Labour: what next?

In an interview for the UNISON magazine entitled Labour: what next the party's "policy guru" Jon Cruddas talks about "rediscovering working class roots".

It seems that a process is to be established (perhaps already is established) to communicate with potential voters, and narratives constructed around policies that are to be directed at working class communities.

There will be three themes based on rebuilding - rebuilding the economy; rebuilding society; rebuilding politics.

These will then be refined into specific commitments to be put forward at the next general election.

As a strategy it seems sound, but the problem will be in segmenting properly the working class - there is not one single monolithic group but many different sub-groups all capable of morphogenesis.  If you cast the definitions too wide you end up with clunky target audiences such as "public sector" that are effectively meaningless in strategic terms.  If you go too narrow you end up with a confusing mish-mash that is difficult to understand.

The second problem he will have is ensuring the quality of the narratives - you can have all the good policies you like, but if they are not presented correctly few people will buy them.  In the past Labour narratives have been abysmal.  Personally I think only poets should be allowed to write the final draft of a manifesto.

"So we've got to catch fire again, to rediscover that light on the hill, recapture that connection with people, both as consumers and as workers" - at the end of the day political success depends on a transfer of enthusiasm from the politician to the voter (and I thought the shining city on a hill was Ronald Reagan's imagery?).

Above (screenprint from The Herald website plus Dawson image from the web):  on Newsnight yesterday they showed Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls kissing Harriet Harman in what can only be described as a Les Dawson style performance.

Also I felt the speech by Rory Weal was slightly disturbing (in a Tomorrow Belongs To Me sort of way) - should children be politicised so young?

But on the whole I feel positive about the Labour Party Conference and have rearranged my lunch break to watch Daily Politics coverage of Ed Miliband's speech.

Looking at Ed Miliband from a PR point of view

Above:  interesting articles by Patrick Wintour and Michael White (in the Guardian) and Rachel Sylvester (in The Times) discussing Ed Miliband's failure to make an impact as Labour Party Leader.  In many ways this criticism is unfair.  There is a huge amount of work to be done before Labour can develop a programme of new ideas to put before the electorate.  All leaders aspiring to fundamental change have to go through this "wilderness" phase (Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle even Ayatollah Kohmeini).  During this phase the emphasis has to be on purgation of unhelpful elements and the development of an integrated programme that includes at least nine completely original policies (less than nine looks light-weight, more than nine and you start to lose people).

There is evidence that the Conservatives are already engaged on a programme of reinvention, even while they are in office ("we are already planning for the next term").

Above:  looking at Ed Miliband from a PR point of view, there is little he can currently do to create an impact as leader of the Opposition.  This is because the role of Opposition has become increasingly usurped by the Liberal Democrats from within the Coalition.  Thus arguments against Coalition policies can be played out by disgruntled Lib Dems (and sometimes Conservatives), a faux row played out for the benefit of the media, and the policy adjusted (but not too much) to suggest the government is listening and responding.

I am unsure whether this is just the way things are happening or (this may be too machiavellian to be true) is deliberately being choreographed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Peter Mandelson at Jewish Book Week

Above: after the talk Lord Mandelson signed copies of his new book.

Yesterday I went to a talk by Peter Mandelson at Jewish Book Week.

Didn't think I would actually get there since it was a busy day and I was running late, but I managed to scramble in just as the talk got going.

Darkened auditorium, floodlit stage, Peter Mandelson in brown jacket and black shirt (no tie) being interviewed by Nick Cohen.

Most interesting points he made were as a series of asides, talking about the ways in which the "centre ground" of British politics can be occupied.

He talked blithely about "the Blair, Brown, Mandelson era" as if he had been a Prime Minister himself. He told us "I am not an aspic person" (when discussing the legacy of New Labour). He candidly analysed "being in government is office politics writ large", creating a ripple of sympathy and recognition throughout the audience.

When someone said "now you are out of politics" he told us very deliberately "I'm NOT out of politics".

He talked with affection about his father (an enthusiast for the preservation of Hampstead Garden Suburb) and grandfather (a legacy of political cartoons in a Lambeth pub).

Asked by Nick Cohen about his Jewish background he said he was an atheist and didn't grow up in a Jewish culture. Asked if he had ever suffered anti-semitism he said that other people had analysed some of the things said about him, particularly by Polly Toynbee, as close to the negative way in which Jews are traditionally portrayed ("a cancer" etc). Asked if he is hurt by the personal attacks made against him his urbane style almost slipped, and he condemned with some feeling "the nasty tone... of insidious character assassination".

Although I have seen Lord Mandelson many times on the broadcast media, in person I had been unprepared for the empathy which he created, making a room filled with hundreds of people into an intimate occasion. I was also very impressed with the carefully crafted way in which he spoke, so that although he talked at a normal speed all his sentences were elegantly balanced and coherent (unlike the stuttering of Nick Cohen) which indicates a mind working at tremendous speed working out what he wants to say and how he wants to say it. An impressive performance.

Pamela Nash MP

MP for Airdrie and Shotts is Pamela Nash.

Interested in sustainable housing.

Member of the Executive of the Fabian Society.
http://www.nextleft.org/

Youngest member of the House of Commons. When speaking in debates often refers to "Scotland" rather than her constituency, which gives the impression she is a nationalist sympathiser. Likely to become influential in the Labour party due to her youth and solid majority - all she has to do is stay out of controversy and Shadow jobs will (eventually) come her way.

Has a Twitter account: http://twitter.com/pamela_nash

Also a sort of blog: http://local.stv.tv/airdrie/news/967-blog-pamela-nash-mp/

More new faces should be brought forward

Such a major reorganisation of the Shadow Cabinet (earlier today), only three months after they were put in place, looks a bit lackadaisical.

Instead of the usual contenders (Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Douglas Alexander - all of whom led the Labour Party to failure in May 2010) perhaps more new faces should be brought forward, such as Chris Evans MP for Islywn (Fabian Society and the Co-operative Party).

And someone needs to tell the Labour Party that whatever the merits of their argument the performance they are putting on in the House of Lords is a PR disaster (it looks terrible on television, with decrepit old codgers droning on about any old rubbish that comes into their heads).

Banned

Above: The Smiths, in the person of Johnny Marr, has told David Cameron he is "forbidden" to like their music.

This was reported on the Guardian website in an article by Jo Adetunji:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/johnny-marr-david-cameron-twitter

You might argue that David Cameron is big enough and powerful enough to be able to defend himself, but hearing this news made me uneasy. If Johnny Marr is going to ban Conservatives from liking his music what other groups might he ban? Scientologists are an unpopular group - is it OK for The Smiths to ban them? An interview by John Harris in the Guardian hinted that The Smiths were not keen on black people or Chinese people so are these groups going to be "banned"? What does Johnny Marr's ban consist of anyway? Banned from attending The Smiths concerts? Banned from buying The Smiths music? Banned from standing outside Salford Lads Club? Banned from walking in the streets after 8pm? Banned from owning property? Banned from working in the professions? Banned from parks, restaurants and swimming pools? Banned from owning electrical/optical equipment, bicycles, typewriters or records? Banned from cinema, theatre, concerts, exhibitions, beaches and holiday resorts? Banned from owning dogs, cats and birds?

Where does this sort of thing end? (this is a rhetorical question, we already know where it ends).

Anyway, the voting patterns among young people during the 1980s were such that a good proportion (30% to 40%) of The Smiths music sales must have been to Conservative voters - is Johnny Marr proposing to give this money back?



Above: the news was also reported on the Daily Mirror website.

One of the most depressing aspects of the post-election period has been the lazy way in which the left has jumped into strident opposition mode. Opposition for opposition's sake and the noisier the better. Ed Miliband is trying to say interesting things and develop new ideas but no-one is listening to him.

Mandelson, the real PM on BBC4

I have just watched Mandelson, the real PM on BBC4.

The most surprising aspect was how dull it was.

Not an impartial observer

On the Today programme this morning Peter Mandelson appeared. He was asked about a survey carried out by the Legatum Institute which monitors "international feelings of wellbeing". Apparently the United Kingdom is not scoring very highly on this index, which seems to record the propensity of national populations for whistling in the dark.

Peter Mandelson was then asked about domestic politics and he did his usual trick of pretending to be impartial while at the same time being extremely partisan.

The interview then discussed Hannah Rothschild's forthcoming television documentary on Peter Mandelson. Although ostensibly a factual record, it is apparently a highly edited and mediated hagiography. The Review Show (formerly Newsnight Review) said that Hannah Rothschild was not an impartial observer - her documentary could more accurately be described as propaganda.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/15/revealing-documentary-unguarded-side-lord-mandelson

As soon as Ed Miliband falters

Above: self-criticism is a crucial part of any cultural revolution.

I have been following the Labour leadership contest with interest.

The difficulty Ed Miliband faces is that he only got the support of one tranche of the party (and not the parliamentary MPs, who are arguably the most important part).

This will not matter if things go well.

However, the House of Commons is filled (all parties) with ego-centric ultra-competitive narcissistic fuhrer-embryos. As soon as Ed Miliband falters it is the nature of these people to want to take his place. They will tell us (even perhaps tell themselves) that this is their duty, but really they can't help themselves - like terriers furiously chasing a rabbit they will not be able to stop.

Only when the Labour reaches the slough of electoral despondency will the plotters give up (and then only because the prize will no longer be worth having).

Uneasy the head that wears the crown (Henry VI part 2).

Anciens combattants

Above: interesting article in The Times (on 7th September) by Rachel Sylvester. Quoting Bryan Gould saying that New Labour originally wanted to target "the people who listened to Duran Duran rather than Red Wedge". Although Rachel Sylvester cannot be called an impartial commentator she is always worth reading and puts forward her arguments pursuasively.

The Labour leadership contest closes in a few hours, with the result announced at the weekend.

With the exception of Diane Abbott all the candidates are anciens combattants* who are accorded respect not because of their vision for the future but because of their record with the previous regime. They carry significant political weight within the Labour Party but are unlikely to appeal to the sort of people who listen to Lady Gaga or The Wanted. If you assume that the winner is probably going to offer shadow cabinet positions to the other four, it is possible that the anciens combattants will impose a deadening influence for a generation until they are shaken off.

My choice in order of preference (not that I have a vote) is: Andy Burnham, Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, David Miliband. I make the choices on the grounds of interesting people who are likely to do surprising things. The actual result will almost certainly be the reverse of my selection.

None of the candidates know what to do about the Coalition government which has fused anti-modern Conservative romanticism (using the word in a political sense) with a progressive technological mediation (economic, environmental, educational etc).

The pedagogical utopia that was New Labour is unlikely to offer any new solutions to the current political situation.

*the anciens combattants were a class of unimaginative political leaders who crushed political life in France after the First World War. Because of their status as war heroes they could not be questioned. Eventually they led their country into defeat, humilation and collaboration.

All features and no benefits

The contest for the Labour Party leadership continues. The Independent on Saturday did this helpful questions and answers article. I'm not sure any of the candidates really understands the concept of a unique selling point (and their more general selling points are all features and no benefits).

Although it is possible that events will destabilise the Coalition and Labour will bounce back after a couple of years, realistically they are probably out of power until 2020. They should be using this period to develop new policies, not worrying about current personalities (none of the five candidates are likely to be around in ten years' time). None of the candidates are talking about long-term policies (except possibly Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham).

Andy Burnham's focus on long-term care for the elderly is the only policy that will have electoral appeal. However he has not worked out a proper means of paying for it. I think a specific hypothecated tax would work.

Ed Miliband

Above: Ed Miliband seems to be emerging as the front runner for leader of the Labour Party.

On This Week yesterday Ed Miliband talked to Andrew Neil about his campaign to become leader of the Labour Party. His voice has a unique sound I can't identify - it's as if he is continually gobbling his words ("like the Soup Dragon on the Clangers"). During the interview he revealed that he had only been an MP since 2005.

Attitudes towards Ed Miliband are mixed. About half of media commentators regard him as an intellectual man of integrity. The other half talk of him as if he were Ass-Eared Folly in Mantegna's Allegory on the Fall of Ignorant Humanity.

This Week is now "on holiday" until September, mirroring the excessive summer holiday of the House of Commons. In the past MPs took the summer off because they had to bring in the harvest on their landed estates. Now they just loaf around.



Above: Andrew Rawnsley writing in The Observer.

Lawrence Durrell wrote in the 1950s: it is the unthinking instinct of the Left to promote civil war. As well as class war within wider society, this also applies to factional war within the Labour Party. None of the five candidates (except perhaps Burnham) can be called a unity figure.

The former lords of life and death

On Newsnight yesterday the five contenders for the Labour Party leadership (Diane Abbot, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, David Miliband and Ed Miliband) took questions from a small studio audience and also from presenter Jeremy Paxman.

It was an interesting session. In particular, it was interesting to see how the former lords of life and death (collectively ordering wars, authorizing detentions, deciding which communities get medical resources, police resources, education resources etc) were reduced to just four ordinary men in a television studio. How are the mighty fallen.

The programme lasted for forty-five minutes and had many moments that arrested attention.

Ed Balls claimed to be one of “the people who speak the language of Mrs Duffy” (Mrs Duffy has become an archetype figure, representing the ignored electorate).

Diane Abbot said that immigration was a proxy for issues such as housing or jobs.

Ed Miliband admitted that “Iraq was extremely damaging – catastrophic”.

David Miliband said “the state got too big in some areas”.

But once again (in my opinion) it was Andy Burnham who said the things I wanted to hear: opposing British membership of the Euro; advocating reform of care for the elderly; admitting that the last government “were putting big business before people”.

However, it would seem that most people have already decided they want David Miliband as Labour Party leader. On election night presenter Andrew Neil hosted a “booze cruise” boatload of pundits and celebrities, sailing up and down the Thames getting increasingly inebriated and offering comments on serious political issues whenever a camera was pointed in their direction. When Andrew Neil asked writer Tony Parsons which Miliband brother he favoured as leader he replied “the good-looking one” which reduces David Miliband to the status of a male bimbo.

Electable (in terms of a general election)

Above: the recent election resulted in a "hung" Parliament where no party had an overall majority. Subsequent negotiations led to a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and the ejection of Labour from power. The theme of a hung Parliament captured the popular imagination, as in these home-made cakes, sold to raise funds.

Nominations closed earlier today for the election of a new leader for the Labour Party. From a PR point of view, the most electable (in terms of a general election) of the five candidates is Andy Burnham - looks and sounds normal, is not too closely associated with the previous regime, has a back story that relates to ordinary people. In many ways he has a Ronald Reagan appeal.

He also has a fairly good record as a minister (opposing product placement, promoting care for the elderly etc).

But probably the Labour party is too out-of-touch to elect him.

On the Politics Show... Ed Balls

On the Politics Show yesterday Ed Balls was interviewed, saying that the last government had made a wrong decision to allow unlimited immigration from Eastern Europe.

Whenever the issue is discussed the politicians say “there is nothing we can do about immigration from Eastern Europe” even though it is having a devastating effect upon the lowest-paid in society, destroying their lives.

What is wrong with the Foreign Secretary going to his Polish and Latvian counterparts and just explaining that a terrible mistake has been made? Just explain that we were expecting about twenty thousand migrants, not the millions who have arrived. Then remove the right to work for all migrants who have arrived over the past thirteen years.

The Poles are supposed to be good Europeans, so surely they will see that the situation is completely untenable? Good Europeans are supposed to help each other out. Surely as good Europeans they will want to co-operate?

And even if they decide they are not good Europeans, what are they going to do? Declare war? Invade us?

Possibly the Polish government will demand reparations of some kind. If this is the case the British government should identify everyone (civil servants and politicians) who has created this mess and place them under house-arrest for ten or twenty years. There will be no need for a trial as house-arrest can be imposed by fiat of the Home Secretary (and as the Icelandic banks incident demonstrated, anti-terror legislation can be used for other purposes).

On the Politics Show Ed Balls gave a good interview, and came over as a reasonable chap. Then you look on Google and find he attends Bilderberger meetings. And you think: WTF are our politicians up to…

Translating popular opinion into public policy

Above: the Sun published this picture of Diane Abbott yesterday. It accompanied a story that Diane Abbott had charged £300 for writing an obituary, claiming that there had been an irregularity about the payment. Notice how the newspaper has put an advertisement adjacent to the story saying “get cash for your stories…”

Interesting article in the Daily Mail shows Diane Abbott as the most popular of the candidates for the Labour Party leadership:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281363/Diane-Abbott-tipped-win-Labour-leadership-race.html

Diane Abbott stated as her reasons for wanting to stand the fact that the other candidates were all from a particular demographic (male, 40-50, ex policy researchers etc). She complained that no women were standing for the leadership. She also called for "A proper debate on immigration, where children of immigrants like me also have a voice."

There is no lack of discussion about immigration. The issue seems to crop up whenever ordinary people are allowed to speak to their representatives. The difficulty seems to arise in translating popular opinion into public policy (“when are you going to do something”).

For instance, David Cameron is putting out to “consultation” the numerical cap on non-EU immigration. However that consultation will only be with other experts in the field, and will not involve any public consultation. Therefore the suspicion must remain that he is only consulting with people who will agree with him.

Immigration is one of three key areas where ordinary people feel the political elite are ignoring the popular will (the other areas being European integration and Globalisation).

They are all areas where enormous changes have been imposed on the United Kingdom without a specific mandate (it is no use civil servants pointing to the small print of parliamentary bills passed in 1972 etc). Without a popular mandate none of the changes, which go back forty or fifty years, are valid. Without a valid basis to the laws that have been passed the whole system is discredited (as has been revealed recently, although some politicians still seem to be in denial over the level of public rejection).

PS on Newsnight yesterday Jack Straw said the previous government “never forced through” constitutional change. And yet the Lisbon Treaty was certainly forced through. Does Jack Straw think he can tell lies in public, on television, and no-one is going to notice?

"I remember as if it were yesterday..."

Discussion I overheard in the office upstairs:

Alec: “Did you watch This Week last night? If you want to see how much of a joke candidate Diane Abbott is, you should tune in to the first ten minutes and watch Digby Jones skewer her on some straightforward economic questions. Most enjoyable.”

Philip (Finance Director): “Yes I watched it last night, I doubt she will even get the thirty MP’s to sign her nomination.”

Terry (our boss): “You say that, but I remember as if it were yesterday nineteen seventy-four when Margaret first dared to stand against Ted, and everyone was saying exactly the same things about her being a joke candidate and a stalking horse for Sir Keith Joseph and the best Tory leader Labour could wish for. The MP's who signed Margaret's nominations were all marginal outsiders and Monday Club members. Admittedly she had to get far fewer nominations than the thirty Labour requires. Also MPs were more chivalrous in those days about not attacking a woman, whereas now they are vicious right from the start…”

Old politics from one of the new intake

Above: the Miliband brothers represented as the Mitchell brothers from Eastenders (this was by Rory Bremner).

Not impressed with the performance of new MP Tristram Hunt interviewed on the Today programme this morning. Instead of taking part in the discussion he just loudly recited a list of irrelevant party political points he wanted to make. It was an example of old politics from one of the new intake.

Demos is more encouraging about the new alignment in the current political settlement: http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/fieldofdreams

Newsnight yesterday used a panel to research possible new leaders for the Labour Party and found David Miliband was the unanimous preferred choice. Later in the programme Jeremy Paxman asked David Miliband if he was a “wonk”, which seemed to discomfort him. David Miliband was formerly part of the Primrose Hill Gang which included James Purnell.



Above: although David Miliband may be popular among ordinary people he is not entirely popular among Labour Party supporters. This is a savage attack by Guardian journalist Charlie Brooker (from May 2008). Charlie Brooker is an alumni of Central London Polytechnic.

Browbeat the media

A rare public example of how New Labour privately browbeat the media for so many years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8