Labour Must Learn to Cheer the Successful
Peter Watt is bemused by the Labour Party's attitude to the rich and successful and says it needs to change.
21 Aug 2011, 19:29
Labour, we were once told, would really have grown up if it learned to love Peter Mandelson. Well, I now think that it would be more accurate to say that Labour would have grown up when it learns to love those who are successful.
We really do have a problem with successful people in the Labour Party. Give us someone who is down on their luck, not working or who we perceive as being worthy of our largesse and we become animated. Roll out someone successful and we feel uncomfortable.
The Party never quite felt comfortable about receiving donations from wealthy Party donors for instance. There was a sense that we didn’t want to become tainted by them and their money. I remember all to well the appalling way that at times they were treated. Donors, who had already had to endure the sniping of the press, were then rewarded with invites to flagship Party events. And then, as a part of their reward, often had to endure speeches from the rostrum by Party members condemning ‘rich men’ who had infected our politics. The same ‘rich men’ who presumably had helped to pay for the venue and rostrum that they were speaking from! For many, we were having to ‘hold our nose’ and accept this unwelcome money in order to counter the Tories and their rich friends. It certainly wasn’t seen by them as a symbol of our success that we were attracting the support of successful, wealthy entrepreneurs.
And you see the same attitude when it comes to selections of candidates. If you were advising a potential Labour Party candidate on the production of their CV then you would advise playing up Party activism, Trade Union activity and voluntary work. In that order. You would be OK if you were a success in the public sector but God forbid you have had a successful career in business or industry. That just wouldn’t go down well at the average selection meeting.
Or in education when we cant wait to condemn parents who want to do well for their Kids by having a tutor, choosing a ‘good’ local school or (the ultimate sin) going private. In fact, even aspiring to go private, as many parents do, is seen as a cardinal sin. No, far better to dogmatically send your children to the local school and only the local school. It’s why so many in the Labour Party were, and still are, uncomfortable with or are outright opposed to Academy schools.
It’s why Labour was slow to understand the significance of the right to buy. It’s why Labour still doesn’t seem to get why some people want to have a decent car or that being able to afford home improvements really matters. And that paying more tax, even for the greater good, is a problem.
No, we love an underdog. It appeals to our sense of wanting to do the right thing and help people. It appeals to or sense that some people need our help that they can’t get on without our intervention. It is also why for many voters we have become the Party that they should but do not support. All to often they are frightened away from supporting Labour by appearing not to support their aspirations. They might not be wealthy but they want to be, or at least a bit richer. They certainly think that richer people should pay more tax but they also don’t want being successful to be punished. After all they would like to be more successful or for their kids to be more successful.
We also seem to give the impression that we don’t understand that most people would like to get on without the help of the state. They want to be helped to help themselves not have things done to them. They don’t just want to be passive recipients of our well intentioned help. They want to be allowed to make decisions that they think are in the best interests of them, their family and their community. In other words they want to be successful.
The success that they want doesn’t make them selfish. It doesn’t make them uninterested in wider societal matters or blind to the fact that many problems are best sorted with a collective response. Most people, given the choice, wouldn’t opt out of the NHS for instance and they know that law and order requires a police force. But it does mean that they want themselves and their family to be successful and that ideally they would be in charge of their own destiny.
We have a chance, right now, to re-define our selves as being on the side of aspiration and success. We could begin to craft taxation policy that rewards hard work and success – and is seen to do so. We could position ourselves as the pro-business party that recognises and nurtures entrepreneurship. We could run a campaign to support more people to establish their own businesses and not just to get a job. None of these mean that we stop being interested in those in society who are vulnerable and need help and support. On the contrary.
Or we could of course continue to be sniffy, or worse, about those who are or would like to be successful.
We really do have a problem with successful people in the Labour Party. Give us someone who is down on their luck, not working or who we perceive as being worthy of our largesse and we become animated. Roll out someone successful and we feel uncomfortable.
The Party never quite felt comfortable about receiving donations from wealthy Party donors for instance. There was a sense that we didn’t want to become tainted by them and their money. I remember all to well the appalling way that at times they were treated. Donors, who had already had to endure the sniping of the press, were then rewarded with invites to flagship Party events. And then, as a part of their reward, often had to endure speeches from the rostrum by Party members condemning ‘rich men’ who had infected our politics. The same ‘rich men’ who presumably had helped to pay for the venue and rostrum that they were speaking from! For many, we were having to ‘hold our nose’ and accept this unwelcome money in order to counter the Tories and their rich friends. It certainly wasn’t seen by them as a symbol of our success that we were attracting the support of successful, wealthy entrepreneurs.
And you see the same attitude when it comes to selections of candidates. If you were advising a potential Labour Party candidate on the production of their CV then you would advise playing up Party activism, Trade Union activity and voluntary work. In that order. You would be OK if you were a success in the public sector but God forbid you have had a successful career in business or industry. That just wouldn’t go down well at the average selection meeting.
Or in education when we cant wait to condemn parents who want to do well for their Kids by having a tutor, choosing a ‘good’ local school or (the ultimate sin) going private. In fact, even aspiring to go private, as many parents do, is seen as a cardinal sin. No, far better to dogmatically send your children to the local school and only the local school. It’s why so many in the Labour Party were, and still are, uncomfortable with or are outright opposed to Academy schools.
It’s why Labour was slow to understand the significance of the right to buy. It’s why Labour still doesn’t seem to get why some people want to have a decent car or that being able to afford home improvements really matters. And that paying more tax, even for the greater good, is a problem.
No, we love an underdog. It appeals to our sense of wanting to do the right thing and help people. It appeals to or sense that some people need our help that they can’t get on without our intervention. It is also why for many voters we have become the Party that they should but do not support. All to often they are frightened away from supporting Labour by appearing not to support their aspirations. They might not be wealthy but they want to be, or at least a bit richer. They certainly think that richer people should pay more tax but they also don’t want being successful to be punished. After all they would like to be more successful or for their kids to be more successful.
We also seem to give the impression that we don’t understand that most people would like to get on without the help of the state. They want to be helped to help themselves not have things done to them. They don’t just want to be passive recipients of our well intentioned help. They want to be allowed to make decisions that they think are in the best interests of them, their family and their community. In other words they want to be successful.
The success that they want doesn’t make them selfish. It doesn’t make them uninterested in wider societal matters or blind to the fact that many problems are best sorted with a collective response. Most people, given the choice, wouldn’t opt out of the NHS for instance and they know that law and order requires a police force. But it does mean that they want themselves and their family to be successful and that ideally they would be in charge of their own destiny.
We have a chance, right now, to re-define our selves as being on the side of aspiration and success. We could begin to craft taxation policy that rewards hard work and success – and is seen to do so. We could position ourselves as the pro-business party that recognises and nurtures entrepreneurship. We could run a campaign to support more people to establish their own businesses and not just to get a job. None of these mean that we stop being interested in those in society who are vulnerable and need help and support. On the contrary.
Or we could of course continue to be sniffy, or worse, about those who are or would like to be successful.
Comments (13)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
I find such stereotyping as very old fashioned and insulting to new LP members. How 'out of touch' are you with new and young LP members?
21/08/2011 20:14Mouth of the Umber - I find it amusing that you think that you are any more 'in touch' just because you are 'a new and young' member! I hope that you are right that I am out of touch but i don't think that I am.
21/08/2011 20:20Mouth of the Umber - I assume you know that Peter Watt was General Secretary. And, if my experience of younger LP members in my university are anything to go by with their almost "until their pips squeak" mentality, he is very in-tune. There are exceptions to that, but I can't say that the current Party is ploughing a pro-business furrow.
I fear that Alistair Darling will be Healey Mk. 2, and both the LP and the UK will be poorer for that.
21/08/2011 20:37I doubt Miliband has it in him and Balls surely doesn't, there is still too much Brown influence Brown at the top and how would you square it with the unions
Except for a brief period under Blair, Labour has never been the friend of the aspirational
21/08/2011 20:43Mr Watt is spot on, I see attacks daily from the left in my Twitter timeline, not just the grassroots but also at the top. This doesn't only put middle England right off it also puts off those at the bottom who are not happy to stay there. There are many in the working class who don't vote Labour, much is made of them voting against their own interest but what if they want to work their way up? voting for a party that dislikes success certainly is not in their interest.
It didn't go unnoticed that the last government used the tax and benefit systems to trap people, that wasn't in the interest of the people or the country, it was purely in the interest of Labour to keep them there. Why was it in Labours interest? because those with aspirations have no reason whatsoever to vote Labour.
21/08/2011 20:47Peter: As usual, another excellent article.
Mouth of the Umber: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are from the Hull area? If you are, this is where I live. If you feel Peter's words are insulting, then I think the future of your party is as bleak as the present. Don't be quick to feel insulted or offended. You won't last long in politics if you do.
21/08/2011 21:05Another very good article Peter. Jim Watford describes my family and myself to a tee. If I don't get on in life I hope that my children will, and to that end I encourage them to work hard and be responsible for themselves. A message that seems all too difficult for Labour and the "dinosaur" Unions to understand.
22/08/2011 22:03Peter, they do not like people with aspirations.
Anyone with aspirations- a plumber, a barber, a grocer, a taxi driver- is viewed with deep distrust. Hate, even.
26/08/2011 12:29Amazing, how when labour are not in power, they suddenly "believe" in peoples aspirations and people being successful. Yet as soon as they are back in power they revert back to seeing these people as simple cash cows to fund their own supporters.
27/08/2011 10:42The labour party is the party for the public sector and always will be.
Dear Peter
What a sheltered life you lead. Oblivious of the concept of fair taxation and a willingness to pay, of course those who get loads of wonga, oops are successful, should be sheltered from HMRC...
27/08/2011 21:49I used to think Peter watt was treated badly by the labour party, but after reading this rubbish I think he deserved it. This is rehashed new labour that not only failed but was totally rejected by the electorate. He is also using the classic blairite tactic of making up arguments that the 'left' are making. I have never heard any serious labour mp or party member attack people for setting up businesses and creating jobs, however to ensure that people treat their workers fairly and pay their fair share to society is absolutely correct. The philosophy that watt is advocating, is the philosophy that led to light touch regulation of the financial industry which was a direct cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Furthermore people like watt's adoration of the rich also explains why the gap between rich and poor increased so much over 13 years of labour government. He also attacks the party for being obsessed with the poor, excuse me but the whole reason why any person should want to join the labour party is to help people less fortunate themselves. Finally watt seems to be suffering from amnesia, as the left and the forces that watt is attacking have not been influential in the party since the early 1980s. It is watt and his new labour colleages who have been running the party, and one criticism of Blair that I never heard made against him, was that he was too obessed with the working class and ignored the middle class.
28/08/2011 09:11excuse me but the whole reason why any person should want to join the labour party is to help people less fortunate themselves.
Ted, sorry, but that's tosh!
Some people may join the Labour Party for such pure motives but a lot don't. More's the pity.
29/08/2011 22:18Did you make this call when you were General Secretary Peter?
02/09/2011 20:53