Hubris

1.  "Arrogant pride, or presumption."

2.  "Overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors."


Being a relatively young thing, I've only really been an active member of the Labour party through the good times.  So when some of my more experienced colleagues told me there were some areas and some types of people that will always be Labour, I believed them.

When everyone guffawed at the idea of Boris Johnson as a serious candidate for Mayor, I believed them.  Because I believed that of all places in the world, London would never elect someone like him.

It always struck me as slightly odd when I saw young, obnoxious, Tory boy councillors asking questions about young people not in education, employment or training.  Like most other Labour members, I sneered at David Cameron's environmental stunts, because we all knew we were there first, a good 20 years ago.

Over the last year, I've probably spent more time dealing with internal disputes in my own CLP than I have campaigning.  We believed we were 'safe,' so we could afford the luxury of fighting each other. 

The biggest change we have to make, I think, is to accept that we no longer have a divine right to rule over urban centres in Britain, and we can no longer expect people to just assume we are always the party that cares more.  We have to stop being automatically offended and frustrated when people question our commitment to social justice.  We have to earn our reputation back.

And, because I've only ever been a Labour party member when times were good, and it has been difficult to get traction on any new idea that doesn't go with the current policy inertia, I now find I'm quite excited.  Because, my gut feeling is that we will all be much better Labour politicians if we actually have to prove ourselves to the public on a regular basis.  If we can't do that- if we can't demonstrate that we are more plugged in to local communties and have the better ideas- then we don't deserve to hold power anyway.



Display: Sort:

Re: Hubris (#1)

Who has hubris? 

Re: Hubris (#2)

Us, collectively.

Re: Hubris (#7)

I which case, what I think you are describing is false sense of security seen with some Blairite members, who think that the success of the past 11 years had nothing to do with the loony positioning of the Tory Party, and had everything to do with some magic formula.  Thus, the arrogance, is that tinkering with the formula so that it becomes more appealing to the electorate is dimissed off-hand as "hard-left".

I say tinkering, perhaps I've yet to hear anyone call for the nationalisation of the means of production, repeal of all union laws or abolition of private schools and healthcare.

Re: Hubris (#8)

I think you're missing the point.  The debate so far has focused on whether the right direction to go is more Blairism, or more Compass-style social democracy.  But good policy cannot simply be decided in some abstract debating forum- it should flow upward from our work in local communities.  If the only people the Compass reformers are talking to are a bunch of tired trades union officials and public sector workers who always believe they know best, then that isn't really the basis for a new policy agenda.  Same goes for the Blairites, if the only people they are talking to are free-market ideologues.

The future of the party isn't going to come to us in some moment of epiphany- it will come by us doing the hard work of building up relationships with different segments of local communities and allowing the policy lessons from those groups to filter upwards.  Kind've like the NPF reforms we voted through last year were supposed to do.

Re: Hubris (#10)

I don't think I've missed the point.  What fool ever thought Labour had a divine right to rule over cities?  Why was the core vote taken for granted?  Where did this hubris come from?  It came from success, self-belief from success.

It is not hubris to be a neo-liberal, a centrist, a social democrat or a socialist.  Those are values people hold from their world experience, and from listening to people around them.

We don't need a grand listening exercise to hear the view of voters, we have MPs and councillors who are meant to be in touch with their constituents.  We have the news, comments, interviews and reports every day telling us what they are thinking, we have the PM's web site with the petitions.  It's all there already.  

Re: Hubris (#11)

And much of it doesn't work.

I'd argue both the left and the right of the party can take the electorate for granted in different ways.  The right assumes the working class bits will always come out for us and be grateful for what we've given them, so it's OK to concentrate on the middle classes.  But the left can be just as bad- assuming that they and other public sector proffessionals know what is best for people living in deprived communities, and anyone who disagrees with them is some form of sell out.  There is a frightening amount of received wisdom still going around in Labour local government committees at the moment.  Some of it may well be right, but my problem is that I don't know how much of our policy formulation at the moment just comes from talking to people who already agree with us.

Re: Hubris (#12)

Much of it doesn't work?  Construed consultations, town hall meetings, canvassing, it's all selective.

Theyworkforyou.org allows members of the public to email their MPs.  This web site is open to anyone.  Anyone can rant in a letter to the local paper.  I don't see why/if you prefer to limit yourself to sections of the community.  Modern techonolgy can enable much richer and wider participation.

Anyway, my point is, if you ask an authoritarian and a libertarian what to do about immigration, the question could be the same, but the answers would be different.  The hubris isn't in the policy response, it would be in how the alternatives are treated.  This was my example: the hubris of New Labour would be if it decided that the only policy response to the election result is centre-centre-right because no-one could possibly want anything else.

Re: Hubris (#13)

And the hubris of the left would be if they said that the 'working class' only wanted hard-left solutions.

Re: Hubris (#3)

Hi Red Rooster,

I think that this is an excellent post.

I guess that I'm the diametric opposite of your goodself, as my age has meant that I've only been a member of the Conservative party in the bad times (I joined in 2000). Consequently, it is quite nice to a)have nights like Thusday and Friday and b) actually be listenedto on the door step. But I have had to endure going through the IDS stage first, before moving in a direction that I'm more comfortable with!

Anyway, the big majorities that Thatcher and Blair had inevitably mean that a government can act as it pleases, and consequently loses touch with both its members and the public. This often passes down to local politicos. And when this gets to a certain point you lose power - at which point you can start to refresh yourselves and develop a new story to tell.

I'm not counting any chickens (because I do think that Thursday was far more an anti-labour vote than a pro-Tory one, and I look forward to us developing more policy to compliment the mood music at the moment), but I think that with Brown in charge you guys have had it. But if you recognise this now, and learn from the experience, then you'll be better placed to hold us to account and keep us honest (otherwise the cycle starts again!).

So, good luck with earning your spurs, and I look forward to you posting this back at me in 2019! :)

Guy

Re: Hubris (#4)

Well thanks.  But you should know I'm now on a personal mission to make sure we get through all our humble pie in 2 years, rather than stretching it out over a decade.  So forget 2019- try 2011 buddy ;)

Re: Hubris (#5)

A good post. The biggest factor politicians have to fight against is the electorates desire for 'change', and that is what they voted for on May 1st. It wasn't the policies, although we were careless about seeing problems coming up on the horizon like IHT and the 10 tax band, we should have a special unit at No 10 to spot these potential banana skins anyway, but people were getting tired of seeing the same old faces. The Party should periodically have an internal review of its standing. We've reached the lowest ever in popularity; we ignored the signals and blamed it mid-term blues. But we didn't seek to redress the misgivings the electorate had.

Re: Hubris (#18)

I agree with you about the banana skin spotting. I think the real problem is that there is so much information, about everything under the sun, that it is hard to spot the bits that really matter. That's why we keep on letting the media set the agenda.
I would like to see a simple weekly issue check list for MPs so they can just flick through it and stick a flag on all the things they need to go back to latter. This would begin to show where there are clusters of concern, and help MPs pick out other people they should be talking with. Perhaps theyworkforyou.com could do something?

Re: Hubris (#6)

Yes, good post red rooster.

I think we all need to learn lessons from Thursday (Gordon especially).

Re: Hubris (#14)

See, that's one view from a voter.  Food for thought.

The difficulty is I cannot espouse a reduction in fuel duty, as it goes against my environmental beliefs.  But I can look at the example in London, where buses go where people live and run regularly, and are affordable and subsidised for the poor (thanks to Chavez...well, maybe not much longer...) and are used and are popular.  For many Londoner, their fuel tax bill is near zero, because they don't need to drive often.

Re: Hubris (#16)

High fuel prices have nothing to do with providing/subsidies good public transport.  Perhaps that is the problem?  Is fuel tax in France used to fund the Health Service?  

I agree that suggesting that only OPEC can fix this is boggling.  We need a short term fix on on fuel price, and a medium term strategy on transport that looks at if all these journeys are necessary and looks at integration, links up suburbs and estates to the centre, looks at rural services like Post Offices and so on.

I think that what you've written expresses much of the real reasons that voters are angry.  I don't think it is quite as bad as you describe it but what worries me, listening to Brown, is that he will hear you loud and clear, and rather than producing a policy corrective to address it, will simply argue against it.  I fear his current 'narrative' about leading us through these difficult times is saying "we know better than you what your problems are".

That is hubris. 

Re: Hubris (#17)

Good post. I think Brown thinks that his sttrategy is unbeatable, he's just having trouble getting the word out.