue to wish the Labour party well IS tribalism. Cut them loose. Be your own man. (Oh, most of them consider you an apostate already, why traipse around in the dust of where the tribe has passed hoping they will take you up again?)

J H Holloway

April 11th, 2009 3:44pm Report this comment

Excellent piece and right on the money. Why do so many Labour supporters of the current generation become so swivel-eyed when challenged?

Look in the mirror people and see the new nasty party.

De Rigueur

April 15th, 2009 8:14am Report this comment

When Blair & Co re-branded Labour they could have called it the Socialist Party, but research showed them that nobody thought that socialism worked, except for a few die-hards. So they had no choice but to continue with the tribal pretence.
After all, they couldn't have just packed up their bags and said, "Sorry mate, the party's over." Could they?

Gev Pearce

April 15th, 2009 11:32am Report this comment

Do any of you think Martin supports Labour.
Deluded fools.
He was probably a leftie in his teens, rattling tins for the miners because he wanted to rebel against his decent conservative middle class and his public school background.
Then he grows up and knows that to pay his mortgage and send his kids to private school he ain't going to vote labour.
The funniest thing is that you lot think he is Labour

Rhoda Klapp

April 15th, 2009 1:52pm Report this comment

Gev, do you think he isn't poor enough to vote Labour? Or noble enough? or too middle class?

Do you think that sending your kids to private school precludes anybody from voting Labour? That would disqualify several ministers. (I have no idea whether Martin sends his kids to private school, or indeed has kids).

We think he's Labour because he says he is. I think he's naive to cling to the party despite everything he knows, but maybe he's a blind idealist. Or maybe loyal to the tribe no matter what.

Gev Pearce

April 15th, 2009 3:39pm Report this comment

Rhoda you are either very trusting or Martin's agent.
Where in any of his columns are his Labour party ideals.
Actions not words young lady is what counts.

I could not care less if he votes Labour or not, I just cannot stand the stupid been duped.
Personally I feel that all political parties are run by fools and voted in by tribalists.

Rhoda Klapp

April 15th, 2009 6:26pm Report this comment

Gev, in fact I'm the only poster who has been rebuked by Martin for keeping on at him over his loyalties. In fact I'm trying to save him from his personal crisis of faith, but do you know he isn't in the least grateful!

Post comment

Back to top

About Martin Bright
Cartoons

Tag Cloud

Search this blog

Martin Bright's blog archive

sponsored links

Spectator recommends

Spectator classifieds

THE PRESENT FINDER

1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk

OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS

Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844

RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings

62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk