A little opposition brouhaha

By Hopi Sen / @hopisen

There’s been a little to-do about the internal workings of the Labour party over the last few days, sparked by a combination of Dan Hodges’ New Statesman article, a Times piece collecting soundbites from various worthies, and Alan Johnson’s comments on tax and party reform followed by various commentaries based on some mixture of the above,.

This is all combined with the fact that Ed Miliband has been enjoying paternity leave and thus is not the omnipresent media figure we’ve become used to having as the leader of the Labour Party.

I’m a bit partial on this. I’ve long been doubtful about the value of the relentless volubility and hyperactivity demanded of modern politicians, especially opposition politicians.

Partly it’s because it’s a bit undignified, scrapping to get on the PA newswire all the time, and what’s more, words uttered at haste are often repented during great and unwanted leisure.

It’s a long way to the next election. We need to change the public perception of our party a lot. Taking some time to think about how best to do that, accepting that we got beaten and need to reconnect, in my view, these are good things, not strategic errors.

So I’m happy with a communications strategy that has the leader of the Labour Party saying fewer, more meaningful things in this first year of opposition, while leaving the harrying of the government to other shadow ministers.

If Ed restricts his media availability a little, then when he does have something to say, it will be taken more seriously. Plus, it will mean that what he says is on his terms and builds his own agenda, not a constant response to what the government is doing. Remember, being an effective opposition and building an alternative government are different challenges.

We should remember too that a little spreading around of publicity and glory is a good thing. It shows a change in style and pace from the relentless presidentialism of the Blair/Brown years. We have to show the party is noticeably different, and if the steak of that change is policy development, then the sizzle could well be a different way of doing things.

So I start off by quite liking a more human pace of leadership. If it’s Ed’s personality to be a little more considered, a little less frantic, then we should build on that, not try to hide it.

But how do you deal with minor flare ups like those of the last few days? The public won’t notice this, but it could begin to create a media narrative about the leadership that is damaging.

First, we need to get used to these sort of little outbreaks. Rather than get irritated by them, we should understand that discontent is the equilibrium state of opposition.

In opposition, nobody in the Labour Party should be happy. We’re not where we want to be, and we’re some way off getting there. If that doesn’t lead to a fundamental desire for change, something is wrong. It’s a question of channeling that energy.

Add to that the usual discontent that all we hacks feel at not being quite at the centre of things or getting our due recognition (On that topic – why has no-one made me a peer, eh?) and you have a pretty combustible mixture of thwarted ambitions.

All that said, this particular brouhaha does help clarify how the less frenetic approach I advocate needs careful management to be a success.

First, if a leader says fewer, more meaningful things, those few, essential elements need to be absolutely clear to everyone. If the strategy is well-defined and clear, then people will hew to it.

Second, make sure your dispensation of authority is a feature, not a bug. If you’re giving members of the shadow cabinet chances to shine, make sure that people understand that this is a positive decision, not an absence of guidance.

If the overall strategy is clearly defined, this is an easier sell (think of how Cameron used to compliment himself on his collaborative approach to running the shadow cabinet, while shadow ministers seethed at what Steve Hilton was up to).

So rather than talking about issue minutiae, Ed could focus on his agenda of understanding the public barriers to supporting the Labour Party and what we need to do to remove them. This ranges from our reputation for good economic management, fussy interference in people’s lives and liberties, our approach to improving and individualising public services and yes, the way we conduct our politics, both as individuals and as an organisation.

Finally, there must be a coraller of the horses somewhere at the heart of the leadership. Now, no-one at a staff level is going to make a senior politician quiver with fear, and nor should they. Thinking back, I doubt Roy Hattersley trembled when Charles Clarke popped up in his office, but often the process is important – if someone is constantly asking shadow ministers how their pronouncements fit with overall strategy, they tend to remember the strategy more clearly.

Even if the shadow minister then rudely enquires of the humble staffer exactly what the “overall strategy ” in their policy area is, that conversation is helpful because it might actually suck. I don’t know who’s getting that job in Ed’s team, but they’re going to be essential to his success. Above them, the Chief of Staff and new General Secretary are going to be essential to making the campaigning and policy agendas run smoothly.

By inclination, I like the style of Ed’s leadership so far. Even if my personal policy agenda is of the hard-edged Blairite variety, I know that we’re massively out of touch on a range of issues, and our first job is to be absorbing lessons, not lecturing.

Since that’s the case, I don’t want our leader to be trying to be on telly every day harrying the Tories, but solving that more fundamental problem. The harrying job should rightly be given to others while Ed develops an agenda that re-connects us to the country.

Oh, and all of us in the party need to understand that opposition is hard, and the people who have the unenviable task of managing the process need as much support as we can give them.

That’s the natural attitude of the party, and I expect that quite a few of the backroom boys and girls who gave quotes to Dan will soon be hearing that message loud and clear.