What has the Labour government ever done for us? In danger of sounding like a sketch from The Life of Brian, suffice to say – quite a lot. But how many people actually know what has been achieved? Not many. To be brutal, the government has been bloody awful at pointing out that things did get better.
Looking back doesn’t win elections, of course. However, we need to demonstrate that this country has changed for the better and will keep changing for the better, thanks to Labour. We also need to show that those reckless, fast-living chancers on the blue benches would put success at risk.
It’s vital that we keep on board the broad coalition who backed Labour in 1997 – by offering them a credible vision of hope for the future. Recently, though, our supporters have been abandoning ship. Understandably, there were calls to change course. But any thoughts that the aspirational middle classes will come back if we veer sharply to the left are plain bonkers.
The right policies are only half the battle, though. The other half is language – communicating an appealing message in words that people use in everyday life. It’s so simple. For many years, I worked as a sub-editor on several of the mass-market women’s weeklies – a fiercely competitive sector of the media. Readership and market share was vital. Lose readers and we lost our jobs. Readers had to be kept on board, so the content had to be rooted in real life. We spoke to our readers in words they used every day – at the school gates, at work, in the supermarket, at home.
And it’s time Labour did the same politically. Our party’s vision and message needs to be rooted in the everyday to be credible. Speak to people normally – use the language of the school gates and the supermarket checkout, not the party political patois of GC and policy forum.
In communicating our message, the prime minister needs to focus on, say, three key issues that matter to people. In an effort to show that he was ‘getting on with the job’ following the council elections, there were too many announcements, so the message was lost.
Once Gordon has chosen his three key issues, he needs to let people know why he has done this. He needs to keep his message simple and say it endlessly. And if he does this, then people will appreciate what Labour is doing for them.
Shona McIsaac
Yours is the only one of these essays which sees the need for an overall message and vision. It is a pity that the essay turns into a plea for everyday language. Everyday policy issues must be in everyday language (like the LibDem Focuses and so on, as well as womens’ magazines). Vision and a message that can inspire people need language which is more than everyday (language which has nothing to do with “the party political patois”).
Putting accross a vision is one thing the Tories under Cameron are trying (and so far failing) to do as they attempt to become a party with a positive image. It is something tha the LibDems seem rather good at in a chaotic way – which is why it is so hard to shift them in areas where they have got established.
But if there is no vision in the Progress wing of Labour, though the people may not perish how can that wing of the Party survive?
I share Shona’s view that we need to be better at publicising what we have done. So much has changed since Labour came to power that folk are simply taking those changes for granted. Looking back alone isn’t the answer but we also need to have a clear and consistent vision for the future that shows that social justice remains at the core of New Labour and that we are in tune with where people are now not where we might like them to be in some socialist utopia which will simply let the Tories in and I shudder at what would happen then.