You are here: Home » Featured »

Calling the tune

November 10, 2011 8:45 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

“Remember the War against Franco?
That’s the Kind where each of us belongs.
Though he may have won all the battles…
We had all the good songs!”

 Tom Lehrer, Folk Song Army

A long-running discussion has been had both in the Labour Party and on the left more widely about the whether the UK has a “progressive majority”. While there are voices on both sides of the argument who lack nuance, generally, it’s quite clear that the answer is yes on some things, maybe on others, definitely not on others. What is more contentious than the basic political question of who has the biggest gang, is the broader question of how treat those who are not instinctively, tribally and committed to being on your side.

Politics is complicated. Answers that might seem simple and self-evident to you and I, will appear illogical and even frightening to someone coming from a different perspective. This doesn’t make those people wrong or evil. It means they have – at some point – been convinced by the opposite arguments.

Labour people I talk to simply don’t understand how the Government are not failing more given all that they are destroying and getting

wrong. But we don’t realise that a lot of what we fight, we also fight the public. On key issues like welfare reform or responses to public disorder for example, many of my friends on the left – Labour or otherwise – are a long, long way removed from where the public tell us they are on these issues.

At the moment, there seem to be two prevalent schools of thought within Labour on how we deal with those beyond our tribe. There are those who will trample over their fellow Labour members, their beliefs and values to align with the policies of the opposition. Who say that Labour can only win as Tories who can manage being a Tory a little more efficiently. Equally, there are those who shun anyone not 100% onside on every issue. Who will spurn forever anyone of the left who accepts that one basic tenet of democracy is a compromise with the people.

Previously I have criticised those who spurn those outside of our tribe who count themselves of the Left. I stand by that. We need passion and ideology and those that will accept the advances of the Labour Party should be welcomed. Activists are a rare and precious resource.

But equally, I criticise those who would have Labour be an unelectable organisation of ideological purity. That instead of wondering about how to talk to those who question the values we hold dear and might listen to answers, will spurn them as “Tories” for even asking. Labour must learn to compromise with the electorate where we can find a space which suits both our values and theirs. We must learn to treat the electorate’s questing of policy as opportunities not simply to lecture but to listen and to understand why they fear what we want. To understand how to convince the electorate of our ideas and their worth, we must show we are listening to the fears they articulate to us – on welfare, on immigration, on the deficit.

When I worked in sales, I learned that the most important thing to do was listen. That a sales pitch should be 75% the customer talking (far too few sales people are capable of this, which is a shame for everyone who ever has to suffer through a bad pitch). We have to let the electorate tell us what it is that they really want. We then have to make sure that we can match as much of our pitch to that offer as possible. That doesn’t mean changing the essential product. That’s not possible. But it does mean looking at how we emphasise the values of that product. Too much of political communication is about us telling the electorate what we’d like to do/save/scrap. We fetishise policies when we should glorify outcomes. It’s the outcomes that the public notice.If we retreat into an ideological comfort zone, we will appear smug – as Mark has articulated so well. We need to be able to make our arguments and make them well. But the way we make our arguments is important too.

The Labour Party are due the fight of our lives at the next election. We have a soft poll lead and two vicious opponents who may not always be on each other’s side, but will certainly be against us. We cannot simply sing our good songs to cheer each other up and let the right win all the battles. We need to find a tune we can get the electorate to hum along with.

Related posts:

  1. Making it…Against the Odds: tune in for tonight’s broadcast
  2. With Alexander, Labour is humming a new tune on foreign policy
  3. Poll List: Half those who will tune in say debates could influence their vote
  4. Who are you calling a deficit denier?
  5. Calling out Cameron on CND slurs
  • Anonymous

    Tribes which tribe would I vote for the Newer Labour tribe of middle class labour, or the Miliband tribe which see disabled people when they knock on doors, without knowing what the illness was Miliband believed he could work, scrounger because the hard working tax payer next door stated so, wonder what the next door  neighbour would say if he was told he had cancer of the brain.

    The fact is right now after voting labour all my life and we had an election, in all honesty I would not vote Labour.

    Ask the Mullins what they think, whoops cannot they are dead.

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/881136-married-couple-driven-to-commit-suicide-by-utter-poverty

  • Anonymous

    Hi Emma, I was in the middle of writing a comment but suddenly lost connection.
    So lost my train of thought.

    I’ll just add, your piece seems to say to me some of the following questions:

    What are we now; where are we at; what do we need to say and get the message out;
    how do we listen and connect with members and the public beyond traditional boundaries;
    and how can we go forward?

    My other response/impression, speaking relatively from the outside looking in is that it feels as if
    we have gone back to some sort of starting point and are searching for identity; regrouping;
    reshaping core values and beliefs and pragmatic translation of that into coherent policies.

    There are also appear to be internal power struggles and tensions, especially emanating from the right of the party; they always seem to have the upper hand from where I can see it; eg expressed via right wing and mainstream media. Do they have greater resources to enable this- eg putting out messages, influencing process etc?

    I think there is also a danger the party can simply become reactive instead of proactive whilst in opposition; become too complacent and comfortable, just criticizing right wing ideology instead of  putting every energy into building our own base and set of ideas/policies, completely separately and independently from the current agenda.

    All the talents need to be brought on board, and a wide collaboration of approach; looking beyond mere tribal and traditional boundaries.So on the one hand, retain strongly Labour values and principles, whilst in tandem develop a broader vision.

    For me, that does not equate to moving further to the right; that is not inherently “progressive” but simply about direction of travel, and perhaps still being a bit awe struck by New Lab era?
    I’m a bit tired of this constant refrain/assumption  that being progressive automatically means we must move to the right….that’s more like a rehash of NL, surely- and we have moved on?
    No, it’s Labour values that need re articulating- and we should be proud of our traditions on the left of centre, and build further on that.

     So, if anything, I’d like to see a far stronger cohesiveness of core values, but translated in a way that is adapted to modern life, and a realistic outlook.(For example, not dogmatically applied.)

    Ideally, I would favour a centre left movement that incorporates many strands; is dynamic and flexible, but also has a strong sense of identity and core values, and is not afraid or apologetic to articulate that.

    Also- very importantly, becomes a genuine democratic force and disseminated power base;
    not hierarchical or authoritarian; closed shop etc.

    At the moment there seems to be a feeling of impasse and vacuum; a stopping and starting.
    I don’t know what those factors are that are contributing?

    But if Labour has any chance of electoral success next time it has got to re group successfully and set out its stall; put every energy into re building a new foundation; all the while keeping on board its members and interested public.Politics has become far too distant from the realities of people’s lives, and disconnected.Trust has to be regained, but also a coherent vision is needed to inspire and motivate people.

    I speak as a lay person to politics, but one that has a great interest in ideas, and strong sense of values.I am sure there are many more who would say the same, but feel a real sense of frustration about the distance of culture of politics/institutions, and the lack of democratic process.
    It’s more like lip service than a genuine desire to connect people as a whole movement.

    I think it’s been a self sealed bubble for so long; now is a good time to break out and try something different.

    Finally- be bold, take risks, be flexible and open to ideas, but keep hold of some sort of vision.

    I’d like Labour to once again become sort of inspiring movement with pragmatically applied ideals; but not by simply rehashing past regimes or measuring itself against conservative positions.
    A new foundation has to be built up that is starting from base and moving outwards,
    but strongly independent and developing its own identity.

    Hope that makes some sense….

    This is how it seems to me at this point in time.

    Thanks,  Jo.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, I see shift around of articles again- I had trouble finding.

    • Gilbert

      This is contradictory, you dismiss the right, call out the need for putting
      every energy into building our own base and set of ideas/policies, completely
      separately and independently from the current agenda. That in itself says you’re
      only interested in those who have your view or ideology; but you go on to say then
      bring on all the talents need to be brought on board, and a wide collaboration
      of approach; looking beyond mere tribal and traditional boundaries. Which to me
      says talk to those you don’t agree with.

       

      You can’t count those who voted Lib as left of centre, they
      are far more likely to agree with a Blairite agenda than they ever were left (Middle
      class Liberals) and I sense you don’t like the Blairites. Moreover normal
      people don’t think in terms of left or right. They align with parties they
      relate to more than policy though policy is a big factor.

       

      You said
      * stronger cohesiveness of core values, but translated in a way that is adapted
      to modern life,

      * a realistic outlook. (For example, not dogmatically
      applied.)
      * Ideally, I would favour a centre left movement that incorporates many
      strands; is dynamic and flexible, but also has a strong sense of identity and
      core values, and is not afraid or apologetic to articulate that.
      * A big tent/umbrella approach,

      * Bring people on board from a wide spectrum; a pluralist
      approach.

      * There is so much untapped creativity out there.
      * Also- very importantly, becomes a genuine democratic force and disseminated
      power base;
      not hierarchical or authoritarian; closed shop etc.

      IMHO that’s just a load of words, especially when you’re so
      down on anyone that doesn’t share your view. How can you have a pluralist
      approach and only be centre left? That does not compute, indeed the basis of
      Blairism was pluralist mainstream thought. There are no new ideas, the left
      hasn’t given us any reason to take it seriously other than we’re the left and
      we’re serious. Surprisingly the public aren’t buying it.

       

      I agree with you seems to be a “feeling of impasse and
      vacuum; a stopping and starting.” In my view the factors are a party in
      complete an utter disarrary, it’s a shambles. Every time it tries a direction
      it ends up in a cul de sac. The reason is that the leadership do not know what
      they stand for and don’t understand leadership. The feeling of disaffection is
      growing and soon it will be in a rout. The critical issue for labour is a knee
      jerk decision when the rout comes.

       

      Some questions for you:
      Why is it a self sealed bubble?

      What would be “something different”?
      What is “bold?

      What “risks” would you take?

      How would you “be flexible and open to ideas, but keep hold
      of some sort of vision”?
      What is a “new foundation has to be built up that is starting from base and
      moving outwards”?

    • Anonymous

      Jo, your comments make sense to me.  Labour should be pruralistic, idealistic and pragmatic.  My view is that Labour got the balance right in the 40s and 60s, but got it wrong in the 80s (too left-wing), 90s and until about 2008 (too right-wing).  I know that Labour won three times in the New Labour era but I spent a lot of time thinking why do I vote for these awful people!? 

      • Anonymous

        Hi Robert, thankyou.

        Just to add, I’ve been a long standing supporter of LL, but generally I’m feeling quite disillusioned with “mainstream” politics at the moment.

        “Politics” doesn’t seem to be working as maybe it should; also there appears to be a constant 2 way dialogue going on between politicians and the media; it appears like a closed shop/sealed bubble.The irony is, they should be there to serve the public.
        Also, I believe there should be far greater public participation in discourse and seeking solutions; eg via community forums.

        Perhaps it boils down to power structures and historic cultural set up;
        we are far too hierarchical in this country in my view; whether its big business,
        elite private schools, or entry into certain professions….it excludes the mainstream majority.I think power needs to be disseminated and broken up, shared between all, or at least those who put themselves forward to want to make a difference.

        I’m also struck by certain voices appearing invisible in some debates happening at the moment, as reflected by media etc. Lots of dialogue and rhetoric spoken about groups of people, such as public service workers,immigrants,welfare recipients,disabled people, etc- and yet rarely heard directly from those people to represent their experiences or views.
        LL is an exception to that; but we could do with a lot more of it.

        Sorry to sound a bit simplistic- but it’s the “people” themselves that keep the wheels turning and make the difference; not a self selective small group of people in priveleged positions in one way or another.

        But they are the public too; perhaps need to spend more time thinking about how to involve and engage ordinary people, seeking a wider arena for ideas and discussion; it may even empower and inspire some people to make  difference in their communities.

        Perhaps mainstream party politics has become tired and outdated;
        also roles over professionalized and distant.Some MP’s across all parties appear terribly out of touch with the realitiy of people lives; but that doesn’t just apply to this professions; other public figures and business leaders too perhaps.

        It’s the lack of joined up thinking and “distance” between people’s roles and working experience.

        In the Labour party, ordinary people used to enter politics via the union link for example, but I’m sure other routes could be found too.
        It just requires a little imagination and faith.

        I’m also in the process of having a break from writing on LL, as feel as I’ve said enough that I can possibly say; I also get frustrated by some of the extreme negative commentary across the blogisphere, which also appears to be very male dominated, and not necessarily reflecting the balance of opinion that I know to exist.

        Many thanks- and have also enjoyed some great discussions with some delightful people here too.

        Thanks too Emma for really enjoyable to read and thoughtful writing.

        Wishing all best,

        Jo

        • Anonymous

          I agree Jo.   There is a problem with politics in the UK.  It was not entirely caused by New Labour but that era did not help.  New Labour was very cynical and macho, which just made me think what is the point?

          On the positive side, Ed M is an improvement on Blair and Brown, so there are some grounds for optimism. 

          • Anonymous

            Hi Robert, thankyou.

            I think there have been phases of “ups and downs.”
            I too think there is a chance for some kind of renewal
            and change of culture with Ed M and some fresh faces; also very importantly reaching out more towards the public instead of inward looking.

            I think any “regime” can become stale and out of touch, especially if it becomes a closed shop or only working behind the scenes.

            Groups of people can develop institutionalized behavour also;
            eg through dynamics/interaction between personalities; top down power structures etc.
            There needs to be ongoing review of teams and ways of working; also bring outside people in to view things differently.
            It shouldn’t become static or hung up on the same issues repetitively.

            I suppose a few modern management practices might help parties and governments to run more smoothly and have the ability to connect with people; look outwards; keep remembering purpose.
            Even a really basic premises/questions like “why are we here? and “what are we for?” keeps a focus and keeps people grounded.

            With the opposition parties at the moment it feels more like a PR machine, with the occasional good bits thrown in.
            But there too I think far too much of a top down model.

            We can only speculate on how things look from the outside looking in; but I do think ordinary members and the public rarely get
            consulted or taken seriously as part of the equation in forming of democratic debate or ideas for policy direction.

            I think it’s far too much of an exclusive conversation going on between politicans and media for example.

            Also celebrity culture is something I find particularly facile
            there seems to be an assumption that the “masses” will lap it up in droves; it’s just dumbing down.

            I look back to eras like the 60′s and 70′s for example, when there seemed to be far more of a democratic voice heard on issues of politics, even if still gross inequalities.
            At least many were engaged and interested.

            Now there is a sense of apathy and disconnection in some quarters; so much emphasis on trivialities and aquisition of goods
            and hyped up consumerism.
            (I think that escalated massively in the 80′s- it almost seemed overnight.)

            Perhaps the way that form of capitalism has been panning out has somehow stripped away a large element of community spirit and “people power;” agency of ordinary citizens believing they can influence and shape their lives, and not rely so much on external forces.

            There’s something fundamental to all of this, but very hard to articulate or identify clearly.

            For me it’s been going on for the past 30 years, and it’s the reason why we’ve ended up with an unstable economic system and massive social inequalities; also people themsleves often seem to be express a feeling of disconnection or isolation.
            I heard one of my old tutors from college say onc:
            “It’s now a very strange world.”

            I think that sums it up for me; but it’s possible that sense might be shared by many.

            If I was involved with any political party, I would suggest-
            get out there and talk to people in a meaningful way; find out about their experiences, views and beliefs, ask for their ideas; involve them in process of future direction.They need to feel a stake and ownership of a bigger movement, not just narrowly driven tribal boundaries.That’s where creative potential lies.
            Also- it’s values that matter to people, not just abstract concepts
            or bland platitudes.

            Sorry I seem to have digressed again, but you got me thinking.

            Jo

  • Anonymous

    I do not think that it is contradictory to be left of centre and pluralist.  Presumably supporters of the current coalition would claim to be right of centre and pluralist.  My view is that Labour should aim to replace this government with a left of centre government, which could include left-wing Lib Dems.

    My definition of pluralist is for Labour to compete with other parties in elections but co-operate with them when we agree.  Tribal Labour supporters tend to think that Labour is right on everything and only a majority Labour government is acceptable.  This view used to be common on the left but Blairites seem to share this view, because a left of centre coalition would be too left-wing for them. 

    PS Labourlist, disqus is very good for people like me who do not live on Labourlist.  I get an email telling me if someone has replied to a post.

Latest

  • News Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    By Mark Ferguson

    In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe Until Cameron spells out exactly what he wants to “renegotiate”, we’re all “Don’t Knows” on the Europe question

    Until Cameron spells out exactly what he wants to “renegotiate”, we’re all “Don’t Knows” on the Europe question

    By Kevin Doran

    The rift in the Conservative Party over the European Union has blown wide open and now threatens to consume the party in all-out civil war. Cameron’s set-piece speech on Europe where he announced that he would hold an In-Out Referendum by 2017 was supposed to put the matter to bed. It was a carefully thought-out calculation but instead of keeping euro-sceptics off his back, it has only fuelled the flames of dissent. Eur0-sceptic rebels in his parliamentary party have forced [...]

    Read more →
  • News Eric Joyce threatens Falkirk by-election over “entryism” concerns – Media roundup: May 20th, 2013

    Eric Joyce threatens Falkirk by-election over “entryism” concerns – Media roundup: May 20th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Eric Joyce threatens Falkirk by-election over “entryism” concerns “Labour could face a potentially damaging by-election in Falkirk unless it sorts out the controversies and confusions that have surrounded its selection process, party leaders were warned last night. Eric Joyce, the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Why are the Tories putting a price on loving commitment?

    Why are the Tories putting a price on loving commitment?

    By Mark Ferguson

    So here we are again. Gay Marriage. Civil Partnerships. And a Tory rebellion. Except this time it’s different. Tim Loughton’s amendment calling for Civil Partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples is being branded a “wrecking amendment” and could – bizarrely – see anti-gay rights Tories like David Jones voting the same way as staunch defenders of equal rights on the Labour benches. The argument being put forward by the Tory leadership is that granting such rights would delay the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured We must challenge the biggest welfare myth of all

    We must challenge the biggest welfare myth of all

    By Simon Danczuk

    Who can forget Gordon Brown’s meeting with Gillian Duffy? Nothing has come close in recent years to symbolising the disconnect between the Westminster bubble and the working class. As someone who had to endure every painful minute of Duffygate it’s a lesson I’ll never forget. Mrs Duffy’s memorable intervention on the campaign trail means it’s now widely accepted in our party that calling someone racist simply for raising concerns about immigration putting pressure on public services or pushing down wages [...]

    Read more →