We need to be shaping the debate, not merely responding to it

If a week is a long time in politics, eighty-five weeks in opposition has at times seemed like an eternity. There are plenty more weeks to come but with winning the next General Election obviously the main aim, the recent end of year jitters as to whether Labour is following the right strategy are unsurprising.

The truth is we probably have to change, or perhaps more accurately, add to, our strategy. Labour and the left have the policy ideas and personnel to win, but in the battle to transform wider attitudes, we are at best drawing with the Conservatives. Owen Jones in his article last week argued that this transformation of attitudes should be done by giving the unemployed, vulnerable and poor more of a political voice, but this is only half the answer. While no doubt essential, it is not enough. Labour and the left have to do more to lead and shape the political debate rather than just respond to it. George Lakoff’s influential book on reframing the US political debate “Don’t think of an elephant!” starts off with the post-mortem that “defeat of the Democrats in November of 2004 was a huge shock to many”, with most realising that “the same old tactic of simply targeting voters with a powerful anti-Bush message was not enough”. Likewise, an anti-Tory message is unlikely to be sufficient in 2015. Labour have done best when leading the debate such as at the height of the phone hacking scandal. Below are five tentative suggestions as to how Labour can reshape the debate:

1. Reframing the debate – By this I do not mean rhetoric, soundbites, controlling the 24 hour news cycle, or spin.  It is about changing the way voters see the world, about getting them to buy in to our world view and therefore for our political opponents to be forced to use our language and our framing. Or as Riker put it, changing the main dimension of the debate. In an increasingly uncertain world, people want a government with a clear direction and vision that shows they get the voters. Values trump issues. Sadly, the Conservatives have traditionally been better at this, from Peel successfully making the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 about public order rather than an attack on landed interests to Cameron framing the financial crisis as about public spending rather than private borrowing. Comparing reducing the deficit to tackling a credit card debt is nonsense on multiple levels but works politically as it re-frames the argument to one people can relate to emotionally and appears credible based on their day to day experience. Reframing is not really sleight of hand, but getting people to relate to your arguments and even identify with them.

Labour has to show that trying to swap public spending for increased private debts is like shuffling the chairs on the Titanic. Furthermore, the cuts are to a large extent about cutting jobs. If a company cuts jobs it doesn’t continue supporting those made redundant forever. Government does, and so we increase the job seekers allowance bill but decrease the number of jobs out there. We fire people from doing useful public service jobs and then pay them to do try to find jobs that don’t exist.

Above all, we need to argue that a fairer capitalism will create more stability. Increasing wage and wealth inequality and jobs being too highly concentrated in high risk sectors and particular regions create instability. Concentrations of wealth mean that the best off can threaten to leave the UK if they are asked to contribute their fair share, and the squeezed middle have debt rather than savings when an economic crisis they did not cause nor foresee comes. The financial sector gets the upside of its high risk activities but the losses are shared by all through bail outs, credit to businesses drying up, the JSA bill increasing and a substantial part of the tax take falling away. The unfair elements of capitalism have in the past enraged but what is different this time is that the status quo has caused great uncertainty and instability. People will tend to favour stability over fairness, we have to drive home that it is no longer credible to see these as separate from each other. Stability is something everyone can relate to and this in essence is what gives it so much potential as a good frame.

2. The language we use – The Conservatives are often better at using analogies that people can relate to (see the credit card analogy above). However, the point about language is wider than this. Talk of “disgraceful and disgusting cuts” by a “heartless Tory-led Coalition” puts off swing voters and the less partisan. Our rhetoric has to put across a coherent and attractive vision rather than simply being point scoring or hyperbole.

3. Linking issues better – The Labour leadership judged it to be too politically damaging to simply come out in support of the recent public sector strikes (probably rightly). So it by and large tried to stay out of the debate which left Labour on the back foot and attacked from all sides. The response of the Coalition that we live in tough times and everyone has to make concessions, is one voters can relate to, certainly more so than the left’s race to the bottom argument. Labour need to find a way of getting involved in this debate. Perhaps Labour could say it fully supports the strikes until the Coalition lower the 50% threshold from £150,000 to £100,000. It’s hard to portray public sector workers as greedy fat cats when directly comparing them to those on over £100,000 a year. Such a strategy would allow Labour to more vocally support a key part of its core vote, evaporate any suggestions of weakness, and have a greater chance of leading to the public sector pension reforms being watered down.

4. Building more coalitions with sections of the electorate – The Coalition have annoyed and disappointed many sections of society. Labour has to build on this, and help these groups make their arguments louder and clearer. Politicians lack the credibility on particular issues that experts involved with those issues have. Labour needs to provide disgruntled groups, from local campaign organisers to the small business community, with a platform and the publicity they can often struggle to get.

5. Controlling the debate more – I hesitate to mention PMQs as their importance is often overstated, but Ed Miliband has to make it more uncomfortable for Cameron, and that means making it more unpredictable. For example, he could ask ludicrously open-ended questions such as “what do you stand for?”, or could ask the same question multiple times as Cameron rarely gives straight answers. Referring back to point one, he should also ask the questions in such a way as to force Cameron to respond using Labour’s framing of the issue. If Cameron fails to give a straight answer, Ed should simplify the answer and ask him the question again using the same framing. Most important of all, Ed should often only ask five questions. Cameron regularly holds back his best, but also most easily challenged, material to answer to the sixth question knowing that Ed cannot respond. We need to cut off that predictability.

It is worth noting that Ken and his team are perhaps the ones doing the best job of reshaping the debate within Labour at the moment. Their Fare Deal campaign embodies many of the points discussed above. The idea of the Cameron Osborne double act continuing beyond 2015 is for most filed in the drawer labelled “too depressing to contemplate”. Let’s hope it can stay there. Labour and the left leading the debate is crucial to ensuring that this is the case.