Tag: Labour

WIN BACK THE LANGUAGE

Don’t political strategists read Marx or Mein Kampf?

I can honestly state my absolute astonishment that Labour strategists, and those for other opposition parties, are getting so badly out-manoevred by the Tories, and their right-wing allies in the press.

Marx outlines exactly how this happens in numerous works, not least those dealing with the French revolution of 1848 and the various manoevrings in its aftermath that eventually led to Louis Napoleon’s coup of 1852.

Hitler in Mein Kampf has as his starting point that the Social Democrats do this, do that, succeed in it, and that the Nazis must learn from this, do it and do it better. He then outlines how to do this, including incrementally moving the argument by small steps whilst nobody notices how it is being moved, and the use of language, and invective, in propaganda and in leading a debate.

This is so absolutely what the Tories are doing, that I cannot understand any left-wing strategist who does not understand what they are doing. But these strategists are falling exactly into this right-wing trap, adopting their language and losing the argument form the get-go.

They don’t call them asylum-seekers because that implies they have a right to claim asylum. They call them migrants because that sounds like a huge swathe of humanity, sweeping down on unsuspecting populations.

They don’t call them unemployed because that implies that they have a right to be employed. They call them jobseekers, because that puts the onus on them, makes them sound like shirkers if they haven’t got a job.

They don’t call them disabled, low earners, working poor or people in poverty. They call them benefits-claimants because benefits sounds like something that is given, not earned nor deserved, and claimants makes them sound like takers, not receivers.

And there’s another one – people used to receive benefits, and be benefit recipients, now they claim them and are benefit claimants. Another instance where language has been subtly altered to give a more negative message.

But Labour and other opposition parties fall so easily into this trap, using Tory language whilst trying to defeat Tory lies, without understanding that the use of Tory language undermines, if not destroys, their own arguments.

WIN BACK THE LANGUAGE. Change the words in the debate. Its not enough to win the argument, but it is a good start to preventing one losing it before they’ve started

 

Winds of Change
10th August 2015

Dear SNP

Since #GE2015 we have been impressed with the comradery of the SNP MPs in Westminster, and by their generally fantastic maiden speeches. We have laughed as you laughed, over seating, clapping and challenging the yah-boo-sucks mentality of parliament.

But we have become worried. In just 5 weeks, we have become worried. There are two strands to this, one is the co-ordinated social media barrage where multiple MPs’ accounts, each apparently the private domain of its owner, state on social media almost exactly the same thing, as if singing from a hymn sheet not broadcasting their own thoughts.

The second is the ultimately confusing and very swiftly self-defeating war of words, tweets, broadcasts and statements between Labour and the SNP. Nobody really understands who is right, if anyone is right. The SNP say one thing, and blame Labour. Labour often say the same thing, and blame the SNP. Neither of you back the other’s amendments. Or if you say you do, the other says you don’t.

Why don’t Labour and the SNP get together, agree common amendments, take them to the relevant bills and push for them?

By continuing this ragged argument you are simply playing to two narrow fields – one is your own supporters who already support you, the other is the right-wing press who can tar both of you with the brush of chaos.

Sort it out and co-operate. The SNP needs to show its supporters South of Borders that it is capable of working with Labour, not just battling them on territory they both claim. To do the best for Scotland, they need to co-operate at Westminster. On a larger focus, they need to show they are willing to form a progressive alliance for the UK opposition.

If they both keep bickering, claiming the same thing, and ultimately defeating each other, then it will just be to their joint detriment and they only beneficiary will be the Tory press.

Winds of Change
16th June 2015

False Narrative

We have to win back our lost voters, we hear that from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. ‘Our’ voters? They are not yours, they are not anybody’s, they lend you their vote, it belongs only to them.

The idea that a majority is some fixed item that exists for more than a moment after an election is also an illusion, a psephologist’s dream.

Vince Cable had a safe seat because he had a majority in the many thousands. No! He lost his seat, so where did the Lib Dem votes go…? No! There were not “Lib Dem votes” they were voters who had lent their vote to the Lib Dems, but now did not.

You can hold a thousand autopsies. You can have a hundred investigations. You can write a dozen reports. You look into it until the cows come home, or they refuse to. But you CANNOT analyse where “your” vote went, because you did not have that vote.

What you had was the trust and belief of people, and that is the only truth in this whole debate. Why was it lost? How can you get it back?

PARTY ANALYSIS

Labour – Scotland is an interesting microcosm, it shows not only how it was lost, but what the end game is if you lose it. Labour no longer seemed a viable left-wing party to many Labour supporters in Scotland. It stood alongside Tories in the Referendum, and in this it served to emphasise the right-wing policies that New Labour adopted – PFI, war in Iraq, everything that people’s anger and resentment simmers under the surface.

Lib Dems – the party I supported for 20 years, and ten before that supporting the SDP in the Alliance. But I did not vote for them in 2014 or 2015. Why? Not because they entered a coalition with the Tories, but because of the laws they supported the passage of in coalition – the laws which attacked the poor, the disabled, the young.

What I see in the debates after the twin disasters is that Labour is bouncing to a Blairite right-wing analysis! Never mind about abandoning their core voter, never mind about the slow build up of betrayal that came to a head, just worry about the rich and corporations who constantly moan whilst they make money!

The Lib Dems I see a better debate in. Their disaster was more dramatic, but the core belief seems to be stronger, the understanding that they have to reconnect and show belief, show vision is stronger.

BELIEF, VISION and TRUST

Don’t look to the segmented electorate in all your A1s and C2s (or whatever). Don’t look at what the rich and privelege moan about, they will always moan, they are selfish and conceited, they want more, believe they should have more, they don’t care for the poor, for the ordinary person. Ignore them!

Look simply to why you exist, what you stand for, what you are in politics for. Don’t play games trying to find a policy “to appeal”. Know what is right, and put all your energy into it. If people don’t accept it, use the word “yet” and redouble your efforts.

Political parties don’t exist to win election. Think about that! They do not exist to win elections. They exist to promote a vision and to implement that vision they must win an election. But if they have no vision, then winning an election is pointless, it swaps one lot of centre-right conservatives for another. Without the vision, the parties are pointless.

With the vision, the votes will follow. It is axiomatic that you have to have someone who can propound that vision, who can enthuse, who can lead. That is personality, that is charisma, but it is also a willingness to listen, to be humble, to not seek power for its own sake, but to seek it for service to the people.

Votes will follow Vision, but you must have vision!

Winds of Change
21st May 2015