What have we learned?

TonyH Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:50:36 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

In 1961, JFK reminded the American association of newspaper editors of that old adage: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”



With the US Presidential nominating process and the jaw-dropping performance of our own party since last August a lot has gone on that we should learn from and I think the lessons are as follows

Don’t take people for granted
“Can we win the next election?” in itself is an offensive question to voters. It’s as if that is an end in itself. Not governing or serving well, but winning.

Party politics and the great game it has become have gone so far as to perverse what we’re actually talking about. With two years to govern we should be asking: “Should we win the next election?”

At this point, I struggle to see why we should. We’ve done little since 2005 and have become shockingly complacent. Membership numbers have dwindled, funding has become almost terminally compromised and core vote is leaving in droves.

I know the usual risible excuse is that this is mid-term blues and it’s to be expected. If this is the case – if this is expected, why wasn’t it planned for? What effort was made to keep people in the Party? Where are the advances in inclusion for party members in decision making? Why are we so far behind the right in new media, communication and activism?

We were taken for granted and so were the public – let that be the lesson and something we focus on correcting.

Keep it clean
Not everyone but many people tried to brand Boris Johnson as a racist. It failed and we lost. The campaign in Crewe attacked a man based on his class and failed spectacularly as well as brought the party into disrepute.

Hillary Clinton ran a baseless, negative campaign and jumped on every possible attack to catch a man she failed to plan for. Now she’s unfairly getting hung for an innocuous remark she made about Robert Kennedy’s campaign lasting until June.

Negative campaigning where you play guilt by association, class or assumption is just plain stupid and not only doesn’t work anymore but shouldn’t work anymore.

We can be tough and belittle Tory policies (or lack thereof) but we look spiteful when we attack someone’s background.

I genuinely believe that an informed discussion based on substance, facts, context and with an appreciation that nobody and nothing is perfect will lead to a Labour government as we’re better on the whole. To avoid a serious debate is to concede you’d lose it and people have cottoned on to that now.

PR has been demystified – it’s clear deceit to pretend it hasn’t
When Gordon Brown said he stood down the election “because he wanted to show his vision”, do we honestly believe in our heart of hearts that any Briton in their right minds believed that?

Is there anyone who doesn’t wince when you see him on YouTube affecting the most uncomfortable fake smile? Doesn't it scream out: "Someone made me do this and the sheer fakery of it demeans all of us".

I know all politicians have the media training and they all take a line to be repeated across the TV interviews but now that we’re all wise to it – isn’t it a travesty that it goes on so openly? The we have heard so much about Alistair Campbell and Steven Carter suggests to me these guys aren’t staying discreetly in the shadows.

We have a Prime Minister who does not sound in the least bit convincing on anything. In part because he’s a poor communicator but also in part that he’s handed a fortune for PR people who have presided over the worst press campaign against the party I can remember (although apparently on the dirty Crewe campaign – they didn’t even take Steven Carter’s advice!!). 

It’s a lesson Gordon has in common with Clinton – a fortune has been spent on calculated PR positioning that only served to undermine their respective reputations.

Judge him on results he said. OK - Gordon should go 
Blair was right about there being no rules in politics. In the same way that there’s nothing to say we’re out of contention for the next election, there’s nothing to say we can’t change leader again.

If we had someone the Party elected, legitimacy would come from that. I hardly think the Tories (five since ’97) or the Liberal Democrats (three in two years) could credibly accuse us of excessive leader changing.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a man who has presided over a series of u-turns, election defeats and historic poll lows, while insisting throughout that these failures are not important or not his fault, will improve. It simply won’t happen.

If we had the courage to choose a new leader with a positive agenda and the ability to communicate it who could govern competently for two years and actively engage with the public, we would deserve to continue to serve the country.

Nobody is listening to Brown and it’s impossible to trumpet our successes. Who knows about the negotiated deal with doctors and opening times? Nobody! Who knows about the high levels of employment which were recently reported? Nobody is listening which makes improving our position almost impossible.

On the campaigning side - can we see him winning TV debates against Cameron? Would he even agree to one? Can we see him launching campaign events and photo opps? Given that the US election has had the universal theme of change – does anyone here think Brown could front a general election campaign which made people feel optimistic about the next Parliament?

Can we even imagine him inspiring people to join up again or send money without either of which we’re completely crippled in a GE campaign?

Does anyone actually believe that all this anger towards the Party is exclusively down to the credit crunch or “global conditions”? We’d do better without him and that’s the bottom line.

If there is a discussion about loyalty then our first loyalty is not to him. We are where we are because of him. Because of his cowardice in failing to defend the party (or his colleagues) when times were rough when he was the second most important person in the Government. Because of his plotting and back briefings. Because of his coronation which disenfranchised factions in the party. Because of his manipulation on the election that we never had. Because of his final (10p tax band) budget and subsequent denials.

This is all because of him (and this is only the stuff we know about and which he cannot deny).

One of those NLP assumptions is pretty useful here: “If you always do what you’ve always done – you will always get what you’ve always got”

Gordon Brown will always do what he’s done and the results Labour has gotten won’t change.

If, for whatever reason, you don’t believe he has the capacity to govern the country, which is where the first political loyalty should lie, he should go.

Ultimately, it really is as simple as that.


tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
What have we learned? | 12 comments (12 topical)

Re: What have we learned? (#1)

by Prbo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:29:06 AM GMT

Tony, you're a breath of fresh air in your party.  Sound analysis as always.  This line is particularly true, and should be of all parties: "With two years to govern we should be asking: “Should we win the next election?” "

Politics should be about making people's lives better, not about simply winning elections.  As soon as people start saying 'how do we win elections' rather than 'how do we make the lives of people better' they they are shown to be self-serving and self-centred.


Re: What have we learned? (#3)

by jkitleft on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM GMT

I agree.


[ Parent ]

Re: What have we learned? (#2)

by Free Radical on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:18 PM GMT

Tony

Your question "Should we win the next election?" stands out as one sensible remark in, forgive me, a sea of nonsense.

You spend half of the time declaring that "PR has been demystified" and the other half deriding Brown for poor PR.

You are a good illustration of the predominantly right-wing nature of the attacks on Brown, in cohoots with a hostile media. We cannot allow the right wing of the party to wage proxy war on the centre-left through their relentless attempts to undermine Brown.

I have been very critical of New Labour policies, but Brown is the leader we have and is very likely to be the leader at the next general election. Furthermore the idea that Labour's problems all stem from Brown's failings is complete and utter nonsense. As is the idea that you might wave a magic wand, bring in some Blairite and everything in the garden will be roses.

In my opinion it is naive fantasy, but prosecuting your campaign in public is likely to be deeply damaging to the Government, the movement, and ultimately the country.


Re: What have we learned? (#5)

by TonyH on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:36:29 PM GMT

You spend half of the time declaring that "PR has been demystified" and the other half deriding Brown for poor PR.

So what's the contradiction? PR has been demystified. Everything is referred to as spin but despite openly spending a fortune on PR - he's very poor at it (along with a load of other politicians, to be fair) .

There is an undeniable undermining of character to see a man who is supposedly substantial to be playing out the most staged, fake photo and video opps on YouTube. Campaigning is an unavoidable part of politics and I don't think this guy has the ability. I can hardly be accused of being right-wing for airing a view that millions will share.

Here's where I think you're being offensive: How on earth is it "right-wing" to criticise mistakes by Gordon Brown? I'd really like you to answer that.

Remember Free Radical - Brown being media shy on tough gov stories while he was Chancellor is a fact. His plotting to remove Blair was a fact. The election that never was, the prevention of a ledership election and the 10p tax band decision all ALL his doing.


"...the idea that Labour's problems all stem from Brown's failings is complete and utter nonsense."

I didn't list all problems but again - if you can point out any of the things I've mentioned above which are not his fault - I'd be very surprised. The things I've listed have been the most damaging. That is also a fact.

Finally, your opinion on what is naive fantasy and how my "campaign" is deeply damaging.

I was under the impression this was a free country and this a forum for debate. There is no propaganda in what I said, no mistruths and certainly no agenda. Indeed, the naivity is pretending there's nothing wrong.

I was also under the impression that "taking responsibility" means actually taking responsibility. If the Labour Party was any other organisation other than a political party (indeed if it were a different political party!) - taking responsibility would mean the man at the top admitting miskakes rather than denying them for months and it would mean standing aside from a post and a job he can't do rather than having the mendacity to insist he's the only one who can do it!


[ Parent ]

Re: What have we learned? (#8)

by Free Radical on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:30 AM GMT

Tony

It seems to me that you cannot argue logically, on the one hand that PR has been "demystified" and then proceed to argue that Gordon Brown needs better PR. In any case I don't accept that it is demystified and our TVs and newspapers are now awash with comment in place of content.

Forgive me if you felt insulted by my suggestion that you are "right-wing" - I had, perhaps wrongly, assumed from previous postings that you were on the Blairite right of our party. It seems to me that most, but not all, the sniping at Brown has come from the Blairite right

I certainly stand by my assertion that the idea that Labour's problems all stem from Brown's failings is nonsense.

I think we need to look at this not just presentationally (and I agree that there are issues of presentation) but also politically. What we are seeing is not only perhaps a normal part of the ups and downs of politics - in which people stop giving a government the benefit of doubt and start blaming it for everything including the weather - but also the running out of steam of the "New Labour" project. A widespread realisation (even amongst some Tories) that the market is not best for everything - especially with the sub-prime and Northern Rock crisis. I think the New Labour authoritarianism has also had it's day, and the Tories have recognised a Zeitgeist that is more socially liberal.

My own political position, for what it is worth, is that you can have social liberalism without neo-liberal economics, and I think we used to call this "socialism" or "social democracy" or even old fashioned radical liberalism, which was far to the "left" of New Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: What have we learned? (#10)

by TonyH on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM GMT

My head hurts!

I could've used better or clearer english and I don't know why you pick up on the PR issue rather than the serious problems with Brown I addressed.

The fact that PR has been demystified (as in people understand press releases, sanatised and meaniningless press statements, advisers, stunts and photo ops) does not preclude someone from being good at engaging with people and the press. What I mean by that is not being so obvious with stupid YouTube videos for example and going on TV selling incredible soundbytes such as: "I'll listen and lead" when everyone knows it's a pile of crap.

It undermines the Prime Minister and I regret that.

I agree that the TV and newspapers are awash with crap but our political leaders have fed the beast with the obvious press releases and commentary that has no place in our political discourse.

Brown isn't alone in feeding the broken PR machine but he was supposed to be different. He was supposed to be substance and he has frittered that reputation away. He did it - not the Tories, not the "right-wing", not the press. He did it and that deserves our criticism and disappointment.

Anyway - be fair to me please - I didn't just criticise presentation!

Not to be picky but this is an important point: to what extent do you absolve Brown for the position we're in?

Of course, all our problems don't come from Brown but can it not even be argued a serious number of them do?

I picked the things where I lay the blame squarely at Brown's door. Who can argue that blame lies elsewhere for the 10p tax band debacle or the aborted election?

To be fair he only had a hand in the u-turns over non doms and CGT changes. He was only one of scores of plotters undermining the previous Prime Minister. His craven "advisers" probably insisted he keep schtum when Patrica Hewitt was slow hand clapped or Charles Clarke revealed the extent of foreign criminal absconments or the story of Prescott's secretary.

Do you know Brown's office issued statements in support of all three not until four and five days after the fact?

Let me make one thing clear - I have defended him against the nonsense. He did not ruin the pensions industry for example - any accountant will tell you it was only a smaller factor. He has been a great Chancellor (save the plotting) and is by all accounts - a decent man.

I really think criticism, severe criticism, of his performance as Prime Minister is necessary and certainly warranted.

If you can make an argument as to why the 10p tax (and the denials which followed it) wasn't his fault or the aborted election didn't undermine his credibility  - please - I'm all ears. 

To be honest with you - I don't know where I would consider myself on the Blairite/Brownite/Bennite/[insert name +'ite' here] - I find the whole discussion nothing more than a simple way of illustrating division where none exists really on the broader scale of things.

I understand and appreciate your political position.

I believe in forward thinking, competent, open minded, problem solving, open and honest government. Abolishing poverty should be the top priority because it is through poverty all our problems stem. Sometimes the good ideas come from the far left, sometimes they come from New Labour and I don't rule out the possibility that they may come from another Party.

In terms of belief - one thing I certainly believe is this - taking responsibility means taking responsibility. The worst people in the world to work with are those who insist they can do their job when they clearly can't and deny all criticism when some or most is valid.
 
This 'big clunking fist' has turned into a big flapping mouth and I want him changed for someone who can get us back on track. I think I'm entitled to that view...

 


[ Parent ]

Re: What have we learned? (#12)

by Free Radical on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:21:59 PM GMT

Tony

You are certainly entitled to your views. But whether it is wise to express them in this way as a party member in an open forum is another matter. A comrade said to me the other day "I can't believe Brown is really that bad, and he has this media campaign against him" and that is basically how things appear to me.

I accept that Brown is not a perfect leader - and, ironically, I have never been a big fan of his. But he is the leader we have and that is unlikely to change before an election.

He is in an exceptionally difficult situation - certainly actively undermined by rightwing Blairites who seem to be constantly feeding the media hostile stories. The media themselves don't like Brown because he is not a media type and doesn't give them good TV or nice sound bites. He also faces some sniping from the left.

But let's look at the broader picture. A rapid slide in economic confidence. A resurgent Conservative party. Middle England looking to a more acceptable, more liberal, Tory party. Working class supporters disappointed by 11 years of New Labour policy and feeling the pinch economically. Liberal-minded people turned off by authoritarian policy. Can we say that this is all about Brown? Frankly it's about so-called "New Labour." People were beginning to turn off Labour during Blair's last years. And actually our share of the popular vote has never been that impressive throughout the Blair period, compared to earlier decades.

And just as it is not all about Brown, changing leader alone is unlikely restore our fortunes. Furthermore who is there? And, more to the point, who would risk standing now? Alan Johnson looks to me the only possible successor with a chance of uniting the party and winning an election (and for me, Johnson is too rightwing). But the pressures on him would be very similar to those currently facing Brown.

The likelihood is that we will have Brown at the next election and we had better make the best of that.

If he is to go, things will crumble so quickly and the PLP will remove him - not us.

But if he stays, as I suspect he will, and we continue to snipe and feed the media's sniping, it could do terrible damage to the party for a long time to come. It is the worst of all worlds for us.

So if you don't like our leader, work through the party and lobby Labour MPs, but don't join a media that now prefers the Tories and would destroy our party.

But, on the positive side - bad as things appear to be there is not the great policy divide in the Labour Party that the Major government suffered - so the situation is potentially recoverable. And, who knows what "events" will bring. Remember Thatcher just before the Falklands War, or Blair during the fuel strike...


[ Parent ]

Re: What have we learned? (#4)

by Proudvotinglabour on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:01 PM GMT

All of this is nonsense.  Will we win the next election is not an offensive question.  I joined the Labour Party because I believe in the values of social democracy, helping those who need help, and ensuring people can reach their potential through equality of opportunity and creating an economy and public services that allow people that space and support to look after themselves and their families.  The Tories do not believe this, so of course we should win the next election, that should be a given for all members of the Labour Party.

Keep it clean, which narnia like land of wonder and joy do you actually think we live in?  Of course we should be concentrating on policy, but character and personality matter.  We are electing people, not voting on a series of manifesto promises that will then be implemented by a bunch of faceless civil servants whilst we sit back and wait for the next go at voting.  Who we elect matters!  The fact that David Cameron has always been rich, from birth, went to Eton, had his first job at Conservative Central Office, then went to work in PR for a media company, was spad to Norman Lamont, and is now MP for one of the richest areas of the country matters.  This experience of life shapes him and his beliefs, and it is so out of touch with the lives of most that it is worthy of comment.  It is clear that his experiences as a parent, including of a disabled child, shapes his outlook on those areas of his life and therefore public policy is an issue and will be used by him and his party, so is that fact that he is a PR person who went to Eton.  This is not nasty politics, it recognises that we elect people not robots.

And, as for PR has been demystified.  What are you talking about?  The vast majority of people in this country do not know who steven carter is or andy coulson, or Charlie Whelan or Alistair Campbell for that matter.  They don't know and they don't care, but to argue that it is not important to ensure our key messages are crafted to make them as easily deliverable as possible is nothing short of electoral suicide.  Do you think David Cameron is doing as well as he is because he lets it all hang out, natural to the core, saying what comes into his head. Of course not, and we should not give up on the media war just because Gordon is not very good at smiling.

Gordon is our Prime Minister and Leader of our Party.  That is not going to change anytime soon, and definitelty not before the general election, learn to live with it and stop doing the opposition's work for them.


Re: What have we learned? (#6)

by TonyH on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:39:00 PM GMT

Well it isn't nonsense "ProudvotingLabour" and let me suggest that for you I think pride has been replaced by arrogance.

I don't doubt your reasoning for joining the Party but even when we fail on those social democratic reasons such as the abolitin of the 10p tax band - do you not even allow the rest of us to question or criticise the Party leadership?

Keep it clean, which narnia like land of wonder and joy do you actually think we live in? 

I appreciate you're new to the site but I have to marvel at the bloody conceit of this particular statement.

It's not as if I'm saying "let's all love one another" or "can't we all just get along?" The land I know we live in is the one in which we were pissed on because we tried to play dirty and were caught looking dirty and stupid.

Crewe was a spectacular failure. It was poor communication. End of story.

If character and personality matter - what does it say about the character and personality of a socialist party to attack someone's background? Especially when he's the type of civically minded individual we want wealthy people to be (if you actually read a damnned thing about him).

It is about character and the Crewe campaign demonstrated a serious and telling lack of it.

On Cameron - I wouldn't vote for him because he's a Tory - not because he's a Toff. I wouldn't vote for him because he thinks you can keep marraiges together for a tenner a week. Not beacuse he's rich. I wouldn't vote for him because of the political company he keeps. Not because of the wealth of his constituents.

If there's a politician who can make public services more efficient and value for money, who can help protect the poorest and most vulnerable, who improves social mobility, who acts justly and does what's right for the country then I don't give a damn if he's a toff or a former career criminal because neither matter!

By the by, if you take the ignorant position that someone is privileged therefore they don't have a normal experience therefore they shouldn't govern - you've just thrown Tony Benn out of our Party. 

It doesn't work logically and it doesn't work as a political campaign.

Finally, your assertion on PR and the public [which was a dismissive and patronising remark that even I wouldn't hazard in public!] They may not know the names but the vast majority of people in this country know what spin is and they're sick of it.

They know advertisers are bullshitting them. They know politicians are bullshitting and patronising them and they know papers are probably bullshitting them. It's all a big game and they know there's nothing more predictable than an incredible defense of the indefensible from Party political apparachiks on TV or in newspapers.

You may think it's doing a disservice to the Party to criticise the vlagrantly criticisable on an open forum. I think it is a far greater disservice to pretend there isn't a white elephant in the room and let it survive there - eating our credibility.

Gordon may not go - but if right was right - he should. That's what I'm arguing.

Check the polls. Check recent elections results. You'll see I'm in the majority (even among Party members). 


[ Parent ]

Re: What have we learned? (#11)

by jkitleft on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM GMT

I agree Tony,

Too many New Labourists have justified their policies with a "I was the son of a miner/railway worker" or "I come from a working-class background". Nadine Dorries grew up on a council estate, but I support the 24 week-limit.

Marx has influenced the economics of almost every ideology ever considered to be on the left. He was from an upper-class background. We attacked Timpson because he was a 'toff'. In his defence, his ancestors set up a shoe-mending business. His ancesors didn't have monocles and titles of Lords. If Labour are going to attack anyone who is rich (wrong in my opinion), we must act on it. Crack down on non-doms, the uber-rich, those who head private equity firms, those who are giving low pay to workers etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: What have we learned? (#7)

by NB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:39 PM GMT

Excellent analysis.

The fact is, if Gordon remains leader until the next election (which is unlikely but not impossible) then there is a very real risk that Labour will have fewer than 100 MPs after the next election.  He has already "led" the Labour Party to insolvency and the verge of bankruptcy. Two more years of this and Labour could be virtually wiped out


Re: What have we learned? (#9)

by Free Radical on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM GMT

NB

Firstly the debt mostly accumulated under Blair's premiership.

But the more important question is what should we do about it. Do you seriously think that replacing a leader will magically solve all of our problems?  


[ Parent ]

What have we learned? | 12 comments (12 topical)