Labour Is Just Speaking To Itself
Peter Watt says today's Labour Party doesn't reflect British Society and that needs to change.
24 Dec 2011, 11:26
Ed Miliband - Under Fire
I’m having a quiet evening in, it’s the night before Christmas Eve, the kids are all in bed and Vilma is out having Christmas drinks with friends. The presents are wrapped, there’s nothing on TV and so I am sat reflecting. Reflecting on a brilliant post written by Anthony Painter over at Labour List on Labour’s 2011. In summary he thinks that Society has changed and that the Party hasn’t either politically or organisationally. I think he is very right. But as I sit here reflecting I was struck by one passage in Anthony’s post in particular:
‘The upper echelons of the Labour party is dominated by brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and friends. They are a group and tribe of their own and they don’t speak to or for modern Britain. Or maybe they do but in the wrong way – the insider’s nation. But we need heavyweight statesmen and women; not former advisers.
We have arrived at this point as a result of the way the party has been run for two decades. It’s a disaster. It’s who you know not what you know. It is a guild – a nepotistic one. Diversity is so important. Yet we have a party that interprets diversity in purely gender or racial terms. You end up with even less diversity as a result. Without diversity you have group think and an absence of creativity. And you seem weird. That is the state of the modern Labour party.’
I strongly agree and indeed have written similar things over the last couple of years. There really is a ‘political bubble’ that limits people’s objectivity. After thirteen years of Government the Labour bubble is particularly pervasive. It sucks out innovation and forces conformity. You really do believe, inside the bubble, that everything that happens inside the bubble is so much more important than what happens outside of it. The modern equivalent of Lenin’s vanguard of the proletariat is Labour’s National Policy Forum with all of the former’s implied self-importance. Whilst for the 97% of the population (guesstimate rather than hard fact before any pedant asks) the bubble is meaningless at best and a vehicle for self-aggrandisement at worst.
But the reason for my reflection is actually that I am soul searching. Because for over a decade I was a part of the ‘nepotistic guild’ that Anthony describes. In fact, for several years I was a senior element of the ‘guild’. So I played my part in allowing the current situation to develop. And I have to take some responsibility for the part that I played. Of course there are reasons for the development of this approach that have roots in the disastrous loony politics of the left that dominated the Party in the eighties. And of course to a large extent the approach was successful in winning elections. But with hindsight it has also produced the dangerous group think that right now allows the Party to convince itself that all is well. And we should have taken steps to correct the imbalance years ago.
But having left the bubble suddenly somewhat reluctantly in 2007, when I resigned as General Secretary, I can see the damage that is being done. I don’t claim for one minute by the way that if this hadn’t happened that I would be anything other than still a fully paid up member of the ‘guild’. But luckily (and it didn’t feel lucky at the time) I lost my membership. So I can see all too clearly the false dangerous sense that if we all pretend we agree than no one will notice that we don’t. The shrill demands for loyalty. The refusal to see good in anyone who doesn’t agree. You can see it on Twitter; I have lost count of the times I have been accused of disloyalty for agreeing with Tories and Lib Dems. In fact I have been attacked for the crime of simply RT’ing tweets that don’t tow the party line. So to be a good member there must be no free speech, sharing of alternative views, respect for others opinions or learning from a diversity of views. Not even the ability to see what our opponents are saying. No; only the positive will do. To be a proper loyal member of the ‘guild’ I should presumably only read the Guardian, only tweet ‘the Labour Party is right when it says…’ and slag off everything that David Cameron or Nick Clegg do? Well it may come as a surprise to people but the vast majority of the population just don’t see the world through that prism and the fact that we even try to is very unhealthy. And probably electorally suicidal.
Last week a young Labour blogger, Tom Scholes-Fogg was asked his views on Ed by Jane Merrick of the Independent on Sunday. Tom was critical. The result was that he was insulted, attacked and patronised. A common cry was that he has somehow spoken above his station, who the hell did he think he was? Because that is another rule of the ‘guild’ – you aren’t allowed views of your own, other than saying that you agree with the line and anyway you should only speak publicly when you are asked to. Well that is the rule if you want to progress within the Party anyway. That is code for getting a position, a post or an elected position. But if you look at what Tom actually said he wasn’t saying anything that people aren’t saying privately. Even some of those attacked him. The stupid thing is that you really can think and say that Ed is struggling at the moment and still want him to succeed.
So where does my soul searching take me? I guess in simple terms I think that it is simply not possible or credible to think that we can win an election if we cannot break out of the current state of confusing our ‘insiders nation’ with the nation as a whole. Of course there has to be a balance with people having some sense of common party approach. But, if we persist with the creative straight jacket that we are currently locked in, then we will continue to look remote and ultimately of little consequence to the electorate.
Note to self. I must spend a bit more time on this self-reflection malarkey; it’s good for the soul.
Comments (12)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
They say great minds discuss and think about ideas.
They say modest minds discuss and think about events.
They say small minds think about personalities.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem facing the Labour right.
24/12/2011 11:46Not sure the point you're making Eoin. If you're saying that I'm talking about personalities then you're wrong. That isn't the point i'm making at all.
24/12/2011 11:49A very perceptive post. It has always struck me (as someone who has supported both Labour and the Tories in the past), that there is a fundamental asymmetry between the parties.
Consider Tory bloggers - Tim Montgomerie often criticizes the party leaders, and it feted and thanked for doing so. Contrast this with Dan Hodges, who is sacked from the Staggers for doing the same.
I think that Labour has now developed a very centralist/statist mentality, where everything has to be done by the centre. In policy terms, this leads to ever more spending. In party terms, this leads to central message control (e.g. LabourList being party controlled).
Conversely, the Tories (and to some extent the LibDems) believe in a diversified mentality, where lots of little players compete. In policy terms, it leads to delegation, localisation and "big society" thinking. In party terms, it is comfortable with people being off message, as it creates a big tent (spanning John Redwood to Ken Clarke). This is less comfortable for those at the top, but much more resilient.
In a way, these two mentalities are replaying the Cold War - the central five-year planning of the Soviets, vs the ruthless internal competition of capitalism.
And we know which one wins out.
24/12/2011 13:50Incredible isn't it? You write a post about how intolerant some people are to even constructive critcism and you are labelled as having a "small mind".
Still, at least it wasn't the Leninist stance of alleging you were a class enemy and that was why you had an unhelpful political view.
As it goes I don't completely buy into the "neopotistic guild" thesis. After all, if you have read Radice you will realise that cliques and clicks at the highest level of Labour are nothing new and nor are they a barrier to political greatness - bluntly I think someone who has been a friend in the party over the years because they have held the same sort of political position is better than people who blow in with no fixed views at all and just adopt the latest fashion.
That said I do think there is a serious problem about the party looking like a bunch of out of touch Hampstead elitists - the fact that the Tories are a bunch of Notting Hill elitists doesn't really help.
Ed Miliband seems to think that because his views are the natural, intelligent, ones there is no need to compromise with the electorate. And he is weak in the party which is why he has surrounded himself with a bunch of political heavies from the AEU right who are playing him like a child's piano.
This is another irony - Ed Miliband was the candidate of the hard, Labour First, right and the naive well meaning soft left: it is difficult to imagine a more poisonous brew.
Oh Eoin, if personalities matter so little, presumably you have no objection to Ed being replaced by someone else?
24/12/2011 14:03There probably is something in this criticism, although all parties have a set of identikit advisers, none of whom have a drop of life experience. I don't think the electorate sees the Tories as a more open, representative party. It's overwhelmingly populated by rich, public school educated white men.
Labour has a problem in that the media is naturally unsympathetic. Look at the reaction to a small poll bounce for Cameron - hailed as an incredibly important moment. And one lame 'brother' joke in PMQs hits the headlines whereas Cameron's red-faced bullying never gets a mention.
However, the truth is that Labour is naive if it thinks the electorate will welcome it back with open arms so soon. Patience, honesty and a detailed critique of government failings will slowly bear fruit. Perhaps the most important thing is a consistent thread of fairness. Reinventing itself in the public imagination is going to be a cumulative process and the 'guild' and everyone else should remember that.
24/12/2011 14:27Its a generally compelling argument - but it does not just apply to the Labour Party. The Tories and the Lib-Dems and even the Greens are also now machines, tightly controlled at the centre with loyal cadres (whips) ensuring discipline and top-down 'messages' being sent to the party faithful. Its the Leninist model of a political party - vanguardist, elitist and ultimately divorced from the public, even from many ordinary party members and supporters. It would be good to see the emergence of a genuinely popular movement to change this - but hard to see how at the moment, despite more and more evidence of people taking to the streets around the world to defy authoritarianism and express genuine concerns and hopes
24/12/2011 14:33I am reminded of a story element of The West Wing, where the Democrat executive is constantly on the back foot, constantly self-absorbed and relying on focus groups and polling, where the President's choice of holiday locations are tested before being announced. And then someone has the bright idea of letting "Bartlett be Bartlett" - i.e. letting him speak for himself, with moral authority, letting him be the leader he should be rather than the chairman of the board.
In our real world, to be an effective opposition, Labour need to be *led*. It needs a man of charisma and conviction who can lead the Labour Party and present a visionary alternative to the government that the public can be persuaded is better than what they voted for in the last election. It's all the more vital, from Labour's point of view, that this position is made clear because patently the public couldn't really make up their minds.
For three elections Margaret Thatcher soundly won the arguments against Labour. She *led*. She won. She was faced with Oppositions that were not winning arguments, they were simply complaining without really presenting an appealing alternative. John Major scraped through more by luck than judgement and only then because Neil Kinnock was caricatured as less a leader and more a clown and did nothing to help himself (a certain Sheffield rally comes excruciatingly to mind).
Blair *led*. He projected conviction, confidence, the ability to move forwards. And in the public's mind, he did that, like Thatcher, for three elections in a row.
Milliband does not lead. Along with his colleagues, he complains, he whinges, he wrings his hands in public at the unfairness of it all. And he presents a very unattractive image to the public at large: as you say quite rightly, of nepotism, cronyism, and inward-looking old-guard. It has no sense of realism.
You're absolutely right. Labour is just talking to itself and I see no signs of it changing any time in the next 3 1/2 years. It ought to know what it stands for and be seen to be trying to lead its natural supporters towards a defined 'promised land'. Instead it's stuck in a swamp of its own making, both intellectually and politically, uncertain even of its own principles any more.
24/12/2011 15:17I'm not a Labour supporter. Nor a member of any party.But in the late 1990s voted Labour as the Conservatives were clearly on another planet.
I've read the above replies: some in my view realistic and other - frankly barking mad with no recognition of the external perceptions of Labour.
I will quote just one:
Greg Lovell said:
"I don't think the electorate sees the Tories as a more open, representative party. It's overwhelmingly populated by rich, public school educated white men."
To which the obvious riposte is:
And Ed Miliband is a privately educated millionaire. and H Harman was privately educated and is married to a Union Leader..
Both white and public school educated.
No UK Party : Conservative, Labour, LDs, UKIP - have a non millionaire as Leader.
And you all wonder why people are cynical about politicians..
25/12/2011 11:10But Peter weren't you and the 'New Labour' project very much responsible for the Labour Party we now have? To say you left that group controlling the party in 2007 doesn't really explain what happened before then. Do you think that the Blair-Brown divisions make any difference to how the 'New Labour' people behave? Is what we are seeing now just like a falling out amongst thieves.
28/12/2011 03:23So Labour are just doing what they want, ignoring all criticism and without regard for what the pblic think.
Isn't that just what they did for years before Tony Blair became leader?
28/12/2011 11:30Les Abbey - to be fair I do try and address that. I think the controls of new Labour were a product of their time. I also think that we (including me) didn't try and move on from this when we should. I suspect if I hadn't been forced out I would still be trying to maintain that control and I would'be been wrong to do so.
28/12/2011 23:03...to be fair I do try and address that.
Then my apologies Peter.
Of course I take it you will now be supporting any campaign for increased internal democracy in the party, the end of NEC decided short lists, the end of parachuting in candidates to safe seats and the return of power to the CLPs. Possibly you will also point out that the PLP has become home for clones of the Oxbridge/SPAD/bag carrier types in our present leadership, (which you never were Peter I will give you.)
29/12/2011 04:21