Framing Progress

Is Labour Inclusive Enough?

Anyone who watched Andrew Neil's recent documentary Posh & Posher can't help but be dismayed at the fact that the majority of people in Westminster today are Oxbridge Graduates and public school educated. Whilst this has always been the case with the Tory's and Lib Dems, what many found more shocking is that it's also true of the Labour party.

Some blame the media - in an age where politician's every word and action is scrutinised by press and TV journalists alike, is the pressure to be an uber professional, whiter than white public figure too much for 'real' people to sustain? Those with life experiences before politics are sure to have a few too many skeletons in their closets perhaps?

Others have blamed nepotism - the old school tie (or college scarf) network demanding a route of Oxbridge (which you've a much higher chance of attending if you're privately educated,) unpaid internship, think tank, Special Political Advisor (SPAD), safe parliamentary seat. As career routes go it has it's advantages - you get a thorough grounding in parliamentary and political ways, you understand policy design, and you develop networks of supporters along the way. In a world where people keep their friends close and their enemies closer, knowing someone is loyal and can be trusted not to let slip important political secrets is invaluable. 

I suspect however that the reality it's a little more pragmatic and less conspiritorial than some suggest. I think it's a combination of people at the top recognising the demands of the role of MP these days - to have a combination of sharp grasp for details, an understanding of how to 'sell' a policy to the general public and the universal fact that people like and therefore trust people who are like them. This works in subtle ways - common language, shared experience, connections and networks. It's how many organisations work, so it's unsurprising that politics is similar. With the stakes so high, it's no surprise that those deciding on PPC's, SPADS and the like, choose to play it safe.

BUT-and it's a huge one, politicians are there to represent the people of their constituencies. Whilst it's perfectly possible, it's surely much more difficult to have empathy and understanding of how 'real' people live if you a) have little knowledge or contact with 'real' people prior to becoming an MP and b) have never lived in their world in the first place.

Whilst we're all diverse in experience and knowledge, the fact that so many top MPs have never had 'real' jobs, worried about bills, what school their kids will go or how they will be able to get to work on time if their car doesn't pass it's MOT, is a cause for concern.

MPs are not paid some of the vast sums given to top executives, celebrities or premiership footballers but their basic salary, plus expenses, plus whatever their improved income earning abilities are outside of politics are means that they are way above the median wage for the UK and fall firmly in the top 5 % of earners (and in the top 1% for those with select committee or ministerial duties.) So whilst they may have a theoretical knowledge of how it might feel to be poor, or disabled, or young, or old, or black, or female - if they've no actual experience of being those things it's difficult to see how they can really take some steps in their metaphorical shoes.

Of course we want those at the top to be bright and have a clear grasp of the issues and challenges facing the UK community as a whole. But we also need them to have empathy and understanding of what those policy decisions will mean on a human level. Would the coalition's deficit reduction decisions have been made with so much swagger if the majority of the cabinet ministers are millionaires who've never had to rely on benefits, the NHS or struggle to find a job in their lives? Being rich and coming from privilege doesn't prevent people from having empathy-but it does make it harder for them to understand just what a cut of £30 EMA allowance would mean to a young person from a deprived background. If £30 to you is the price of a half decent bottle of wine, it's not going to seem significant to cut that amount per week from a young person. If it's the difference between getting to college, gaining qualifications and therefore having a future away from the minimum wage - it makes all the difference in the world.

I'm not advocating quota systems but I am suggesting we really look at the reasons why so many of our MPs are now Oxbridge educated, white and male. The Labour party has a far better record on equality and inclusion that any of the other main parties and that's something to be very proud of. But it's not enough to say we're better than the others - we have to be truly representative of the people of this country. We have to have politicians who share the values, hopes, fears and common understandings of the people who voted for them - or who might vote for them in the future.

I have to be honest and say I've been surprised at Labour's timid response to many of the cuts announced by the coalition. The main message is repeated over and over - they're too deep and too soon. And they are. But they're also perniciously targeted at the poor, the already vulnerable, women, children and the North. They're unfair. They seem to be prioritising the theories of a few economists and a lot of City boys over the lifelines and quality of life of those in the other 90% on the income scale. And yet Labour rarely points this out.

I know that this is more than likely part of their policy not to alienate those to the centre ground and the disaffected Lib Dems. It's possibly also a conscious move away from the tub thumping image of old Labour (in this post New Labour, just Labour.)

I know that the cuts are also tricky ground for the party as they too would have had to have made significant cut backs too. I hope that these would have been very different from the once's the Tory led coalition are making. But without some stronger messages on what these could potentially have been it's difficult to be sure.

The party has it's roots as the party of ordinary working people and yet it's politicians represent those people in culture and experience less and less. This is not to say they aren't great MPs - far from it. But if Labour is to truly become a diverse and representative voice of the people, and to reconnect with those voters who turned away from the party, then I think there has to be some changes to accommodate this.

As a Labour party activist, I know that in many CLPs there is a disconnect between the demographic of the constituency and the majority of activists. And a further disconnect with what's happening nationally and what occurs locally. I also know that Ed Miliband and his team are working hard to change this.

Labour party membership, like the public's voting patterns for the party, have become increasingly white and male with a reduction in the number of women, young people and people from Black and Ethnic minorities participating. This isn't a result of some white, male conspiracy or overt prejudice against new members. Far from it  - in my experience many of the activists are extremely keen to have a greater range of people actively involved. The big question is, how to do it?

I believe that many of the barriers that people face becoming actively involved in the party, and in getting into influential positions (either as councillors or MPs) are practical. There are some very simple things that as a party we can do to shift this position and make accessing the higher levels of influence easier for a broader range of people. There are also some attitudinal discussions that need to take place - a reclamation and redefinition of what our values mean and how they play out in practice. 

In my next post I'll lay out some suggestions for how the party can become more representative of the population and how we can harness the intelligence, experience and passion that's out there in the non Oxbridge crowd.

  Sorry David, I just couldn't resist including this one.

#UKUncut event in Knutsford -Osborne Isn't Working

Today I joined in with thousands of others around the country and took part in the UK Uncut day of action against George Osborne's cuts and the disgraceful disregard for equality and responsibility by Barclay's bank. Coincidentally, as these events had been arranged weeks ago, it was revealed yesterday that Barclays only paid around 1% of it's profits in corporation tax last year.

What was even more impressvie to me was the number of people there who had never taken to the streets to protest about anything before - one of whom was my lovely Mum. Her and two of her friends met me in Knutsford armed with hats, warm coats and sensible walking shoes - this revolution is on and it's wearing sensible clothing.

The Knutsford event was organised with the specific purpose of recreating the famous Tory poster from 1979 entitled Labour Isn't Working. The irony isn't lost on anyone now.

You can see covereage of the event here and below are a couple of pictures I took myself.

After the event we went to visit some friends who live nearby for a cup of tea and to get warm. One of them said to my Mum 'I'm really surprised you've got involved-I wouldn't have taken you for a revolutionary'

"I'm angry" replied my Mum, "There comes a point when you have to say 'enough'. This has gone too far and we have to take a stand."

As I said, this revolution is on, and it's not being run by agitators or reactionaries but people like you, me and my Mum. And Osborne and co would do well not to underestimate us.

People Deserve Respect-But It's Beyond Grant Shapps

Two weeks ago Manchester City council announced that they were going to have to cut around 2000 jobs this year. I work for a smaller neighbouring council and we're also facing significant job losses. I am personally dealing with numerous shell shocked, angry, frightened people who are in the process of consultation over their jobs. I've sat with men in tears, women raging, people shouting, panicking and asking what they're going to do and how they'll pay their mortgages? The jobs that are miraculously supposed to appear from the private sector are thin on the ground. The partner services, like Jobcentre plus who we're referring people to for extra support are themselves shedding jobs and losing grants and funding. Occasionally there are people who are nearing retirement age who are happy to be given the opportunity to leave early. But these are rare.

On my way home on the night Manchester CC made their announcement I caught the end of PM on Radio 4. They apologised and wanted to clarify a point that Grant Shapps had made regarding a story about Manchester CC's announcement of job losses. R4 wanted to point out that according to the council they definitely do not have a Twitter Tsar-this idea was reported in an article in the Daily Mail.  Grant Shapp's 'people' said that he had relied on the Daily Mail article for this information. Slightly worrying that a Government minister is playing politics by lobbing insults gleaned from a Daily Mail article - without checking the facts. But obviously he now DID have the facts.

Fast forward an hour to the local BBC news where Mr Shapps is interviewed for his views on the Council's announcement. He happily launches into an  attack on Manchester City Council, saying the job cuts are unnecessary, that they could be done through efficiency savings and the council Chief executive should 'lead from the front' and take a pay cut. During this interview he repeated the Twitter Tsar comment - despite his 'people' obviously being aware that it was untrue. So either he's surrounded by people not very good at keeping him updated or he didn't give much of a stuff as to whether it was true or not. In fact, when the interviewer pointed out to him that the role was in fact a 'web manager' Shapps responded that this was more or less the same thing.

My problem (well, one of the many) with this is that it feeds into the repeated argument perpetrated by the coalition that the public sector is bloated, lazy, bureaucratic, inefficient and needs to be reigned in or cut back.

Nowhere was there a shed of compassion from Mr Shapps towards those 2000 who will lose their jobs. No a bit of it. That's 2000 families. 2000 human beings. and to suggest that it could have all been avoided if the council had been more 'efficient' is disgraceful- It's not only unsympathetic, it's insulting.

I work in the public sector. I love it. sure, there are frustrations like any work place. but the main thing that I adore is the number of people - and that is the vast majority, who are working there because they want to make a real difference to the people in the local community. Whether that be keeping it clean, supporting the vulnerable or catching dishonest benefit claimants. There is a culture of going over and above the basic requirements - people care, they have a passion for making things better. This might not be apparent is your only experience of the council is them cleaning your street, collecting your council tax or inspecting your new extension.

Obviously there are some people, like in any organisation, who view it as a job only. But in my experience, these people are in the minority. It's no longer the culture (if it was ever) that people expect a cushy ride working for their local council. Quality Targets and efficiency savings have been the culture in the public sector for a long time now. There are programmes that have cut sickness absence, reduced staff turnover and improved outcomes and results for service users.

I've also worked in the private sector-in fact I've spent more of my working life employed by private companies. Believe me, there were no dramatic differences in levels of efficiency, sickness absence or hard work. But the sense of service & responsibility to the community wasn't there at all. The public sector has lots of requirements placed on it. The private sector has one - the bottom line.

It's not just those who are 'front line' in the public sector who carry out their work with a sense of responsibility - of course it burst the coalition's bubble of the myth of faceless bureaucrats, pushing paper and stating 'it's more than my job's worth' several times and hour but I'm afraid it's not quite like that. The reality is that managers in the public sector have to deliver year on year improvements in outcomes, increase savings and efficiencies, and manage changing measurables and legislation. Public sector managing requires more than simply improving profits - and the measures of these successes changes frequently.

There are lots of reasons why people join the public sector - although it increasingly strikes me as a thankless thing to do. The pay doesn't compare like for like with the private sector. I regularly get comments from colleagues in the private sector about how frustrating it must be for me working for somewhere so slow and inefficient, or half jokingly asking if I've used up my 6 months of fully paid sick leave this year. These jokes were irritating before but at least we didn't then have a government who seemed to believe they were true.

It may be comforting for groups of people to point fingers at one another and to rationalise cuts as being less painful because those effected basically deserve it. But this is a fiction. The staff in the public sector are no more deserving of losing their jobs than those in the private sector. And with the exception of the bankers, those who've lost jobs from the private sector have at least been spared the indignity and insults of the suggestion they were somehow asking for it.

Today Liverpool City Council announced it was shedding 1500 jobs.

GMB General secretary Paul Kenny  says that the total number of job losses announced or threatened by local authorities is now over 145,000. And that's not including the 285 councils still to make announcements.

These people deserve better than a kick in the teeth along with their redundancy papers. But that seems too much to ask of this caring, compassionate conservative government.

Don't Waste The Gift Of Thatcher's Children Ed

One of the more delicious  embarrassments resulting from the Wikileaks Cables is the way that William Hague tried to reassure a US diplomat that the Conservative party were up to the job of government.

A report on the BBC website says:

In another cable from Mr LeBaron, from April 2008, he writes up a meeting with William Hague, in which the then shadow chancellor speaks of the "near death" experience for the Conservatives of the election that never was a few months earlier - and reassures the Americans about the "special relationship".

"Hague asserted that he, Cameron, and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne are all "children of Thatcher".

Then in today's Prime Minister's Question Time Cameron tried to rebuff Ed Miliband's jibe about it declaring "I'd rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown."

This announcement is a real gift to the Labour party - if they exploit it hard and quickly.

I think that the usually slicker than slick Cameron miscalculated his PMQs response by assuming two things:

a. That his re-branding of the Tory party from nasty to compassionate conservatism is so complete that the mention of Thatcher is no longer the kiss of death to them.

b. His toxic rebranding of Gordon Brown is also so complete that it his name carries more (or at least as many) negative connotations as Thatcher's.

This miscalculation gives the Labour party a real opportunity.  The negative mental connections triggered for most people by the mention of Thatcher are much more deeply rooted than for Brown, which has only been active for a couple of years at most, and aggressively framed by the Coalition since May this year. 

The mental frames triggered by Thatcher's name have been in existence for over 20 years with over a decade to become established whilst she was Prime Minister and over a decade since of folklore and horror stories. 'Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher', The poll tax, the Miner's strike - her legacy is still strong and, largely, negatively framed (especially outside of the South of England). The Conservative party were acutely aware of this negativity. Why else would Cameron have spent so much time trying to detoxify the brand? His carefully crafted image of 'hug a hoodie', 'call me Dave' compassionate conservatism wasn't done for no reason. He knew just how negatively held the conservative party were in the British public minds. As Theresa May put it in 2002, 'You know some people call us the nasty party.' Yes, Theresa, we do.

 

Brown on the other hand is a relatively new negative frame. Whilst the Coalition have made a united and very concerted effort to paint him (and the Labour party as a whole) as a spendthrift who's left the country in the grips of a dreadful financial mess, this is still in it's infancy and therefore not as mentally deep rooted as Thatcher's. Before the General Election only 7 months ago, Brown was still seen as a competent pair of hands to handle the economy. Whilst his personal popularity was low, his image regarding his management of the economy was high.

The Coalition have done a good job at trashing this record and associating in people's minds the deficit and thus the need for cuts with Brown (and Labour's) mismanagement of the economy. Never mind that Osborne agreed with his management of the banking crisis, or that Vince Cable and Nick Clegg voiced their agreement with his approach to paying down the deficit - those facts are not mentioned by the Coalition. Unfortunately, because the Labour Party were tied up with their leadership contest, the newly created frame of Labour's financial mismanagement was left pretty much unopposed for many months. 

In this silence, the Coalition deliberately (and don't believe for a second that it wasn't deliberate) positioned the Labour party and Gordon Brown as its leader, as irresponsible spendthrifts whose mess they were unhappily having to clear up. It was rare an interview or speech didn't start with 'Due to the appalling mess left by the last government' or words to that effect.  Labour desperately need to repeatedly oppose this frame and create a new one that shows how well they managed the financial crisis. It needs to be said over and over, at every opportunity to counteract the frame that's already taken hold in many people's minds.

But there's time for that.  One of the few slip ups that PR man Cameron has made so far in his premiership is the acceptance of the Thatcher's children tag. He's probably hoping that Labour won't be savvy, aggressive or coherent enough yet to exploit it because if they did that phrase alone could start to seriously unravel the carefully crafted nice guy Dave image of the new Tory party.

It's a great opportunity for Labour. I just hope that they're willing to take it and run with it.

Ed Miliband and co need to remind the public at every opportunity that Cameron and Osborne are Thatcher's children and are therefore inexorably linked to the nasty, toxic Tory party of old. The party of high unemployment, high inflation, job losses, benefit cuts and uncaring statements telling the unemployed to get on their bikes.  All of those memories are still there for many voters in this country. Even younger people who weren't around to experience Thatcher's Britain will know the folklore. Thatcher is symbolic in many people's minds with a less pleasant time in British life. Linking Cameron and Osborne to these unpleasant memories as often and as loudly as possible is essential for Labour to regain some ground and begin to carve out a space for themselves as the genuinely caring party.

I would urge Ed Miliband and the rest of the shadow cabinet to start using this moniker as often as possible when referring to the Tories. It's not name calling (which may be a concern to some) but a reminder of what Cameron has said he'd sooner be. It's a chink in their very effective armour. It's an absolute gift to Labour and would be a crying shame if they don't exploit it fully. If the shoe was on the other foot you can bet the Coalition would take utmost advantage of it. Labour needs to be linguistically smart - associating themselves with positive emotions in the electorate's minds is something I think lots of energies are being spent on already. But being able to associate their opponents with negative emotional responses is something they're not so good at, but it's essential they do.

"It's only words, and words are all we have, to take your heart away"

Apologies for putting the BeeGees into your collective heads (or Boyzone for the younger amongst you) but the sentiment is so key to currently political landscape.

Words both reflect and define our values, fears, beliefs and intentions. Speechwriters spend considerable time honing their use of words, creating pithy soundbites in the hope of encapsulating whole political narratives with the intention of persuading the listening public to trust and empower them to action.

Words create meanings as part of another process - that of framing. Frames are mental structures - they're difficult to recognise as they occur subconsciously in our brains. They are made up of groups of connections between images, words, feelings, thoughts and emotions. A word can trigger all sorts of multiple connections in our brains.

Helpless                    Scrounger                          Safe                        Appalling                        Mess            

Hopeless                    Fair                                    Tough                     Shameful                        Hero

This is just a random sample of words but each one packs an emotional punch. Each of them triggers a series of lightning quick, subconscious connections in our brains. Most of these connections happen outside of our consciousness. We don't know how many links to stored memories, images, smells, feelings, sounds, or songs there are as our subconscious rarely gives us the details. Usually we're just left with an emotional response - a positive or negative feeling depending on the word and our associations.

In politics, frames are incredibly important. Conservative political thinkers and strategists have become expert at using them and progressives have been lagging way behind. Frames use language, imagery, narratives to shape a world view and belief system. We may like to think that we are logical, rational beings but in fact the opposite is true. around 98% of what we do is driven by our subconscious, not our logic.

I think the language used by the Coalition is fascinating and reflects their traditional Tory roots in ways they are desperately trying to divert attention away from. Although Cameron's detoxification project has been somewhat successful, even their carefully worded white paper's and press releases betray their underlying belief system: Namely that the poor are there because of their own willful behaviour and lack of discipline and are therefore not only a drain on society but that by supporting them we are hindering them. Ultimately it is not fair that working people should support them. Working people are disciplined. Discipline is good. Poverty is bad, stems from lack of discipline-and is therefore the poor's own fault.

Next time you listen to a Tory minister, notice the language they use, the metaphors, tone and imagery. It will reveal more than Cameron and Coulson's spin can ever hide.

Framing The Debate

This blog is called Framing Progress so I thought it'd make sense to explain what I mean by a frame in this context. Think of it like a window frame or a viewfinder.

Imagine you're standing on the top of a hill and before you is a beautiful view. You can see rolling hills marred only by the occasional electricity pylon.  So you train your viewfinder to miss out the pylon and show only the beautiful view.  Anyone who sees that picture afterwards would never even know the pylon was there.

This is what happens in politics. When George Osborne talked about cuts to the welfare bill, he said:

"... people who think it's a lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits - that lifestyle choice is going to come to an end. The money won't be there"

It's an old Tory trick of shifting the debate around benefits to focus on those people we've all heard of or know someone who knows someone who lives the high life on benefits while the rest of us work hard. The Vicky Pollards and Frank Gallagher's of this world.  But it was remarkably effective. Labour couldn't argue against it- who could? Who could possibly defend people who refuse to work? Who are lazy. Who choose to do nothing but collect money - OUR money, provided by us, the hard working tax payers. Most of us could probably rage on like this for several minutes more. I call it 'tapping into my inner Daily Mail reader.' The debate on welfare cuts was instantly not about vulnerable people having their already limited money taken away from them, it was about fraudulent people who were getting their just desserts.

The framing of the argument was pretty overt.  But it did it's job - it put the opposition - in this case The Labour Party, on the back foot. Their responses appeared timid - neutered. They even said they broadly agreed with Osborne. Many Labour party supporters were aghast at this (myself included) but the trap had been set and was very difficult to side step, especially because Osborne's framing of it had already triggered some deeply held subconscious connections in most of the general public. It tapped into the images of Chavs, of characters in the TV show Shameless and of a un-articulated collective fears to not be taken advantage of. What Osborne was saying to us was, ;those people who do nothing while you're out working are stealing from you. They're taking advantage. We're not going to let that happen any more. I'll make it stop and punish them.'

Several weeks on from the CSR and the Labour party and many people have gathered themselves and created counter arguments - Most people on benefits are not doing it as a lifestyle choice, most are vulnerable and need help and the support that the welfare system is supposed to provide since it's creation. And this has gone some way to oppose Osborne's arguments with the public. BUT - and this is where the framing really comes into it's own, the framing took place WAY before the CSR. The framing began with the very description of what would be cut. The welfare bill.

What's a bill? Something that is owing. It needs to be paid. it's not a pleasant thing. It's something we generally all dislike. We dread them coming through the door. We'd all rather not have them.

Linking Welfare to a BILL - something that creates a negative and unpleasant feeling in most people, is a powerful frame. It's not the Welfare budget, allowance, funding or expenses because those terms wouldn't fit the frame.

Frames can be deliberately created (political consultants and think tanks in the USA spend lots of money doing this) or they can naturally occur because they're a reflection of how an individual or a group of people genuinely conceive subjects. Whichever is the case with Osborne isn't really important. What IS important is that we recognise what frames are being set and resist and redefine them so that the public get to see the whole landscape.

 

Can Labour Learn Lesson's From America?

A few years ago a book was published in the US that become an influential tome to the US political left - The Political Brain by Drew Westen proposed a new strategy for American progressives.  Backed by  evidence taken from  neuro science, Weston argued that one of the greatest mistakes Democratic politicians and their advisors made was in assuming that people vote logically and rationally, weighing facts and truths before making their decisions.

What Weston evidenced is that this is far from the case. When it comes to deciding who to vote for, people make these decisions based on emotions and a collection of neurological responses that occur outside of their awareness. The key to engaging with voters is therefore not in appealing to their judgement and logic - it's in appealing to their emotions.

Conservatives have understood this for a long time. Millions of dollars have gone into researching how to do just that by right wing think tanks.  Just look at the popularity of the Tea Party - whatever you may think of them, no one can say that logic is a strong thread running through their arguments. In fact, many of the assertions made be figures like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin fly in the face of logic - universal health-care akin to Stalinism? Barack Obama as a non US born Muslim? 

Their arguments are extreme to many, but they are most definately emotional; angry, fearful and very, very empassioned. They talk about 'Freedom' , 'Patriotism' 'Fighting for truth' and 'ridding the US of the evils of socialsim.' They have published books with titles such as 'The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists', 'Conduct Unbecoming: How Barack Obama Is Destroying the Military and Endangering Our Security' and 'Crimes against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama'

Measured, rational and factual they are not. To many of us these arguments seem so off the wall to be ridiculous - how can anybody take them seriously? And yet millions of Americans apparently do. Are they all stupid? Of course not. They are simply doing what Westen found the human brain does naturally - rationalise and dismiss facts and evidence which do not fit into our belief system and world view.

And before the rest of us start to feel too smug, Westen's research shows that we all do this in our own way, in fact it's a natural brain process that takes place outside of our awareness. In 2004 Westen and his team conducted some brain scan experiments - scanning the brains of 15 confirmed Democrats and 15 confirmed Republicans. They were shown a series of slides with clear inconsistencies supposedly stated by Democrat John Kerry or Republican George W Bush (the presidential elections were in their final months at the time and they were the opposing candidates.) The statements were expected to create distress and discomfort as the brains of the subjects processed the statements. How would they square such contradictory statements without losing faith in their chosen party candidates?

What the researchers found was that our brains are adept at removing distress caused by contradictions from our chosen parties quickly and easily.  A key thing to note about how this happens at a neurological level is that this is done by the emotional circuits in the brain - not the logical, reasoning ones. And our brains are partisan - the Republican test subjects easily soothed away discomfort with Bush's inconsistencies but not with Kerry's. The Democrats erased discomfort at Kerry's inconsistencies but not Bush's.Their brain's spotted and fought against inconsistencies spoken by their opposing party but not only accepted but also quickly developed a pleasure response to those spoken by their chosen party candidate!

Westen is clear in the lessons to take from this. Neither side of the political fence should waste energy trying to convert those of the other side - their brains are wired to resist any logical arguments against their chosen party.  What they should focus on is the middle ground - the people who don't consider themselves as partisan or loyal to any one party. These people are open to persuasion but it isn't just logical persuasion that will win the day - it's emotional.

The lesson for the UK labour party is clear. Facts are important. But just as important are emotions - people's gut reactions. To win the progressives need to engage voter's passions.

This may seem frustrating-depressing even. Look at what happened to Gordon Brown - he was a great Chancellor and as a Prime Minister he created some amazing, positive, progressive changes for the UK. BUT many people didn't 'take' to him. 'Why not?' we on the left cried - 'for goodness sake, I like my politicians human. I don't want some botoxed, smiley, bland, pretty boy' I was heard to utter on more than one occasion during the election campaign. I couldn't understand why people liked Clegg and Cameron more that Gordon Brown - couldn't they see through it all? Surely logic told them that these untried pretty boys didn't have the grasp of economics that Gordon had shown? how come the Lib Dems were appearing to be left of the Labour party on some issues?

And now that this coalition is in power and their election pledges have come to nothing (and in some cases, downright lies) why are they still doing so reasonably well in the opinion polls? And how come Labour is now seen as being economically irresponsible after 6 short months?

The answers lie in the language, framing and emphasis used by the government and many in the right wing press.  To truly gain back the ground lost, Labour needs to get clued up on how this is being used against them, and start playing the political game by the real rules, instead of the ones the Coalition are pretending are in use.

When we know the real rules of engagement and play to win, we have a fighting chance. By ignoring this (and incidentally, Westen has written some great stuff on how he thinks Obama has forgotten the lessons that brought him to power in the first place -you can read more here) we doom ourselves to failure, and the country to a decade or more of decline similar to that witnessed during the Thatcher years.

Labour - A Party In Need Of Redefinition?

 

I've been lucky-if that's the right word, to spend time with labour activists, MPs and party members over the past few months and I've come to one conclusion - They are feeling lost, confused and unsure of what to do in this no mans land of opposition.

This isn't intended in any way as a criticism. The party has been in power for a long time. Many of the ministers and party activists have cut their teeth as part of a very different party - a party in government. Sure there were challenges (Please let there be no more trees sacrificed to retelling the sorry tale of the Brown/Blair soap opera) but they were inevitably superseded by the fact that they were in power. Their values and their policies, were what changed the lives of millions of people in this country and beyond. And now, they don't. They're not in government and they're not in power. And it's not their values or their ideas shaping the country.

And that must be incredibly difficult. Not on an ego level (although I'm sure that must dent ones self esteem) but on an identity one. Who are the Labour party if not the party of government?  Much like someone made redundant or forced into early retirement, so much of our identity is tied up in our jobs, our social standings, our relationships with others. Now that the Labour party is not the Government, ministers, activists and members need to redefine who we are and refocus on what we stand for. Because now more than ever we need to be surer than sure of that.

Just how we navigate this transition, this identity change is unimportant in many ways. What is important is that we do it-and quickly.

I have literally lost count of the conversations I've had with Labour party supporters over the past few weeks particularly about how timid Labour currently seem. The 'we won't oppose every cut' seems to be manifesting itself in a few witty comments at PMQs and some tamer than tame comments of muted disapproval at the worst cuts to public spending in living memory. Cuts that are far tougher than Labour would have taken, far quicker and directly squarely at workers and recipients of public  services and benefits. That have been economically proven to hit women hardest of all. Cuts that avoid hitting the richest, that protect the banks & big business whilst demonising the poor, vulnerable and dispossessed.

Even worse for the Labour party, they are cuts blamed on the 'previous Labour Government' - for bringing the country to the brink of bankruptcy. All of which is nonsense but is a myth that has stuck because the Labour party has failed to counter the argument strong enough and in language designed to change public opinion (a theme of many future posts.)

Labour seem to be a party in the grips of an identity crisis. Passion & empathy are missing from their current position. Along with confidence and righteous anger.  Anger at the dismantling of the welfare state. Anger and the blatant diversion tactics to shift public attention away from big business and the banks who caused the global financial crisis and towards the usually villains in a Tory narrative - the poor and the public sector.

But the Labour party seem to be frozen - not knowing which way to turn.  What's more, I've heard many activists and even a few ministers saying that Labour can't oppose these cuts because they would have had to make cuts too.  What??? When did we become so polorised and inarticulate that we can't explain the difference between £3000 student tuition fees to £9000 fees & 80% cuts to University funding? Or oppose welfare reforms simply because Labour made some reforms themselves?

If Labour isn't the party of the vulnerable then who is? If Labour don't stand up against inequality, who will? What does Labour as a party stand for? I, like many Labour members & voters thought we knew but recent weeks have made many question it. What does fairness mean to us? What do we champion? What are we against? These are the important questions -NOT what do we think we'll take least flak on?

The past is another country. We can't continue to act contrite & boxed in by past decisions.

Lets redefine the future. As a party we need a clear, open and honest debate about what we actually stand for, believe in and will fight for. Because a fight is what we have on out hands but unless we know what we are fighting for, we're sunk.

I felt this even more acutely after speaking to a Labour MP recently. She was of the belief that the party was in a very difficult position-unable to defend against many of the Coalition's policies because they were built on things Labour initially started. Take university tuition fees. The rise of the cap to £7000 - £9,000 per year puts university education way out of many people's reach.  I have 2 children. There is no way we could afford to send them to Uni without them having to take out huge loans. £27,000 for a 3 year course (before we even begin to talk about living expenses) is a burden I don't want my kids to have to carry. It will undoubtedly put many people from more modest background off. In a way that £3,000 PA might not have done. £3,000 wasn't ideal-in fact it will have been a barrier to many people.  But trebling fees makes it 3 times worse. And that doesn't mean that the Labour party has to keep stumn about the rise. It doesn't have to be so black and white.You're going to take flak from the right wing press & Coalition ministers-that's a given. It doesn't mean that they're right - or that, if argued in the right way using the right language, the public won't see through their rhetoric.

Better still, don't worry about how you will defend yourselves - do things you can passionately argue for and take it from there.

People (and in this context I mean voters in particular) are swayed by passion, values and emotions. The Labour party is currently showing very little of any of these. This is a mistake. A BIG one. By remaining timid we appear weak, uncaring and lost.

There aren't many benefits to being in opposition but one of the few is that you don't have to have the full policy worked out. Look at the coalition - many of their policies seem to have been written on the back of a fag packet - but they're being clarified and developed as they go along. Labour are no longer in power. So we no longer have to come up with plans and policies that are 100% dry inked. We can start with the basics - what do we stand for?

What are Labour's values?

What do they mean?

What do we want for the county?

What will we stand against?

What will we fight for? What is worth fighting for? What is worth fighting against?

These questions may seem basic and obvious. We may assume we already have answers. But sometimes we need to revisit such questions. We need to redefine what we mean by them. And what our answers should be. Voters go with their gut instincts. We need to revisit concepts of fairness, equality, prosperity for all.

If we want to take on the self proclaimed heir to Blair (as Cameron has called himself) and fight someone who is using our own language and strategies against us, we need to redefine the argument. It needs to be more than 'how can we spin this' or 'what will the public accept' - public opinion is swayed by language, argument, passion and strength of values. People vote with their hearts, not their heads.

It's something the Coalition understand all too well. They're using this understanding to redefine the battle ground, to shift the argument and change the political landscape. If Labour don't get this and start using similar tactics, then we are dead in the water. We can't rely on the Coalition's economic policies not working. I would argue they don't work from their inception because they are so unfair and damaging to our society.

There are many opportunities for the Labour party. We are not sunk. There are strategies and a way forwards, renewal and ultimately back to government. But we need to quickly do some groundwork first.

I'm going to develop this argument further over the next few weeks - how reminding ourselves and clarifying our values will help us to reconnect with our core beliefs. And in doing so we will rediscover our purpose, passion and drive.  Because millions of people across the country need us to fight for them. And fight hard. It's doable. It is. But we need to know why we are doing it - and I don't think as a party we have that forefront in our minds yet.

Why Blog? Why Now?

Politics is important. It shapes our lives in innumerable ways.  Unfortunately many people feelt that politics is disconnected to them; something that happens in Westminster and has little bearing on their lives. They are right and wrong at the same time: Politics affects every aspect of our lives but most of it does go on away from many of the people in this country.

We're now in a dreadful situation where there is a common belief that all politicians are the same; that it doesn't matter which party is in power and that there is little difference between the parties anyway. The was partly given creadence by New Labour-a party who broke from the traditional image of the UK labour party and introduced progressive policies that were more centre left than any of their predecessors.

Many in the Labour party became disillusioned over their 13 years of power. Many more, like me, became something even worse - complacent. It wasn't that I fundamenatlly disagreed with their policies - 95% of them matched my own values. But over the years the fight (and growing up in the north of England in the 1980 &90's it HAD been a fight) appeared pretty much won. Sure there were some bit clangers of mistakes - Iraq for one, but overall I felt the country was in pretty safe hands.

Over their 13 years in power, I witnessed my world become a much better, nicer, and more hopeful place to live in. Sure Start, the NHS, University opportunities, jobs, decent education, opportunities  - the basics were in place and stuff that irritated and annoyed many like me was, in hindsight, pretty small stuff in the scheme of things. You see, I didn't expect my party, my government to get it 100% right. I was prepared to forgive them, or at least undersand mistakes so long as they were broadly in line with my values system.  I had hope and opportunity. And I saw many others with this too.

But all of that changed back in May 2010. When the result of the election was a hung parliament I, like many others held my breath to see what would happen. Initially it didn't seem that bad. No one had a majority. The Lib Dems held the balance of power. But they were OK - they talked of fairness, equality, a new politics, seemed to agree with Labours economic approach to the economy - in terms of values, they seemed like good guys.

But that very, very quickly went out of the window. As promise after promise was broken - by both parties. The vain hope that the Lib Dems would soften the Tories vanished fast. In fact, the Lib Dems seemed to embolden and ligitemise the Tories and gave them licence to go further than even Cameron's rebranded, Detoxified party would have dared to go.

And something else happenned. Something that, as an NLP practitioner who knows the important of language, metaphor and framings, piqued my interest. The Coalition very quickly redefined the terms of the debate. While Labour were tied up with their leadership debate, the Coalition begame a very clever and well thought out plan to discredit Labour's economic record.  The instandly began to frame the argument for deep cuts and changes to the fundamental principles of British life and democracy as unwanted but necessary emergency steps, steps that if weren't taken, would lead to the end of life in Britain as we knew it.

What's more, the Lib Dems supported and added weight to this argument. They, who had been against fast, deep cuts to public spended immediately fell in line with this frame; Something had changed and we were now in the grip of an economic emergency. If we didn't take immediate, drastic action, we would be brakrupt as a country. AND (in a line repeated so many times it's almost like a mantra) it was down to the mess left by Labour.

Those of us on the progressive side of the argument know that this is nonsense. The majority of economists also agree with this. One of the key strenghths that Labour had in the run up to the election was that in the public's mind, they had managed the economy well. Gordon Brown was a safe pair of hands. Now within a few short months, public opinion had changed; people seemed to have forgotten this so well it was like history has been re-written.

This blog is about how, as progressives, we can reframe the political debate, particularly in the UK.  It combines my interests in progressive politics and linguistics, NLP and metaphors. I'm particularly inspired by the work of Naomi Klein, George Lakoff and Drew Westen amongst others.

For me, the key challenge for the UK progressives is how to re-frame the debate and reclaim concepts of fairness, equality and social justice from the right wing Coalition government. It's my attempt to engage with the debate and have a sense of purpose an direction as a progressive in opposition to the systematic dismantling of the welfare state.

Now is the time to take back the arguments, to develop our own frames and influence the Labour party, and the country to redefine what we stand for and how we would like our country to be.

Words shape how we engage with the world. They shape our beliefs and our actions. And it will be words where the battle is won or lost.

Please feel free to comment and engage with the debate. I'm happy to link to other writers and thinkers and welcome discussion and suggestions for future posts.