The importance of empathy

Empathy is a word much used and much abused in politics. We use it to describe what those we criticise do not have – hence the Labour focus on the millionaire cabinet and their inability to connect with the squeezed middle or the Tories criticising Labour for not showing due respect to the death of a former Prime Minister.

We also occasionally use it to talk about the less tangible qualities of our political leaders. Nick Clegg was seen as having empathy during the Leaders debates hence Cleggmania. David Cameron’s hugging hoodies and Ed Miliband “on a train” are clearly similar attempts to captures that feeling that whatever their policies, the leader is a well rounded and empathetic human being.

But empathy can sometimes in short supply in politics at all levels and on all sides, and this is no clearer than when we look at the ongoing debate about welfare reform. It is only when debates become as entrenched as this one has that we truly see every side’s lack of understanding not just of what their opponents’ arguments are, but what their motivations are too.

(By the way, I am not seeking to aggrandise my own position. I too suffer from this disease of our politics. I get angry at what I deem to be Tory cruelty – or at least wilful blindness to the effects of their ideology. I have called Tory members evil. I was wrong to do so, but I would be equally wrong not to admit that I have done so here.)

I don’t know anyone who thinks the welfare systems we have now works. Whether you think Atos assessments are too harsh or too lenient; whether you think levels of work-related benefits are too stingy or too generous; whether you think that the system is too impersonal or too cosseting we all agree that the system is broken and needs change.

So everyone believes in change, but few agree what change means. We in Labour continue to have that debate and it is far from settled.

But the debate as it currently happening doesn’t make sense, because neither side are being honest about the motives of the others – so convinced are they thay playing to the gallery and playing up the stereotypes will win the day.

For example, the reasons Labour is concerned with the welfare of the poorest and most vulnerable in society are extremely far removed from the motives so frequently ascribed to us by Tory activists. As far as many Conservative commentators are concerned, Labour’s motivation in supporting and investing in the welfare state is purely electoral. They hold and espouse a fervent belief ithat Labour is determined to create a “client state” through use of welfare and benefits that will then vote Labour en masse.

Now in all the years I have been a Labour Party member – and in all the conversations I’ve had with members and leaders – I’ve never, not once, heard even an inkling that Labour’s concern for those in receipt of support from the state had anything to do with electoral calculation and everything to do with our belief in our moral mission to support and raise up the many and not the few and to be a voice and a party for all the people – including the most vulnerable.

However, we are just as guilty of misrepresentation. For example, the Tories are wrong – not evil. They too believe in a moral mission to rescue people from what they see as the ignominy of dependence. That their wrongness has evil consequences is something we are free to shout to the rooftops. But as we fail to understand their motives, we will fail to defeat their arguments.

But the lack of empathy doesn’t just occur between politicians. In our support of the most vulnerable, labour members have sometimes found it easier to ignore, misrepresent or lose empathy for the working poor. Those who live in communities where the very small number who do abuse their benefits also live are those who most believe that benefits are too generous and too freely taken. But some members see any discussion of these issues as a betrayal of our values – not as a part of the obligation our values place upon us to manage a system that those whose tax burden makes up a greater portion of their income than most can feel comfortable supporting. It is in representing those communities that we recognise that compulsion and compassion must both be part of our lexicon when we discuss our approach to welfare reform.

Just as they fail to understand what motivates Labour to fight for a fair and fully supportive welfare state, the Tories also fail to understand the role of empathy in dealing with those who will lose from the results of their moral quest. For example, the tin-eared semantic complaints about the branding of the “bedroom tax” has been an attempt to both sideline and ignore its victims. Their belief in the importance of creating winners denies the role that goes to those who lose out under free market fundamentalism.

The public want a party to be tough on welfare and welfare abuse. They think Labour are far too weak on this issue. But equally they don’t trust the Tories to get tough fairly. Their lack of empathy has cost them on an issue over which they should win. Our lack of empathy could deny us an all important hearing.

Empathy is not the same as patronage or agreement. One can understand the Tories position without agreeing with it. In fact to fight it effectively we must understand it better than we do. I often speak of the value of tribalism in politics. Politics is an oppositional occupation. But we can be proud of our tribe without misrepresenting our opponents. We can be successful in opposing our enemies without making them “other” though the language of evil. And it is only by doing so that we will earn our chance to make our arguments.