Labour Must Learn Not to Love Opposition
A sense of moral superiority will not win an election says Peter Watt. And the Labour Party is tending towards liking opposition a little too much.
16 Jul 2011, 11:34
The generally accepted view seems to be that Ed Miliband has a good crisis. He has found his voice and taken on and slain the Murdoch dragon. In fact if you have been watching your Twitter feed all week you will have noted the understandable glee of the Labour Twittersphere as they celebrate their Leader’s success. They clearly feel that he can strike out from here and achieve greater and greater success. Perhaps winning the next election may be possible after all? There is certainly little doubt that he has made all the running and that David Cameron has been running fast and generally not catching up.
But.
I wonder. I wonder if in fact, far from being the moment that a Labour victory seems possible, these last few weeks will really be the moment that the remote possibility of victory began to evaporate. The problem for Labour is that many of its activists have begun to enjoy opposition. It is a dangerous place for them to be as, if they are honest, it is where many of them feel most comfortable. Why? Because many on the Left suffer from a moral certainty that they are right at the best of times.
In Government this is sorely tested as difficult decisions and compromises have to be made. But opposition offers the prospect of moral crusades; of campaigns for justice and for a renewed sense that all Tories are immoral and self-serving. It is certainly more comfortable and definitely more fun!
And watching this crisis unfold you can see that this moral certainty ripped large. From Gordon Brown’s powerful but ill-judged speech in the House of Commons to the morally anguished cries of Labour supporters across the land, it is there for all to see. Tory supporting Press Barons are condemned as being morally bankrupt, evil and despicable. Worse than sewer rats. They seem to have forgotten that Labour (rightly) courted popular headlines, could have strengthened the PCC and that most of the hacking happened under a Labour Government.
But who cares if this gets in the way of our moral absolutism? The press (except the Guardian and the Mirror) ARE all scum. The Tories HAVE sought to defend their friends in the media. David Cameron IS friends with Rebekah Brooks FFS! It’s a slam dunk case.
But of course there is a problem. This moral absolutism will not win general elections. It blinds people to the fact that other people might feel different things to you and not be evil or stupid. It allows you to think that everyone agrees with you and stops you hearing those who don’t. It results in policies that appeal to some who think as we do – but no one else.
Avoiding this delusion is key to electoral success – but the ‘success’ of the last few weeks will have convinced many in the Labour Party that in fact most people do think and feel as they do. Ed has led a movement that has had, and will have, profound implications for the regulation of our media. The opinion polls say he has shown leadership and people agree that something bad has been happening in some newsrooms. So the lazy thinking is that Labour needs more and more of this – and then they will win. So let’s take on the Daily Mail (bastards) and the Sun (despicable). In fact if we can condemn, and even better remove, these pedlars of untruth then people will hear us. If the people can only hear us then they will hear the truth and they will believe us.
But there is a problem of course. Lots of people don’t in fact agree with us and feel about things the way that we do. They may be appalled about the treatment by some journalists of Milly Dowler’s family and the families of members of the Armed Forces whose loved ones have died. But that doesn’t mean that they are offended by breasts in their newspaper. Or that they don’t think that criminals should be treated harshly and that it’s not fair that people abuse the welfare system. We need to appeal to people who don’t think and feel as we do if we are to win. And that means compromise and a sensible approach to policy development and priorities. But compromise is difficult if you ‘know’ that you are right.
It will not be bringing down News International that wins the next election. It will be creating a sense amongst the electorate that we understand their lives and the pressures that they are under. The rising prices, the long work hours and the rapidly changing world. The sense of unfairness that others who don’t work hard do better than those who do. The last few weeks have shown that Ed Miliband can be a strong Leader. He has rightly earned the right to be heard beyond the Labour Party. But his danger is that his success will encourage him not to speak to the country as a whole but only to the moral crusaders within his Party. I hope that he resists.
But.
I wonder. I wonder if in fact, far from being the moment that a Labour victory seems possible, these last few weeks will really be the moment that the remote possibility of victory began to evaporate. The problem for Labour is that many of its activists have begun to enjoy opposition. It is a dangerous place for them to be as, if they are honest, it is where many of them feel most comfortable. Why? Because many on the Left suffer from a moral certainty that they are right at the best of times.
In Government this is sorely tested as difficult decisions and compromises have to be made. But opposition offers the prospect of moral crusades; of campaigns for justice and for a renewed sense that all Tories are immoral and self-serving. It is certainly more comfortable and definitely more fun!
And watching this crisis unfold you can see that this moral certainty ripped large. From Gordon Brown’s powerful but ill-judged speech in the House of Commons to the morally anguished cries of Labour supporters across the land, it is there for all to see. Tory supporting Press Barons are condemned as being morally bankrupt, evil and despicable. Worse than sewer rats. They seem to have forgotten that Labour (rightly) courted popular headlines, could have strengthened the PCC and that most of the hacking happened under a Labour Government.
But who cares if this gets in the way of our moral absolutism? The press (except the Guardian and the Mirror) ARE all scum. The Tories HAVE sought to defend their friends in the media. David Cameron IS friends with Rebekah Brooks FFS! It’s a slam dunk case.
But of course there is a problem. This moral absolutism will not win general elections. It blinds people to the fact that other people might feel different things to you and not be evil or stupid. It allows you to think that everyone agrees with you and stops you hearing those who don’t. It results in policies that appeal to some who think as we do – but no one else.
Avoiding this delusion is key to electoral success – but the ‘success’ of the last few weeks will have convinced many in the Labour Party that in fact most people do think and feel as they do. Ed has led a movement that has had, and will have, profound implications for the regulation of our media. The opinion polls say he has shown leadership and people agree that something bad has been happening in some newsrooms. So the lazy thinking is that Labour needs more and more of this – and then they will win. So let’s take on the Daily Mail (bastards) and the Sun (despicable). In fact if we can condemn, and even better remove, these pedlars of untruth then people will hear us. If the people can only hear us then they will hear the truth and they will believe us.
But there is a problem of course. Lots of people don’t in fact agree with us and feel about things the way that we do. They may be appalled about the treatment by some journalists of Milly Dowler’s family and the families of members of the Armed Forces whose loved ones have died. But that doesn’t mean that they are offended by breasts in their newspaper. Or that they don’t think that criminals should be treated harshly and that it’s not fair that people abuse the welfare system. We need to appeal to people who don’t think and feel as we do if we are to win. And that means compromise and a sensible approach to policy development and priorities. But compromise is difficult if you ‘know’ that you are right.
It will not be bringing down News International that wins the next election. It will be creating a sense amongst the electorate that we understand their lives and the pressures that they are under. The rising prices, the long work hours and the rapidly changing world. The sense of unfairness that others who don’t work hard do better than those who do. The last few weeks have shown that Ed Miliband can be a strong Leader. He has rightly earned the right to be heard beyond the Labour Party. But his danger is that his success will encourage him not to speak to the country as a whole but only to the moral crusaders within his Party. I hope that he resists.
Comments (15)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
Peter,
This is a decent post. However I think you're wasting your time.
The culture of Gordon Brown lives on... Anyhthing is acvceptable if its against tories.. smears, lies its all fair game...
Because "we're the good people"
I don't want to invoke Godwin's law, but here goes...
How did the Nazis get to the final solution? By seeing groups of people as inherently evil, worthless etc.. You see the same thinking, if not quite the same actions, in what 50/60%+ in most Guardian articles for example...
16/07/2011 12:01Thank you Mr Watt's for your eminently sensible article. I too have been thinking that the Labour Party has been thoroughly enjoying opposition and behaving as if they have just got out of jail. It has been rather alarming witnessing people I once held with some esteem ranting in the House and on political programmes. They most certainly do not look like a government in waiting.
As to GB's intervention in the House - the most embarrassing intervention from a former PM that I have ever witnessed. Also a very selective account of events. Whilst I have read all political books covering the labour years and was aware that Mr Brown often spoke with a lengthy account of facts in an aggressive manner, this was the first time I have witnessed him in this light. Dreadful, and awfully sad. What also hit me was the faces and comment of some of those around him. Pure aggression and hatred of the opposition benches. Some looked and sounded like thugs.... The type of person I would avoid. GB stirred these feelings up in his sad attempt to ensure that he was perceived as being different from other political leaders. Let him publish his contact with the press and let the public decide as his speech just confirmed the difficulties that Tony Blair must have had dealing with this man and, further, how unsuitable he was for the office of PM.
MPs are again treating the public as imbeciles. We have known for years that journalists have used improper and indeed illegal means to obtain information. We have known these means have changed as technology has developed. Often we have been the beneficiaries of these stories. Inappropriate relationships that MPs who preach to the public on moral issues have had. The Sheik who has exposed so many improper and illegal activities. The Telegraph's expose of MPs expenses and the abuse of taxpayers money by lavish claims and flipping houses. I could go on.
Sadly, I do not think MPs will heed your advice on focussing on the issues that really matter. Look at their nasty behaviour at the Home affairs Select Committee Report last week when they brought the Select Committee role into disrepute. Rudeness, interruption of witnesses, laughter by the Committee and other MPs in the room and class bias too. Look at the tweets about the archaic powers of the House to issue Summons, arrest powers and punishment to those witnesses who lied to the committee or failed to appear. Absolutely shocking that we invest such power to MPs with witnesses having less protection than a Court of Law. Look at the continued action in calling witnesses before them when a public enquiry has been set up and in the middle of a police enquiry. I think it is interfering with justice. Oh how much MPs are enjoying pay back for all their misdemeanours which the press have reported.
Taking the lead over New Corps does not make a PM. The opposite in my view as we out here know that the PM has many important issues to deal with not least two wars and the Euro Crisis. Hurt feelings of those hacked are not actually that important. Neither does the continuous tweeting about News Corp (last man at Wapping turn the lights out). In all many MPs and one Lord are behaving totally unprofessionally. I am ashamed of them.
16/07/2011 12:09Excellent piece that encapsulates what I have been thinking more & more about Labour people in recent months.
One thing though, surely your sentence, "And watching this crisis unfold you can see that this moral certainty ripped large", should be "writ large"?
16/07/2011 13:29Stuart you are right. Please don't tell anyone!
16/07/2011 13:47Another great piece Peter - if you were LotO, Cameron would have something to fear.
The self-righteous moralising is just revolting and I can't believe what Gordon did in the HoC - an embarrassment of epic proportions.
I thought about watching it again, but I'd have to hide behind the sofa.
16/07/2011 13:58I don't get this.
Not one example provided of a Labour activist or MP who loves having a Tory Government - for that is the argument you are making.
"If Peter Watt identifies a trend, it must be true".
What exceptionally poor logic to base oneself on whilst reading a political text.
Peter - you understand this too. So what are you really trying to say?
16/07/2011 14:18Tom, it is an opinion piece written to provoke discussion. I am not saying that Labour activists love having a Tory Government, don't be ridiculous. I am saying that for many political activists, CAMPAIGNING (which activists enjoy) is more enjoyable and easier in opposition. It is not based on scientific surveys or in depth interviews of activists it is my opinion based on observation and over 25 years in politics. Feel free to keep disagreeing!
16/07/2011 14:47Good post, Peter, and thanks for replying to comments!
There are two point I'd like to pick up. One relates to this quote:
'It will not be bringing down News International that wins the next election. It will be creating a sense amongst the electorate that we understand their lives and the pressures that they are under.'
This will be extremely difficult, because the electorate has learned that any politician, any party, may be able to 'create a sense of understanding' without really knowing what it is like to live outside the Westminster Village, on a small pension, and dwindling savings, or what it is like to live on the average income, ore one even lower, working all hours, trying to rise kids, trying to keep the house - while taxes rise, energy prices rise, inflation rises.
This lead me to my second point: people are sick to be told 'we feel your pain' when politicians obviously do not. They are sick of being told how to live their lives (five-a-day, anyone?), they are sick of being regarded as dumb, stupid and uneducated folk who must be told, nannied and led to that brighter future of which socialists especially are so fond (and which never arrives).
Above all, the moral superiority felt especially by Labour activists, but also by Green ones, usually expresses itself by calling all those who happen to disagree as evil scum. This becomes abundantly evident when the disagreeing try to enter a debate and advance facts.
So - no debate, no exchange of ideas, no compromise. Not between left and right, and not between politicians and us, their employers.
16/07/2011 19:51A pity.
"This moral absolutism will not win general elections. It blinds people to the fact that other people might feel different things to you and not be evil or stupid. It allows you to think that everyone agrees with you and stops you hearing those who don’t".
This sounds very true to me. It's something that really grates with me about the political sphere (seems more prevalent on the left, but that's only an impression).
I'd guess the thought process that generates it is along the lines of
1: I hold (a principle) to be self-evidently 'right', and something that 'right-thinking' people will agree with
2: Some people do not agree with (said principle). As it is self evident, the logical conclusion to come to is that they are
a) too stupid to understand it, and thus can be ignored, or ridiculed
b) Ignorant of the facts, and would change their views if only they were fully informed of the facts, and not misled by the "(opposite side of the political spectrum) media/education system/government(s)"
c) see that (this principle) is 'right', but pretend it isn't because they are willfully malicious, and so are evil, and to be attacked and insulted.
3. Thus, anyone who doesn't agree with (principle), is to be pitied, scorned, or attacked.
This could be selection bias talking, but it seems to be increasingly prevalent in politics, and a disturbing and off-putting trend.
16/07/2011 20:24Viv, I agree with you. Sincerity is likely to be a rare and precious commodity for politicians in the future. Trust will take time to develop! tallandaft - I think you're spot on!
17/07/2011 11:55Tom Miller did not understand what Peter wrote. I, however, did. My understanding is that of a former Ecology Party/Green Party member. I heard someone say at a Green Party Conference: "I'd rather be in opposition forever! I do not like the thought of having power!"
And one of the first Green Party councillors complained to me at a meeting that he was having to "waste his time" dealing with issues like homelessness in his ward.
17/07/2011 23:36I hope Labour do love to stay in opposition because it would be a tragedy were they ever to be elected to government again. The 1945-51 Labour Government were at least sincere, but they still managed to trash this country. The Wilson and Callaghan government were worse, but pale into insignficiance when compared to the Blair/Brown administration - the worst government Britian has had to endure since the Stuart kings in the 17th Century. Socialism spells disaster every time, be it the Marxist, Social democratic or "Nu-labour" versions. The big state needs dismantling, political correctness should be scrapped and socialism should be confined to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
18/07/2011 13:59Peter, you observe accurately, as ever. One excellent thought on our weakness for moral righteousness came from a commenter (Henrik) on a Labour Uncut piece of mine a couple of months back. It went:
"The difference between us on the right and you on the left is that we think you’re wrong, you think we’re evil."
Quite.
18/07/2011 20:04@Rob Marchant
Grr that is such a self-serving Tory cliche that you're repeating Rob. Next you'll be invoking the old Cavalier/Roundhead guff. Go to any rightwing blog and check the articles and comments. They hate us alright. Probably even more than we do them. I cannot imagine Left Feet Forward or Liberal Conspiracy having the equivalent of Conservativehome's 'Left Watch' section. It's weird and vaguely Francoist.
Tories seem obsessed by what the left writes about them whilst the left just gets on with it. That is what leads to these self deluding maxims trying to rationalize the left's viewpoint along some ridiculous pseudo-psychological line. We are at ideological loggerheads my Tory friends. Nothing more to it.
18/07/2011 20:57@PeterWatts
If we tailor our rhetoric to accomodate people who disagree with us, those who do decide we are not on their side and don't vote for us. Like when EdM attacked the unions and smacked around the welfare dependent a bit and his ratings amongst Labour voters plummeted.
I would be really interested to read, Peter, a broad ranging article from you, or Dan Hodges, or any other Labour Uncut writer, explaining where you think the party should be heading in general policy terms. It is really easy to criticise Ed (lord knows) but you have consistantly failed to recognise the difficulty of the task that he is facing.
18/07/2011 21:11