One of Barack Obama’s successes last year that isn’t actually discussed at every opportunity is the link between the man and the campaign. The creation of a campaign organisation in the image of its figurehead. Realising through his published writing, the strength in using someone’s real perspective and experience to make a political point, Obama’s campaign succeeded in part through making personal connections such as the sharing of personal stories and journeys between campaign colleagues, between staff and volunteers and between volunteers and voters (and crucially, vice versa). At every opportunity those involved with the campaign were encouraged to interact on a very personal level in order to be able to build relationships with voters. The mirror was also seen through a style of working. ‘No Drama Obama’ was the part-descriptor, part-mantra the campaign used to describe itself and its candidate and the characteristics of this – calm, considered, emotionless and not reactionary (to a degree), the lack of in-fighting and the lack of micro-management – could be seen right down to the neighbourhood organisers.
If this was in any doubt before the weekend, the Labour Party must build a way of working that reflects the morality, fairness and equality of our politics and values. And I mean this in the most thorough of senses: our politicians, in government or not, party staff or those working for politicians, our members, our democratic structures and openness to participation. For too long, many – but especially those in the Westminster bubble – have not admitted or not sought to answer the very evident conflict between maintaining power for power’s sake (be it for the party or for individuals) and doing the right thing, the things we joined the party, or stood for election, to do. As someone who used to work in the bubble, I do not absolve myself. This is no longer anything to do with the electoral cycle, it is simply essential for those things which the Labour Party and its affiliates like the Fabian Society and Young Fabians stand for remaining at the centre of political discourse, action and legislation. This is not about the right versus left of our party, not about pragmatism against values. It is not anti-big tent politics and is definitely not about failing to understand how the media works. It is not about individual personalities. Rather it is about all of us taking responsibility as individuals and within our groups, communities, offices, societies and CLPs, to ensure that the content of what we believe and what we want to do for Britain (and the world) is heard. And empathised with. And trusted.
We can, must, still communicate through the traditional media. We should use new media in innovative ways to engage our supporters and the wider public. We should be realistic that not all policies can please all people at all times. But we must be honest that we want the best for as many people as possible. And we must be honest in how we seek to achieve this.
The slippery slope that Derek Draper/LabourList (for it is unclear how to separate the two) were headed down, could be seen on the BBC’s Daily Politics last month when Andrew Neil failed to referee a horrible and petty argument between Draper and Paul Staines (the video is conveniently on the DP homepage as I write). In a comment on this blog, I argued:
Where I talk about the web being a new Westminster Village, in essence I mean the blogosphere. I think both LabourList and Guido are successful, worth a read, and important in different ways to different audiences. But the Derek Draper and Paul Staines ‘debate’ on today’s Daily Politics on the beeb demonstrates exactly what I mean. Despite the freedoms of the web, the political blogosphere is incredibly insular and dominated by a small number of people.
This may change over time. But right now, for me, it isn’t going to be the most important battleground for Labour to win the next election – or even mobilise support. Actually, it has a lot of potential to be as off-putting as many people find politicians’ speeches or party meetings.
Draper/LabourList had made the mistake of allowing itself to be sucked in to competing with Guido Fawkes instead of ConservativeHome. Perhaps implying this was Staines’ intentional strategy gives him too much credit but the outcome has clearly worked in favour of him and against the Labour movement. I believe Draper’s intentions were good and though Damian McBride’s differed, they were founded upon the quality of intense loyalty. The problem came in judgment. Firstly, that thinking the Guido model blog was in some way significant to Labour/Brown winning the election. Secondly, in misunderstanding that the vast majority of voters only know what is being said on Guido’s site (or prospectively RedRag) when the story becomes big enough, and for ‘big’, you can practically read ‘true’ enough, for the mainstream media to report it. We saw that this weekend. Thirdly, in believing that Guido Fawkes represents the Tory party and therefore Labour must have its own counterpart. An irritant on the other end of the political spectrum to us does not necessarily mean the Tories are ‘winning online’. The right is winning through sites like ConservativeHome because they are having debates, generating ideas, organising campaigns online, but also, and vitally, offline with voter contact. Labour can actually be very effective at this.
Being able to separate real world politics from village stuff is hugely important here and where the failure lied. But it’s a bigger problem that has been bubbling for years and that we must seek to address. In getting caught up over the latest big story we must not forget it comes on the back of a succession of stories on MP’s use of allowances that – objectively, whatever your view of the coverage and the rules in place – has been damaging to Labour. We must quickly separate what goes on and, to a certain extent, are deemed appropriate ways to behave and work in the Westminster village from what we actually stand for. And just as quickly, we must rebuild the former in the image of the latter.
Adrian Prandle, International Officer
As we move closer to election day and the polls begin to tighten one thing is increasingly clear. There is no substitute for good policy thinking. You can spend money on billboards, pollsters, glossy leaflets and even gimmicks, but if you haven’t done the graft and got the ideas and arguments together, you run the risk of the press tearing you apart quicker than voters put the leaflets in the shred pile.
