Young politicos: how to miss the point from both angles

By Tom Miller / @Tom_Miller85

It was interesting to read and juxtapose “A Supporter”s piece with that written in response by Kezia Dugdale.

In a strange way I think they both miss the point.

One of the silliest accusations one sees thrown around in our movement, but also in youth politics more widely, is that of ‘careerism’. For a decent chunk of my post-university career I have worked in politics, and having seen the amount of time many in the apparent private sector spend meeting with councillors, ministers, civil servants and other personnel who have a direct reliance on the political process, I’m not sure that a ‘political’ career is that easily marked apart from those in the private sector, save, perhaps, for the increased level of public scrutiny. Someone once said that politics is success without merit, but I think the non-political is success without proper accountability. There is a flipside.

In any event, the wider point that the A Supporter article left me mulling over was this: why is it that, given the extremely poor levels of representation (and indeed engagement) felt by young people in the political process, why is it that we are so eager to denounce anyone who tries to get involved, or, God forbid, to specialise, as a careerist?

The meaning of the term ‘careerist’ is one that should be much more restricted. I sense that the term could have a lot of validity if properly applied. Many are prepared to forsake their ethical principles, including those demanded by their political outlook, in order to make career gains in politics. Some politicians end up in this situation because their principles are in conflict; consider a minister who disagrees with the government on a minor issue, but does not want to damage it by resigning.

But more often than not, people completely forget principles, and where they have them, they are shown in the light of public scrutiny to be self contradictory to the point where the politician claims to believe in two diametrically opposed ideas.

This, for me, is what needs avoiding. Obviously, politicians at all levels need to do some of this to stay in a job, but having a career in politics doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re strongly into this kind of thing. I have met many people in youth politics who I regard as unprincipled. Many probably think the same of me, so there are a certain amount of swings and roundabouts involved, but the point I wish to stick to is that many of those I have met have been extremely honorable, principled people. Most of these have been Labour, but I have also met many from the other political parties, and indeed external NGOs who fit this description.

Since a good chunk of young people involved in career politics do what they really believe, and are simply fortunate enough to be paid for it, I think it’s wrong to suggest that young people such as Georgia Gould (or indeed Rob Newman, Emily Benn, etc. etc.) shouldn’t stand for public office. Tony Benn himself was only 24 when he was first selected to stand for parliament, and whatever you may make of his policy views, it wouldn’t be fair to describe him as anything other than a man of principle. He even campaigned to de-Lord himself.

Since these accusations most often come from the left, the question I’d like to ask is this: how do you plan to excercise power without assuming the responsibility of fighting for power?

How do you think the Bevans and Benns of days gone would react to the implication that working in politics is a dishonour?

My question is, of course, a massive straw man. While some idiotic lefts out there would argue that young people have less of a right or obligation to stand for public office, the vast majority really wouldn’t have an issue. Yet careerism is an insult used to almost exclusive effect against the young.

The left should not have a problem with young people because they choose to professionalise their politics. They should have a problem with some young people because they choose the views they do. Play the ball, not the man.

So, that’s my take on the article by ‘A. Supporter’. I think it misses the point.

But, with respect, I have to say the same thing about Kezia’s response.

I have been more active than most in youth politics, but a lot less active than some (a few faces spring to mind). I have sat in freezing termperatures through the middle of the night to keep spots for Student Union election banners. I have leafletted thousands of doors. I have stayed in dodgy flats in Glasgow, been chased around West Yorkshire by fascists in cars with megaphones, and chased up a street in Southall by a naked tattooed man. To hell with it all, I even go to my CLP Campaigns Committee…

But on many an occasion, I have also felt the need to demonstrate against the government for which I campaign (another gripe A. Supporter lays at the feet of Wes Streeting, which supposedly represents inconsistency). I have done this on Iraq, Burma, Top up fees, jobs, climate change… you name it. For years I have written criticising the government because I have felt that the Labour government has contradicted core principles and values of the wider labour movement. In fact, this is how I first came into active politics, and left behind passive party membership.

If you want to know why people support a Labour government but sometimes campaign against some policies, the answer is simple and obvious.

No government approaches perfection, and even fewer the real aims of the democratic left (for me, this and ‘perfect’ are very similar notions anyway). But still, it is the responsibility of all citizens, including those who claim membership of the Labour Party, to fight for as close to perfect a government as is achievable given any material limitations.

I have several quick maxims on these points, but the two most are as follows:

a) It is the duty of Labour people to fight in the country for a Labour government, and to fight within the party for the best / most democratic socialist government possible;

b) It is a tactical imperative for all of those who support parliamentary democracy as a route to realising their principles to fight with one foot in and one foot outside of Parliament.

Bearing these principles in mind, I am bemused by Kezia’s response.

One of the things I said running up to the recent Young Labour elections was that ‘Young Labour must be much more than a leaflet machine’. I also think the same thing about all youth movements. In the same way that having the chutzpah to be young whilst doing paid political work does not mean that someone is a ‘careerist’, simply working hard in politics does not mean that someone is not. Delivering a leaflet does not exculpate those who buy their next big step with their own declared principles. Nor does delivering twenty. Nor does delivering twenty thousand. Plus, it’s no fun.

And so you see, while this is all very useful to candidates, the point is missed.

Delivering twenty thousand leaflets is great, but what if they are for ‘9/11 truth’, ‘voluntary repatriation’, or ‘the straight choice‘? What about needlessly privatising a big chunk of Royal Mail explicitly in order to use the laws of the state as a weapon against unions, to ‘improve’ industrial relations? OK, so this is a controversial point, but the work of socialism is constant! How about some of this borderline stuff?

These are all things that young people in politics have been asked to back in campaigns. They are, for the most part, all things which, personally, I would rather stab myself in the genitals than back. Even if my immediate future depended on it. This is partly due to a certain precocious arrogance on my part, but also because I feel that if I wasn’t faithful to myself, there would simply be no point in carrying on. Plus, I really, really don’t want to stab myself in the genitals.

The last thing I would want to do would be to deliver 20,000 leaflets supporting any of these policies… so I won’t. In my view, taking such a stand should be considered to be vastly more politically and personally important to individual campaigners than doing a bit of apolitical charity campaigning for half an hour. Besides, that you can always reschedule.

In other words, I suppose what I’d like to see is a youth politics which does not frown upon professionalism, and instead of criticising pluralistic views within political parties as A. Supporter seems to do, congratulated people for feeling free to step out of line (while of course demanding that they back up their words with actions). however, I don’t think that doing these things well should cost us our own ability to think for ourselves, or put us in a position where it is not second nature to ask precisely why want to take a course of action, and to which ends. When we work, we should work for a reason we personally value.

Labour’s youth movement should actually praise and encourage professionalism among young people, but it should also place a lot more value on having principles and upholding the right to express them.

I have often felt that debate in the Youth Movement has been fenced off, that politics as a whole has been frowned upon (many of the ‘official’ campaigns of the last couple of years have simply been charity work, leaving political youth organisations a little redundant). The opportunity to excercise basic democratic rights has been far too infrequent/non-existent, though thankfully this is now well into the process of change, and hopefully the process will now accelerate.

Rob Newman’s politics are, in my view, a long way to the right of mine. Perhaps he would disagree, but I shall not speculate further. In any event, the answer to balancing this within our nominally democratic socialist party does not lie in disparaging young candidates such as Rob. In fact, it means we need many more of them, albeit with more left-of-centre opinions. Young people who are left of the current centre ground need to make this happen.

I am personally of the belief that Parliament is (for the most part) to the right of the population, and that it is much too elderly, white, middle-class and male to take a truly representative sample of the problems our population faces. Without young people and other underrepresented groups moving through the political career chain, we will see a lot more old white guys gracing the benches.

This needs changing, and that means taking an open, sceptical and pluralistic youth politics a lot more seriously, not less. And just for once, local party leaflets and phone banking aren’t the most important thing in making sure this happens.

Tom Miller is a former editorial assistant at LabourList.org, and blogs at newerlabour.blogspot.com.