Taking back the lexicon

laurencemarshall Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 09:14:57 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

The Tories are stealing Labour's clothes, and it's time to take them back.



The other week I was watching Cameron's 'hug a hoody' speech and a scary realisation came over me. In the background was a sign saying "Centre for Social Justice". SOCIAL JUSTICE??? Since when did the Tories do social justice? Social Justice is something the Labour Party does.

I examined the website of the CSJ and pretty much found an organisation dedicated to he removal of the state from people's lives, and encouraging voluntary groups to take its place.

Now, I have always believed in the Rawlsian concept of social justice as "justice as fairness" of which the principles are (as stated by Rawls in his Theory of Justice):

  1. Everyone will have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberty for others.
  2. Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
a) They are to be of the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.
c) They are attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

The point that needs some consideration is 2a. This is the difference principle that Rawls explains using the economic tool of indifference curves, but can be explained as that the supply of wealth need not be equal but must be to everyone's advantage. Furthermore, inequalities in society should be removed only if they benefit the least advantaged.

Labour has introduced the national minimum wage, Surestart and the Working families tax credit, all examples of the Labour parties' commitment to social justice. The Tories opposed these measures, and Cameron bangs on about social justice like he knows what it means. This is a disgrace.

We need to take back the concept of social justice, as it is a Labour principle and not a Tory one.

Does anybody else have any other examples of the Tories infiltration of Labour's concepts?


tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Taking back the lexicon | 8 comments (8 topical)

Re: Taking back the lexicon (#1)

by JM on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 02:45:49 AM GMT

Maybe if a few of our supporters were a little less eager to constantly attack New Labour's achievements in the arena of Social Justice, we'd be a lot more secure in this respect.

I friend of mine recently went to a MORI conference and came back amazed by all the achievements of this government - she simply had no idea of what we'd done after hearing rant after rant about Labour being "Thatcherite" and "right wing" over the last few years.


Re: Taking back the lexicon (#2)

by SwingVoter on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:10:28 AM GMT

Lawrence,
Another example could be standing up to big business. DC is making noises in this direction, whilst Blair cosies up. I believe Cameron is starting to build a coalition between those who really care about money (natural Tories), and those who aren't so shallow (naturally not).


Re: Taking back the lexicon (#3)

by JM on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:47:56 AM GMT

Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Cameron can talk about 'redistribution of wealth' and only Blair can talk about bringing the private sector into public services to the extent he does.

Kennedy would have been accused of being soft on Communism, a Labour PM would be called Old Labour and a Tory Leader would be accused of wanting to sell off pubic services.


[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back the lexicon (#4)

by snowflake5 on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:57:28 PM GMT

Complaining about Chocolate Oranges is not "standing up to big business". No one knows whether Cameron is really anti-business or not. If he is, then perhaps Tories should vote Labour. You can't run an economy without business. Under Labour they are fairly regulated, so that the consumer and employee are protected. There is an equitable trade-off between the three groups.

Note that American business is starting to feel very jealous of our sensible regulation compared to the expensive Sarbanes-Oxley madness they have to put up with, while the American employee is also jealous of the protections the British worker has.

Our position is pretty much balanced and just, compared to everywhere else on the planet. If you are voting based on the economy, you'd be mad not to vote Labour.  


[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back the lexicon (#5)

by MM on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:06:07 AM GMT

I took the trouble to read Cameron's speech about so-called social justice.  My own view the speech was lacking it had lots of nice managment consultant type phrases.  It had a lovely film review of Kidulthood and praise for voluntary groups.  The actual substance of his speech was that he wants to reduce the role of the state in fighting the 'causes of crime'.  But give more power to voluntary organisations, as always it will come down to money as the much maligned Ms Toynbee argued in the Guardian.

David Cameron's speech to CSJ Kids symposium
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1817256,00.html

Politicans of all parties can produce waffle, Labour Cabinet Ministers are some of the worst for talking in 'New Labour code'.  But Cameron's general well-being speech was some of the biggest waffle i've read in 2006.  Amazingly the media including the BBC and Guardian were prepered to hype the speech up.

David Cameron's speech to Google Zeitgeist Europe 2006
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1780585,00.html

The problem Labour Minister's face is that:

  • They have so many external and internal problems to actually form a co-ordinated attack on Tory policy (the advertising with a animal thing they did was a complete waste of money).  Ever since the PM tried to introduce the 90-day detention package and Education bill the party has lurched from one problem to another.  If a Minister stands up attacking Cameron it looks rather foolhardy given the various problems Labour have.  Soultion, fresh start?  wait for the next leader?
  • The other point is do Ministers really want to attack opposition policy?  There can be no more annoying sight in British politics than the Labour Party Chairwoman discussing Tory policy, on a politics show when she should be discussing Labour policy.  A difficult balancing act.
  • There are plenty of things Cameron can be attacked for his past association with Lamont and the ERM crisis.  The fact that he wrote the 2005 Election Manifesto.  Problem is nobody is really making these points.


[ Parent ]

Re: Taking back the lexicon (#6)

by Chris Gale on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:41:46 PM GMT


The Cameron agenda is based on that of his pal Zac Goldsmith and the 'ruralist' philosophy the Goldsmith family have been funding for years.

The 'green' agenda of Cameron, himself a regular attendee at fox hunts, is nothing more than a PR exercise,beneath it lies a hard right wing ideology that rejects all  progressive social change.

It is tied to the interests of the bloodsports lobby that is the Countryside Alliance, the CA in turn representing a right wing alliance of farmers, landowners and wealthy city businessmen who like to blast birds from the sky at weekends.

Before the last election the Tory MP (and bloodsports enthusiast) Nicholas Soames, told a lobby journalist in the House of Commons, that the coming of David Cameron heralded the start of a "return of the natural order"

Cameron is the messiah of the aristocratic 'green' brigade and their deeply sinister and dangerous ideology. An ideology based on extreme right wing politics and barbaric bloodsports.


Re: Taking back the lexicon (#7)

by SW on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 09:58:11 PM GMT

The Centre for Social Justice was a little wheeze thought up by Iain Duncan Smith after his first visit to a council estate. Mainly an attempt to create a reason why he was too modern to lead their Party (instead of too crap). And yes, it is entirely about Christian charities taking over from the welfare state. Does not actually call for workhouses and christian missions to poor parts of cities but he might as well have. Fny, we had an idea about starting an organistion to end abject poverty - we called it the Labour Party.


Re: Taking back the lexicon (#8)

by laurencemarshall on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 03:46:44 AM GMT

I couldn't agree more.


[ Parent ]

Taking back the lexicon | 8 comments (8 topical)