Scottish Labour and the Blogosphere

Following on from last month's post about the SNP in the blogosphere, and with Hazel Blears attacking bloggery tonight, I thought I'd consider Labour's role in online politics.

Firstly, the obvious point to make is how few regular Labour blogers there are: with Kez's retirement, and the death of Elizabeth Maginnis, the core of the Labour blogosphere in Scotland is reduced to five: Ewan Aitken, Andrew Burns, Yousuf Hamid, Tom Harris and, unfortunately for the party, Terry Kelly. There are others but their contributions are fewer and further between. And Councillor Kelly's status as a pariah of the blogosphere notwithstanding, only Tom Harris comes close to the 'star' status that Kez had online. Yousuf is definitely the one to watch: his posts are readable, thoughful and respectful, but most importantly, he's the first Labour blogger I've seen who more often than not puts across the case for Labour, rather than falling back on "Alex Salmond/Steve Cardownie/David Cameron Ate Your Hamster".

But that's the thing. The blogosphere has started building him up as the next big thing, which is probably right and ought to be encouraging, but it's also dangerous. Kez emerged as a sort of Leader of Labour in the Scottish Blogosphere and as such became something of a lightning rod, no doubt encouraging the fellow travellers but also attracting the critics from the other side, in massive numbers. And of course, it's the critics who are more likely to speak up - that's a fact of life.

And with Kez leaving the blogosphere, that left a vacuum at the heart of Scottish Labour's online presence. But nature abhors a vacuum (that's why my dog attacks the hoover) and so the spotlight has shone on Yousuf. He gets the readers, he gets the following, but in time, he'll have to put up with the headbangers as well. And that might, understandably, put him off. We might build him up (though his own growing reputation as a reputable blogger will help as well), and we may well do so with the best of intentions, but round the corner are those who'll want to knock him down again. (And why does a political movement need an online "Leader" anyway? Doesn't that miss the point somehow?)

Perhaps it's a reflection at how few Labour bloggers there are that we get all excited when one arrives on the scene. But perhaps it's the treatment that was meted out to Kez that discourages others from getting their keyboards out. Maybe we need a little less fanfare when we see new Labour bloggers, so they feel like they're joining a community that's at ease with itself, rather then being placed in a zoo enclosure.

I wish I could answer that one, but I've been considering it for a few weeks and haven't found one yet.

But there's another point: the top of the Labour establishment seems to have a contempt for bloggery which must surely discourage members from getting involved. This is Hazel Blears:

There are some informative and entertaining political blogs, including those written by elected councillors. But mostly, political blogs are written by people with a disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.

Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair.

Let me take a look at that: some blogs are written by the cynics, but most of those involved are fascinated at the political process. Some get overly excited by it, including yours truly. And if bloggers get wind of a scandal or conspiracy, of course they're going to post about it. That's what happens, and it's not a new phenomenon, that's grown up with Web 2.0. People have been able to write about things like this for as long as they've been able to write. And they've been able to speak about them for as long as they've been able to speak.

And the thing is, the blogosphere is all about new, disparate voices and new ideas. It's all about legitimate protest, debate and challenge. And this is the odd thing about what Blears has said: she's blaming us for talking about scandals, conpiracies and hypocrisy. She's saying that our discussions on those are why people are cynical. Here's a wacky thought - maybe it's the fact that there are scandals that's the problem! When we see Peter Mandelson (and, indeed, George Osborne) on a yacht with Oleg Deripaska, and ask what's going on, the source of the failure isn't Guido, or whoever is posting about it. The hit to the political process takes place the minute Mandelson or Osborne boards the boat. Reporting a conspiracy doesn't devalue the political process, the conspiracy does that. Complaining about a politician being hypocritical doesn't create cynicism, it reflects the cynicism created by that politician's hypocrisy. So the blogosphere's cry of "O tempora, o mores" isn't the problem: it's a reflection the time of cynicism that we live in, and a lament at the customs in political life. But Blears has decided that rather than blaming the person who's hand has been caught in the till, she'll attack the person who catches them.

And when you get a Labour Government Minister slating blogs just for being, rather than noting that the anti-Labour online majority needs to be counter-balanced by a strong Labour presence, is it any wonder that Labour members aren't overly willing to head to the keyboard?

And while I'm here, one more thing about Blears:

And in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers.

My, my, haven't we got big for our boots? What are us proles thinking, believing that our opinions are just as valid as Cabinet Ministers? Good grief, how can we possibly think ourselves in any way equally capable of coming to an opinion on world events than the übermenschlich Geoff Hoon? Don't get me wrong, I'd like nothing better than to see Jon Gaunt or Jeremy Clarkson treated as toxic waste, encased in concrete and buried underground for 10,000 years, but there's a dangerous principle woven into the choice of words used by Blears: she is arguing that someone's views (i.e. hers) are automatically superior to someone else's, and that your opinions don't count for toffee until you've been elected to something or appointed a minister. Never mind that our opinions determine who gets elected. Never mind that her argument actually makes the opinions of Baroness Royall (the Leader of the House of Lords) leass valid at the Cabinet table than Yvette Cooper's.

No, the idea that the valiity of your opinions is determined by the job you do or the background you have, as opposed to the principles you apply and the reasoning behind your opinion has gone out. It belongs to an age that is no longer with us. But still, Blears holds on to the concept of a stratified society that we were supposed to have left behind in 1997.

We are all human beings, with the capability of independent thought. And Blears claims she wants to see exactly in the blogosphere, which is dominated by the right. But not if you think something she doesn't want you to think, it seems.

Has this way of thinking crept into Labour? Is the fear of appearing presumptuous, or suggesting that it's OK for us plebs to speak out, what's putting off the Labour bloggers? I hope not. I hope this is just the brain of Hazel Blears at work, not the ethos of Labour and its members these days.

So Labour members, let Hazel think her thoughts of a class system at which she's at the top and everyone else just has to shut up. But think your own thoughts, and put them where we can all see them. We all have a right to Hazel's opinions, but we have a right to mine and yours as well. What do you think? Start up a blog, and tell the world!