Labour’s new leader must have the empathy for conversation

The Labour movement column

By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter

Straight away – just as it did in 2007 – Labour has leapt to the ‘who’ question when it comes to its leadership. And this is a mistake if it fails to ask the ‘what type of leader?’ question first. That question can only be confronted with a real appraisal of where Labour went wrong.

The problem wasn’t its policies particularly. Building a sustainable economy, spreading community and mutual ownership in local services, investing in housing, and a balanced approach to crime and immigration, actually had some strength as a policy package.

There were of course weaknesses. On civil liberties its record was tarnished. Authoritarian legislation is not an expression of fairness at all. And Labour never quite found a way of tethering finance to the broad interests of the national economy. It was too top-down and interfering in its public policy – just ask anyone who works in public services.

But the renewal task is far less heavy in many ways than it was in, say, 1987. A wholesale root and branch reform ditching a raft of unpopular policies is not necessarily the challenge (though clearly the policy package will shift, change and evolve in the next few years.)

Despite this, the situation is far from rosy. If Labour thinks it can just rest back into a ‘one more heave’ mentality then it is going to have a nasty shock. Despite the not insignificant merits of its 2010 vision for the future of Britain, it failed in quite a fundamental way to achieve ‘cut through.’ In other words, people weren’t listening to Labour.

This wasn’t just an issue of personality or presentation – though they are not insignificant. Far too often the party presented itself as blameless and, in its most arrogant moments it would respond with bemusement to the lack of credit it was getting for all the good it had done. People would be saying that they were uncomfortable with the pace of economic and social change, that not enough was being done to change their communities, that they didn’t feel like their life chances were enhanced or that their communities were becoming safer. They at least wanted a degree of empathy and engagement. Instead they would be lectured about how many new schools and hospitals had been built, how many extra police were on the beat, or how lucky they were to be receiving tax credits or have access to a Sure Start.

They knew all that and yet they felt that they and their families still weren’t getting a fair crack of the whip. So where Labour shouted ‘investment’, people would often see ‘waste.’ Labour become not a party of the past but the party of the status quo; it sounded distant and didactic. Communication is one part of this but it is also about what is boringly described as ‘substance’ (by which, people normally mean policy.)

Once you empathise and converse, your world view shifts, your understanding develops and then your judgment about what substantive measures need to be taken. Conversation and substance are densely interwoven and inseparable in a healthy democracy. For Labour, the conversation become more and more one-sided and that is why people drifted away from the party.

In an interview on House of Twits earlier on today, I found myself saying that Labour needs a conversationalist. Knowledge, experience, judgement, and vision are all important. Instinctively, though, ‘conversational’ capability is the quality that I have found myself searching for. Modern politics is no longer broadcast; it is social and the party needs someone utterly immersed in a conversational style of politics, i.e. someone who can let go.

They must be steeped in Labour values as they are still the predominant British instinct: real freedom, fairness, togetherness, pride in place and family, hard work and reciprocity, optimism, activism, creativity, all underpinned by an equality that goes much further than simply basic opportunity. These are social values; they are values of community. Labour should never shy away from that but, equally, it should share a similar awareness of the limitations of the state as it does a suspicion of the unregulated, untethered free market.

Yes Labour also needs a movement. It is in the nature of movements that they are social and empathetic. Movements are bound by values. And they are energised by leadership. And the leadership style that is needed is a conversational one. That will achieve the ‘cut through’ that has been absent. It will also drive the party in new and unimaginable ways.

Already, in the contest for Labour’s candidate for London Mayor we have seen a breath of fresh air in the way Oona King has expressed her passion and vision of leadership for London. Her focus on creating the space and momentum to unify the city’s many and disparate communities across ethnicity and affluence divides is a different way of talking about politics. Ken Livingstone had some great qualities as Mayor – not least in attracting investment and regenerating some of London’s forgotten areas. But King seems to understand that modern political leadership is as much about engagement and persuasion as cash and legislation.

The leadership candidates can learn an enormous amount from this approach (and two of them are former schoolmates of Oona King.) So the next Labour leader must have the right values – Labour values – but also the right conversational approach to politics. The policies will come. The election, though is, in all likelihood, five years away (and Labour needs to be honest with itself about that.) So now, it needs a leader who can cut through and enable the party to be heard. A little more conversation then some more action.

Anthony Painter blogs at anthonypainter.co.uk.