Jade Azim describes the five steps the Labour leadership must now take
Conference season is long over, but the Conservatives have continued their pitch to the nation of a hard Brexit and insular country. Labour, meanwhile, lags in the polls by 17 percentage points. This historic margin should be regarded as a betrayal of our voters – or, at least, the voters we have left. There are clearly now a number of urgent matters at hand. The obstacles ahead for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn are historically spectacular, and each poses a test that must be overcome before we can even consider just defending the seats we already have in 2020.
First, and most obviously, is Brexit. We cannot allow a repeat of Labour malaise during the Tory conference, when the prime minister laid the path to a hard and nativist Brexit. We have to be present and on the attack during Brexit negotiations.
But we have been too absent in this debate. While John McDonnell has been on television, and Keir Starmer made Iain Duncan Smith look petty, we have made no impact on how this debacle is portrayed. We have moaned, but we have not put forward an alternative. The leadership has not led on anything that could be called a competing vision for ‘hard Brexit’. The leadership should be entrenching a new narrative, right now. Owen Jones has considered how best to frame the current plans for leaving the single market, suggesting a rhetorical change and referring not to ‘hard’ but to ‘chaotic’ Brexit. The narrative should be one of ‘stable Brexit’ and seen to be firmly on the side of the ‘people’ that vows to defend workers’ rights and combat exploitation, and seeks to keep as much money as possible in the pockets of the ordinary shopper by staying in the single market. Journalists have been tripping over themselves to try to get a line from the leader’s office on our plans for the single market, but the results have been muddled and disorderly. If we let this ‘chaotic’ Brexit go without opposition, and we ourselves appear too chaotic to respond with a single, united message, it may be history’s greatest failure for the left.
Second, messaging and communication as a whole have been a staggering weakness of this leadership. ‘Soft left’ members of parliament have pointed to this as the reason for dissent, while even Corbyn’s allies concede it is his achilles heel. The left’s weakness in replicating the right’s ruthless efficiency in this field predates Corbyn. Ed Miliband may have, in many ways, won the battle of economic ideas, but his loss and May’s gain prove to us that if the messenger and their narrative are lacklustre, our ideas will not resonate, however popular they are in isolation. And it is this latter point that Corbyn must understand as he repeats, and in many ways exacerbates, our past mistakes and weaknesses. We may naively and pompously boast of public support for rail renationalisation, but if there is no over-arching story to tell, it means very little. So, instead of announcing a shopping list of policies, let’s start weaving them into a story, one where passers-by can pinpoint motifs and, dare I say it, slogans. We cannot allow ourselves to be bettered by another ‘Labour’s mess’ or ‘long-term economic plan’.
Unfortunately, the leadership has shown no sign of paying this truth heed. It has continued the age-old leftist tradition of scoffing at communications, dismissing this as the politics of spin and cynicism. It must reject this notion and start to embrace the power of messaging if it is to win over critics and the public alike – and prevent Brexit catastrophe.
Next, if we are to embrace a narrative, we must have policies. A legitimate criticism levelled by Owen Smith’s campaign was that the Corbyn team have not successfully formulated policy. When they have, it has either been as part of a leadership campaign, or is suddenly overshadowed by an ill-timed reshuffle. Far from constructing a narrative, we have had few announcements which would help construct even a foundation of a narrative. The National Education Day was a start, but it was reactive, not proactive. Policy announcements are not a whole recipe for success – Miliband’s energy cap announcement sent the politics world abuzz for a short while – but they do make us present and show that we are setting the agenda. Corbyn and team need to start bringing to life what was promised on the campaign trail. And the first of these policies should, again, concern staying in the single market.
Fourth, we need to put non-issues to bed. If we are to succeed at building a policy platform embedded in a coherent and popular narrative, Labour needs to ditch the issues that hold it back and which are not worth holding it back. The most obvious of these is Trident. Not only does this cause unnecessary and distracting ruptures among the parliamentary Labour party, but also the trade unions, it is either a non-issue or one that we are on the wrong side of among the public. The leadership may be considered principled in sticking to its guns, but these are guns which are incredibly unpopular and, if it considers them worth sinking the party for, it shows more of a selfishness than any principle worth admiring. Clive Lewis tried to act as a bridge, got humiliated and briefed against, booed at a rally, and then moved from defence. Nia Griffith has now tried too. Hopefully the leader will follow suit.
Finally, Labour must take polling seriously. How to measure the success of the preceding four recommendations? Numbers. Or, more specifically, poll numbers. It is certainly fashionable to disregard polls – either as wrong, reflecting the effects of one factor (usually, party divisions), or to dismiss them entirely. It is easy to say polls have been wrong before – while ignoring the footnote that informs you that, when they have been out, they have overestimated the support for Labour. And the leadership has recently indulged in considerable ‘whataboutery’ regarding our dismal numbers.
But a party, or leadership, which dismisses polling as conspiracy or falsity deserves to fail. And it will. At 17 points behind the Conservative party, no one can say Labour is a government-in-waiting, or even an opposition, at this most tumultuous of times. Because, even if power is not your thing, opposition is reliant on frightening the government into acting a certain way – by having its ministers believe there is a real chance of being unseated, that the person standing opposite the prime minister at the dispatch box each Wednesday poses a real threat, that they stand on the side of public opinion. Right now, the government does not have to listen at all. And it is not doing so. May has free rein to do as she likes, to put forward extreme agendas. And, most importantly, to push through a vision of Brexit that would plunge the country into disaster.
Unequivocally, polling, not just nationally, but for the leadership and economic competence, must be the yardstick by which we measure the success of the steps Corbyn and Labour must take going forward.
There is a mountain to climb. Any leader would find this difficult. But, thus far, the current leadership has not paid much due or indeed acknowledged this mountain, and has not taken the required steps on its ascent. It has to start now.
———————————
Jade Azim is editor of Open Labour and a freelance writer. She tweets at @JadeFrancesAzim
———————————
The “soft left” – or “Tory-lite left” as it is becoming increasing known – must stop challenging for the leadership and sabotaging policy development. We can only win in 2020 if we all get behind our leader: Jeremy Corbyn!
What policy development are you talking about Alf? Apart from Trident most voters don’t know what the party stands for, and our stance on Trident is unpopular.
Both sides have to make concessions if we are to win the next election.
It is no good blaming the “soft left” for our problems.
We need to communicate better, and project a united party. This will only occur when we stop blaming each other.
Who are the baddies in I, Daniel Blake? More to the point, what are they? Are they likely to be Tories? Hardly! Until Jeremy Corbyn came along, people like that were the only ones left in the Labour Party in any numbers. Therefore, there are now two Labour Parties. One is the party of Daniel Blake and of those who side with him. The other is the party of his persecutors, the party that invented benefit sanctions, the party that devised the Work Capability Assessment that is now being discontinued by the Conservative Party.
One is the party that wants to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The other is the party that not only refuses to vote for such a halt, but which, in the case of Stephen Kinnock, tweets that we are somehow morally obliged to supply those arms, siding so explicitly with Saudi Arabia in Yemen that one wonders why he did not vote with the Government.
One is the party that wants to enact the NHS Reinstatement Bill, which is the reason why even David Owen wants Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. The other is the party that broke up and privatised the NHS in England, but nowhere else, in the first place.
One was the party that wanted Barnaby Marder to remove the failed racist rabble-rouser, Zac Goldsmith, from Parliament. The other is the party that wants to leave it the Liberal Democrats, late of the Coalition, to remove Goldsmith, but which would not mind if they failed to do so.
One is the party that wants to save the beautiful South of England from fracking, HS2, and a third runway at Heathrow. The other is the party that wants to despoil irreparably the beautiful South of England by means of fracking, HS2, and a third runway at Heathrow.
One is the party that respects the outcome of the EU referendum, even without necessarily expecting awfully much ever to come of it. The other is the party that wants to re-run the EU referendum until the plebs give the right answer, and which is in the meantime prepared to give a free pass to the unprepared Prime Minister, to her buffoonish Foreign Secretary, to her honourable but over-promoted Brexit Secretary, and to her morally repugnant International Trade Secretary.
One is the party that is delighted that the EU referendum result has made the focus of political attention the areas that voted Leave while voting Labour, to the extent that even a Conservative Government will actively pay Nissan to employ people in Sunderland, with many more such examples doubtless on their way. The other is the party that is horrified both at the Nissan deal, and at the notion that the slightest political attention ought to be paid to the areas that voted Leave while voting Labour, areas that that party routinely purports to represent in Parliament and in local government.
One is the party that will support Theresa May against many of her own side, and which will press her to deliver, on workers’ and consumers’ representation in corporate governance, on shareholders’ control over executive pay, on restraining pay disparities within companies, on an investment-based Industrial Strategy and infrastructure programme, on greatly increased housebuilding, on action against tax avoidance, on banning tax-avoiding companies from public contracts, on capping energy prices, on banning or greatly restricting foreign takeovers, and on ending unpaid internships. The other is the party that will vote with the Conservative Hard Right against each and every one of those measures, which Blair and Brown no more delivered than they delivered an inquiry into Orgreave.
One is the party that has always wanted to take back the rail franchises into public ownership as and when they came up for renewal. The other is the party that now pretends always to have been of that view, but which in reality used to scream abuse at those of us who dared to express it.
One is the party that fought tooth and nail against the Blair Government’s assault on civil liberties, an assault that had begun under the previous Conservative Government, before any thought of Islamist terrorism. The other is the party that still yearns for identity cards and for 90-day detention without charge, and which conspires with the Conservative hangers and floggers to give the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee to Yvette Cooper.
One is the party that always opposed the failed austerity programme of the sacked George Osborne. The other is the party of the only people who still think that that programme was correct.
One is the party that has opposed every British military intervention of the last 20 years. The other is the party of the only people who still defend each and every one of those interventions.
One is the party that stands outside Durham County Hall in protest at the bailing out of Durham County Cricket Club while all 2700 Teaching Assistants are to be sacked at Christmas and then reappointed on a 23 per cent pay cut. The other is the party that wallows inside Durham County Hall or in a private box at the Riverside, bailing out Durham County Cricket Club while sacking all 2700 Teaching Assistants at Christmas in order to reappoint them on a 23 per cent pay cut.
One is the party of Jeremy Corbyn. The other is the Nasty Party.
I never cease to be amazed, unfortunately, at articles in progress. They seem wilfully to disregard the role of the right wing self styled moderates in causing the problems Labour faces. They constantly repeat a set of phrases – hard left, muddled and disorderly, out of touch, conspiratorial -which shows they have stopped thinking about alternative positions and cannot accept the legitimacy of the leadership.
Jade needs to add a sixth point, the need for the right wing of the party to act moderately and accept reality. It is bewildering to read about an ill timed reshuffle and not acknowledge that it was cause by the extreme behaviour of the right wingers in staging a conspiratorial sequence of resignations just as the Tories were in melt down.
Then to talk of the party being muddled and disorderly when these conditions have been caused by rightists contradicting the leadership when ever they disagree with a statement or policy.
And then to invent an ‘age old leftist tradition of scoffing at communications’ without giving any evidence and again ignoring the problem the leadership has faced in fire fighting rightist disloyalty. It is constantly having to fight off coup attempts, hostile briefing and legal challenges from the rightists that have consumed the energy of the party’s official communications team.
The rightists need to start now to get behind the leadership and help them scale the mountain instead of pushing against it and sawing at the ropes that we should be using to haul ourselves up.