I have suggested on many occasions that what Labour needs to do if it is to turn limited electoral success in council elections into a general election victory is to deliver a strong narrative that people can believe in. Candidly, I am bemused as to what is quite so difficult about this. Whilst people are complex as individuals what we want is often remarkably consistent, and so predictable.
I suggest:
- People want to work.
- They want fair pay.
- They want a home they can afford.
- They want education for their children if they have them.
- They want health care.
- Pensions matter to them personally, and for their relatives as they imply security in old age.
- They need security, physically and legally.
- They want to feel they are respected.
- They want to feel they are part of a community.
- Access to entertainment is important.
- For all these things transport is necessary.
What is needed beyond these things? Actually, remarkably little since if these conditions are met most people can live the life that they want. You could say I have omitted material needs - but I haven't: that is what fair pay is for, coupled with the choice it enables, which should be permitted and encouraged as markets very definitely have a role.
If tax assists and does not impede these goals then it is both tolerated and paid.
In exchange people expect economic stability and will vote against those who do not supply it.
And that's it: I am sure the list can be refined but in essence this is what people want.
And the difference in political philosophy should almost be as simple. Neoliberals say it's up to you to achieve these things and then provides an environment that preserves your claim to them against others who have yet to achieve them (this being true across party boundaries, as is now clear) whilst the left should say it is our job to make sure as many people as possible have access to these things because we are all, without doubt, better off when the benefit of them is shared as far as possible.
I am well aware of how naive I will be called for saying this.
My defence is a simple one: people want clear, straightforward messages. They don't want to know about VAT cuts on windows or enterprise investment schemes in Middlesborough. They want to know what people stand for in unambiguous, unchanging over time, terms. So you build your politics on conviction, on the assessment of what people really want, and how you can deliver it. The rest follows.
And right now since only UKIP is doing that (from the right, and even if they're getting their delivery message hopelessly wrong) we see the result.
Politicians should take note.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Not naive. It’s a PRACTICAL truth that our individual needs are best met, and met for most people, by a common and co-operative framework.
Rules can make us free in that if we are mindful of others’ rights, that means ours are respected. If we have to assert and fight for rights in an arena without rules, only the strong will prosper and even they will not have security.
Bullies put others down to feel one up but the feeling doesn’t last and they have to repeat the bullying. People with self respect don’t need to. I’m OK, you’re OK position is what works best and that means respect for others.
This is how we used to present the case for discipline in school against the kids who said ‘I don’t like people telling me what to do: I do as I like; why should I conform? I’m an individual! And the ‘touch me and I’ll sue you’ mindset.
It’s also true at national and international level.
@RM+Ian. How did u both cram so much sense in so few words? The truth is seemingly obvious+ should be easy to articulate but when was sense ever common?
You are absolutely right, Richard. You might, however, be underestimating the level of cultural shift that has really taken place in the last 30 years because there is now a whole generation that have no memory of anything else than the neo-liberal model which has become a sort of mental ‘wallpaper’ that is subconsciously accepted in the way that religious beliefs can be accepted. since 2008 it should be staggeringly obvious that (as jeffrey Sachs puts it) our financial system is morally pathological but hardly anyone looks at this. Labour certainly doesn’t. It is still hard for people to fully see that we are ruled by a banking Oligarchy and there is nothing in our education system that is explaining this. I feel we need an alliance of Greens, disaffected Labour and other groups like NEF, TJN, Positive money to really pull the stops out to educate the nation. You are doing your bit Richard, but more of us need to engage. problem is, most people have their heads down worrying about their household debt and managing from day to day, they just haven’t the head space which is why the Oligarchy prosper.
Do you think I stopped worrying about those things?
You have to fight and do those things
Yes – but not everyone has the confidence/education to do this. Despite having some academic background I still find it very hard work educating myself in financial/economic issues in which I have no background. The issues are very complex – how is the public going to cope with this?
I agree 100% Richard (more if possible). The weird thing is, Ed Miliband has occasionally showed that he understands this basic truth – some of his leadership campaign, and the 2011 Labour conference speech – but most of the time he just ignores it. Which is a terrible shame. I am now convinced that Labour is going to win the next election because the UKIP surge is disastrous for the Tories, but my worry is that Labour win and are then crap because the radical policy is not there.
Check out this piece by Michael Meacher in the Morning Star (probably Britain’s best written daily paper these days) for an excellent summary of the problems with Labour right now:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/132529
agree with your main blog – the balancing act is obviously between acheiving the stated aim (whichever side of the political spectrum you are on) whilst preserving the national services we require without people feeling “overtaxed” – which many might feel is an impossible tension to resolve !
At the end of the day it is fairly straight forward as you’ve pointed out Richard. The pollies play on the idea of “scarcity” and that it’s not straight-forward. For example, governments can only raise so much in taxes and so can only pay out X amount of dollars. With MMT we know this idea is complete nonsense. Any nation that issues its own currency is only restricted by the amount of resources that are available to it, not by the amount of money it has. And this is what we have to contend with and convince people of. The nations that make up the Euro don’t have this luxury, unless the ECB decides to use its fiscal/monetary powers to back them up. Failing that, they should leave the euro.