|
|
« April 2008 |
Main
| June 2008 »
In all the frenzied analysis of why we lost Crewe and Nantwhich there is one contributory factor whch invariably fails to get a mention. Pundits and politicians will pour over policies, presentation and personality but there is a conspiracy of silence over what is really calling the tune. I refer, of course, to the influence of the media.
It is easy to understand why this should be so. The pundits work for the media, as do their editors and producers. The politicians work through the media. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Nor do you bite the hand of those who write about you.
However there cannot be a proper diagnosis of what went wrong without reference to what is being reported and how it is being reported. If the blame for global economic setbacks is repeatedly being laid at the door of No. 10, if spending time to make considered judgements on complex political problems is continually being presented in terms of Gordon Brown being a "ditherer", if the 10p mistake becomes "a kick in the teeth" for every working person in this country, regardless of the remedial meaures and of what else Brown has done for the poor both here and overseas, then it is small wonder that people are totally fed up with this government.
After all, the voting public do not usually make up their minds after weighing up all the pros and cons of difficult election issues. They tend to focus, emotionally, on the cons as conveyed to them by the press (or rather the press headlines), the radio and television. If there's a relentless barrage of anti-Brown/government stories it's inevitable that this will sway voting intentions, particularly when it takes enormous commitment (and guts) to stand out against the crowd.
We expect this kind of hyped-up negativity from the right-wing tabloids and broadsheets, of course. But when they are joined by a left-wing commentariat intent on punishing this government for not following their agenda there's little that can be done to tip the balance in our direction. The last straw is when the dear old BBC, that last bastion of public service impartiality, starts taking its cue from the tabloids and left-wing critics in its coverage of how the government is performing.
One day it's the the best crime figures we have had for years (an overall fall of 9%) being presented almost soley in terms of a 4% rise in gun crime, which represented only a tiny fraction of the grand total (click on here for the full story). On another day it's John Humphrys in his interview with Gordon Brown referring to the £2.7b rescue package as "that little bribe". As I write this, Humphrys is at it again describing this government as simply "a continuation of the Thatcher government" ( in his On the Ropes interview with John Prescott). And then there's always Jeremy Paxman sneering away from his Newsnight pulpit at anything ministers have to say in defence of their government.
No government can survive such a concerted and sustained distortion of its record and policies from all parts of the media. Unless some serious thought is given to how the media can be made to behave in a more responsible and even-handed way, all talk about how we can save ourselves is just spitting in the wind.
We can't go back to Blairism, neither can we march off the hallowed 'centre-ground' towards Neal Lawsonism: Labour are in a tricky place indeed. To win a fourth term we have to battle on, and Brown has to take on some of the interest groups that lie at the core of Compass. Statism is dead Lawson proclaims, but outlines no alternative. There is an alternative, one that rules almost all the transactions that govern our lives - the market. But for too long we've failed to make the market work for those at the bottom, because we've allowed vested interests in both the public and private sector to thwart radical change. Gordon Brown has the narrative to be a great anti-establishment politician - he just needs to begin to think and act bold.
Barack Obama's campaign has shown that there is an aspiration core to every country; that 'One Nation' politics can be voiced effectively by the most Liberal Senator in America, and that optimism triumphs fear every time in winning elections. Labour need to re-engage with their 'One Nation' principles; Wendy Alexander was right to challenge the Nationalists to a referendum so we can make the case once again for our multicultural Union, and Labour are right to begin rebuilding a presence in Northern Ireland to unite progressive Catholics and Protestants against the politics of sectarianism. The Tories are weak on 'One Nation', they speak for one class, and only one nation (England): even Cameron's old tutor Vernon Bogdanor thinks the Tories have got it wrong on our venerable constitution.
Blairism is dead and as a party we're finding its demise painful. We can't go back to triangulation, Gordon Brown is right about one thing, this is the period in government of 'tough choices'. But tough choices are choices that Compass doesn't want to make, on crime they're out of touch with ordinary people's concerns, there is no longer any liberal constituency to appeal to in regards to knife crime. People want long sentences and stop-and-search. People want more bobbies on the beat. What's the alternative, some mealy-mouthed impossible to disagree with platitudes about 'tackling inequality'? Labour also need to use private sector solutions that work - National Grid take on ex-offenders, train them and give them job opportunities (a scheme I'm proud to say my father founded) - it works, re-offending rates are 7% compared to a national average of 70%.
On schools, the arguments for statism are long lost. Teacher's unions get little public sympathy during strikes. Private sector workers on the minimum wage feel little 'class solidarity' for teachers when the usual starting wage for a new graduate teacher in inner London is £24,168 and 60% of all teachers in a typical inner London borough earn over £37,809 (excluding special responsibility allowances). Vouchers have been proven to raise educational standards for ethnic minority kids in Washington D.C. and allowed decent schools to expand. It's now time to have the debate about vouchers - and perhaps have another argument about capping public school fees so working-class kids can use their vouchers to get into Eton. I'd like to see David Cameron oppose that to the wrath of the aspiration many.
Labour have raised tax more than any other post-war government, the result is a society that is more equal than it would have been if families were placed at the mercy of the currents of globalisation. But we've reached the limit of acceptable taxation for most families - if we want the state to reduce poverty further we need to raise taxation on the most wealthy, whilst recognising the limits of doing this. Compass wish to tax large corporations more, but in a globalised economy, companies are foot-loose. If FTSE 100 businesses don't like London, Dublin awaits (and the Irish will halve your tax bill).
People, however, aren't so mobile. A small increase on the rate of taxation for those earning over £100,000 per annum could increase the tax free threshold further - whilst a decrease in the 40% tax threshold slightly would leave the tax change neutral for those earning up to £100k. More than anything it would incentivise work and show that Labour are on the side of the majority after the 10p tax debacle
There's a lot of talk at the moment about 'narrative'. From Ministers to Councillors and Branch Secretaries everyone in the party seems to have the view that Gordon doesn't have a convincing narrative to take us forward. It's complete rubbish. It's the politics of Lawson writ large; the politics of platitude and business-speak, the politics that lobbyists resort to against the hard concrete politics of decision. A narrative is merely a story - Brown has a story, look at his last conference speech. He spoke of being on the side of hard working families, taking tough decisions, his moral core. Everyone knows Brown's story, he's a passionate Scot who abhors poverty and celebrates hard work. Cameron is the leader without a narrative - does anyone know what he stands for?
Brown's problem isn't that he lacks a narrative, but that he has bottled serious decisions. He has made a number of serious U-turns (often in the right direction, but in politics that isn't the point) culminating in a picture of an indecisive if not pathologically neurotic man. Brown now needs some big policies that he will force through - hard reforms that put people ahead of the dead hand of bureaucracy - he could start by returning power from central government to local authorities (who the National Audit Office have shown spend money better), instituting schools vouchers and redistributing tax.
Finally, Labour need to start ignoring the press. Entirely. Full stop. We're going to face a barrage of headlines over the next 2 years, almost all will be negative. Running around like loyal hounds smelling the arses of press barons isn't going to win us any friends - staring down the media and using the new media to circulate our message can work. Hilary Clinton has faced unparalleled criticism from the traditional media in the United States - and almost won the Democratic nomination. White blue-collar workers voted for her as a vote against the liberal media establishment, Labour need to face down the constant criticism and get on with the job of governing. Labour won in 2005 after almost every single liberal commentator accused Prime Minister Blair of being a 'war criminal', a 'poodle', having Dr. David Kelly's blood on his hands, etc, etc.
Now George Monbiot of the Guardian argues that Labour preside over the most right-wing government in the post-War period (I think anyone sentenced in a diplock trial and interned with no judicial process in 1970s Northern Ireland, or trade unionists hassled by Thatcher, or gay men who suffered the social stigma of Section 28, would disagree strongly), this lunacy is expounded daily by the right-on commentariat.
We're Billy no Mates at the moment, so were the Tories mid-term under Thatcher. But people knew Thatcher could lead, whilst Labour and contorted itself to serve sectional interests. Putting people above interest groups, being bold, emerging once again as an anti-establishment political party can win Labour a fourth term. In the short-term we may move further behind in the polls, but if we remember politics is fluid now and the party recovers its nerve, we may quite enjoy these uncharted waters.
Rumours that Alan Milburn is contemplating putting his name forward as a challenger to Gordon Brown are rife across Westminster and the Labour blogosphere. If they are true then we will witness a contest that will not simply be about who should lead us, it will be struggle to about the heart and soul of our movement. In September 2006, writing in the Times, Alan Milburn argued:
'New Labour was formed as a modern centrist progressive party through a genuine process of debate and renewal — not just a new leader but a new constitution, new politics and new policies. After a decade in office it is time to debate and renew again. The priority now is to determine Labour’s post-Blair purpose and policy. '
The renewal that Milburn signposted is yet to happen. The next few weeks will not only determine Gordon Brown's future, it may well determine the long term future of our movement.
There can be little doubt that Gordon Brown is on the ropes, if not on the canvass. Every day brings a fresh headline pointing up his weaknesses and failures. The opposition are triumphant. The media pack are in full cry, baying for his blood as they once bayed for the blood of Tony Blair.
So it would not be unreasonable to expect the Labour Party as a whole to come to his aid, if only to protect the gains of the last eleven years and to keep open the prospect of more to come.
Instead most activists and left-wing commentators seem to be intent on adding their punches to the pummelling Brown is receiving, much in the same way as those characters in that hilarious movie, Airline, queued up have a slap at a panicking fellow passenger. They are largely doing this in two ways.
One, is to use the opportunity to exert maximum pressure on the government to accept their own political nostrums, threatening to bring down the government if they don't get their way. Never mind that this exposes division in the ranks (which is anethema to the average British voter). Or that the government will be seen as weak if they do give way (again something that is a huge turn-off for most voters ).
The other (not unrelated to the first) is to throw in the towel, on the basis that a spell in opposition would do us the world of good. Never mind the impact on the lives of ordinary people or the fact that this could pave the way for another eighteen years of Tory rule.
Neal Lawson, whose latest piece for Compass exemplifies the first approach, damns the New Labour project for being two steps forward to the market and one token step in favour of society. As I commented on the related website, I see it more as two steps forward to social democracy, one step in favour of market considerations (or more precisely one step back to to take account of political and economic realities). In today's world this is the only way we can achieve our objectives.
The solution to our current predicament then is not to join forces with the opposition and the vulture- like media to exploit every government shortcoming for our own particular ends but to close ranks and fight back against this massive attack on what remains our best hope for a better tomorrow.
John Denham told a packed Progress meeting on Tuesday that he was optimistic about Labour’s prospects and branded talk about whether Gordon Brown should remain leader ‘damaging’ and ‘ridiculous’.
At a debate held to discuss how Labour can win back support in the south following May 1’s dismal election performance, the secretary of state for innovation, universities and skills insisted it was futile to debate which group of voters – core or new - Labour should target.
‘I am optimistic that we can win in the south as long as we talk with confidence about the society we want to create for southern voters,’ he said. ‘At heart we either believe we belong - and therefore win - or we don’t believe we belong - and therefore lose.’
Denham said Labour must not forget that it had governed well in the south, citing policies such as the minimum wage and investment in public services that had resulted in higher living standards. ‘I am absolutely certain there is not a single constituency in south-east England where there is not a clear majority of people who have been better off in the last 10 years than they would have been under the Tories.’
Charles Clarke – whose cover story in this month’s Progress magazine has been widely trailed in the media – agreed that Labour’s poor showing in the elections did not mean the electorate failed to recognize the party’s achievements since 1997. ‘May 1st was a slap in the face from an electorate that wants us to succeed but feels we stumbled,’ said the former home secretary.
He added that the government could only regain the electorate’s confidence by conducting politics differently and avoiding the politics of triangulation, setting out clearly what it is trying to achieve and focusing on long-term issues. Clarke’s specific proposals included a radical change in attitude to sustainable transport and energy, increasing confidence in the criminal justice system and addressing short-term errors – saying that problems should be addressed ‘in the same spirit’ as the chancellor’s recent statement dealing with the 10p tax controversy.
Joan Ryan MP, vice-chair of Labour’s campaigns team, argued that effective political campaigning would be fundamental to any recovery as it would enable the party to keep in step with the issues voters cared about.
‘If your main issue is not what voters think is the main issue, you don’t get their trust and you can’t give political leadership,’ she said, adding that it had been proved many times the party did best when it had established relationships with voters on the ground, in places like Slough, Oxford, Hastings and Enfield & Haringey.
Talk of vision was important, said Ryan, but had to be accompanied by a relationship with the electorate. ‘We need a thorough going change of attitude to campaigning. The electorate will abandon us if it’s all ideas and they don’t see delivery.’
YouGov’s Peter Kellner, who also contributed to the latest edition of Progress, said the underlying issue that mattered to voters in the south was the economy, stupid, with pessimism at its highest rate in 40 years. This was a curious state of affairs, Kellner explained, since the economy was not in the dire state it was in the early 90s or early 80s. And while people were feeling the pinch from rising costs in essential goods such as milk, bread and petrol, the major cause of pessimism was that voters had become frightened about the economy, ‘blaming the government for not taking action to forestall horrors they fear lie ahead’.
Labour’s fate at the next general election would be decided over the next nine to 12 months, said Kellner, pointing out that after Black Wednesday in 1992 the Tories hit the ‘point of no return’ – unable to recover its reputation even though the economy faired pretty well between 1993-1997.
Labour had not reached the point of no return yet, said Kellner, but if the economy didn’t soon show signs of recovery, it could reach that point later this year.
Kellner urged the party to stop using statistics – ‘any claim based on numbers is apt to be disbelieved’ – and outline its concrete achievements such as Sure Start, the minimum wage and civil partnerships. ‘It’s not a bad record and Gordon was behind a lot of it as chancellor. Let’s get away from this self-indulgent crap about Gordon [and the leadership]. We need to persuade people that the taxes they’ve paid are used effectively.’
At the After May 1st event earlier this week, John Denham made an interesting point about personalities. In 1992, many people said that they wouldn't vote for Labour because "they didn't like Neil Kinnock". This, in Denham's view, was merely an excuse, and that there were more profound underlying reasons why people did not yet want to vote Labour.
It reminded me of a post on the Daily Dish last week, where Andrew Sullivan wrote: "Projecting his own clownish-left sensibility onto the first serious black contender for the presidency ... Wright has given white voters permission - and an alibi - not to vote for Obama on racial grounds."
Could it be that the recent economic stumble has given the voters "permission" not to vote for Labour? By framing the problems in this manner, the questions Labour must answer become: Why would the electorate be looking for an excuse to desert? And, what must we do to revoke that "permission".
Is this a helpful analysis? Since it assumes that the electorate is innately unsympathetic to Labour, it's certainly depressing.
Some of my fellow Labour bloggers, party activists and members have short memories. Less than 12 months ago the Tories were disintegrating over academic selection and Labour was 14% ahead in the polls. The next election is not due for another 24 months, the economy is probably over the worst and Gordon Brown - though he admits that he has made mistakes - is not stupid.
The loss of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London ranks as the worst blow to Labour since the 1992 general election defeat. The question is whether Labour can heed the lessons and rebuild as the party did after 1992.
That will require leadership and vision, strategy and, above all, motivation. Motivation of party members and motivation of the public.
There is still plenty of time to the next general election. But the need for action is urgent, particularly to motivate people.
We need to explain why politics is important, why Labour politics is different, and how Labour has transformed Britain and can continue to change Britain for the better.
People want a party that is clear about its values and acts on those values. People want fairness.
I believe the British public has a great sense of fairness. Labour should start talking about creating ‘the Fair Society’.
The Fair Society will embrace fair pay, fair taxation, fair access to services and so on. People understand what is fair when it comes to pay and to tax, and they know that both should be fairer. Fair access to services would tackle how we get care and childcare, housing, health and education.
But there are many other things that could be embraced by the ‘fair’ banner. A fair world would include fair trade, fair chances would mean a fair start in life, and fair power needs fair votes.
We need to make sure we relate fairness to people’s everyday lives in simple, everyday language.
Fair tax, fair pay and fair services would be a good platform for the next manifesto. It would motivate the public. And crucially it would inspire party members to battle for the fourth term of a Labour government that continues to build the Fair Society.
Stephen Burke is Campaigns Officer, Hammersmith Labour Party
According to commentators of the weekend, last week's election results in London sounded the death knell for environmental policies for the Labour party: Ken Livingstone stood on a green platform, with some of the most radical environmental policies being proposed anywhere in the world and the voters said 'no', instead voting for a man who supported George Bush's position on Kyoto.
But looking a bit more closely at the results, the numbers actually tell a very different story. If anything, they lay the environmental challenge firmly at David Cameron's doorstep. Because although Ken Livingstone came second, more people voted for him this year than in 2004. Far from putting off Labour voters then, if the environment was a significant factor in determining voting intentions, last week's results suggest that Ken's bright-green policies appear to have motivated supporters to turn out. On a national level, similarly bold environmental policies could play a significant role in attracting people back to Labour, helping demonstrate the fresh thinking and strong leadership that we can offer and providing a positive reason to vote Labour.
Unfortunately, at the same time, the opportunity to vote against these same policies appears to have been extremely motivating for Tory voters. We will need to select our environmental policies carefully in order to avoid motivating those who want to assert their rights to pollute, but these results present a much bigger problem for David Cameron. The green agenda has been fundamental in the rehabilitation of the Tory party, but to date we haven't seen any concrete policies. Talking about the environment in abstract terms and evoking images of lovely cycles-to-work appears, for many, to have lifted the guilt of putting your cross in the box marked 'conservative'.
But as a general election grows closer, the Tories are going to have to come up with some policies to legitimize this warm green glow. What policies to tackle climate change will Cameron be able to put forward to when his biggest victory to date has been delivered by voters actively wanting to get rid of the most sustainable mayor in the world? Cameron's slogan 'Vote Blue go Green' might be very clever while they have no policies, but it appears that Tory voters are not so keen when the rhetoric becomes reality.
|
|
