by Peter Watt
Understanding this year’s defeat is, as we all know, central to bouncing back electorally. A lot has been written about the need to listen and the need to reconnect to voters. And the launch of the policy consultations in Gillingham last weekend was an attempt to listen and learn the lessons of defeat.
But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous.
If you think that I am being harsh, just think about what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity.
Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people’s suffering. What we don’t think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn’t think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this. And yet, much of his programme is familiar to the last (Labour) government. Presumably our motives were pure, though.
What about the heinous charge that they want to “ideologically shrink” the size of the state. We, of course, want to use the state to do good things for people. Their wanting to shrink it clearly indicates that they don’t want to do good things for people. Clearly, therefore, they are morally bankrupt. Well, perhaps not. Maybe they think that over-taxing people is wrong and that an over-reaching state is in itself bad for the same people that we want to help? I am not saying that I necessarily agree, but I am saying that it is a perfectly valid view and one that is not intrinsically immoral.
But does it matter? Well, yes, I think that it does. Because our arrogance has the effect of stopping us listening. In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right. It makes us believe that if people don’t agree with us then they are either less moral or need educating. Possibly both. It is how we dismiss the opinion polls which show people being concerned about things that we would rather they weren’t, like immigration and welfare abuse.
We often don’t hear these concerns even when we say that we do. Our sense of moral outrage at the perceived underlying prejudice overrides all. I have heard people say that “we shouldn’t pander to people; we should be prepared to put them right”. Of course. I am sure that people will vote for us gratefully once we have put them right. That’s just what people have been waiting for. Really hearing these concerns doesn’t mean that we should accept the unacceptable. But it does mean that we have to be humble enough to accept that we do not exclusively own truth and morality. Ed said in his NPF speech in Gillingham:
“Being rooted in people’s lives is not about a slogan. It’s not about going out and just saying ‘tell us what we should think’, but it is about saying we need to be reconnected to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Britain”.
I agree. But not all of people’s hopes and aspirations may chime with our rigid moral code. And, increasingly, voters are less tribal in their political allegiances. In fact, most people are probably not even habitual voters for a single party, never mind being tribal. If we are really to connect with enough voters (such that they vote for us in winning numbers at the next general election), then we will have to find ways of understanding their moral sense of the world. We can’t just condemn or patronise everyone as not understanding just because they say or feel things with which we don’t agree.
Of course, we have values of social justice that guide us, and our values don’t change. But that doesn’t mean that other people don’t also care about social justice and that they may come to different conclusions. If we put aside our moral arrogance then we might just find that we have much in common with them and them with us. That may well be the beginning of understanding why we lost. On the other hand, we could just remain in opposition, happy with our own sense that we are right – morally at least.
Peter Watt was general secretary of the Labour party.
Tags: Labour arrogance, Peter Watt
Peter thankyou for providing a sensible and balanced argument which accepts that voting Tory does not, of itself, make somebody desirous of making the disadvantaged suffer. I can almost hear the despair as you try and respond to the likes of ‘Left is Forward’ and his loathing of our democratic process and intolerance of decent people who fail to share his strange views. As an Historian I am truly terrified by such people with their untrammelled moral certainty and deafness to opinions which do not perfectly coincide with their own. It is from such dismal soil that theworst dictatorships of the 20th Century germinated and grew. Good luck trying to reform the Labour party in the face of such people.
But Mr Reasonable, Sweden and Japan both structured their democracies so that the one party that represented the great bulk of decent people (left and right wing respectively, so this isn’t political bias on my part), was actually able to maintain a government majority. In this country, the Tories have suffered massive electoral defeats that gave them landslide control of parliament (e.g. Thatcher – voted against by 3 out of 5 electors, and on that “mandate” caused long-lasting harm). On top of that, many of the poorest and most vulnerable people (e.g. prisoners, children, the mentally ill, immigrants without citizenship) are unable to vote, and our system has led to the virtual exclusion of socially marginalised groups (mostly young and poor, who have very low turnout rates). All these people are harmed by a Tory government so our system should reflect their unheard voices too.
Labour is the party of the masses and has been so for the last 90 years. There is nothing undemocratic about rearranging our constitution like Sweden or Japan, so that Labour, or a Labour-led coalition, forms the perpetual government – perpetual so long as Labour doesn’t lose its position as the only mass party, and that is the great democratic check and balance. There is a great deal wrong with failing to do so, as it allows the Tories intermittently to devastate the country based on a minority mandate, and in the gaps between Labour can only start to clear the mess up rather than make the long-overdue Attlee-esque or Bevanite strides towards progress, equality and social justice.
Similarly there is nothing wrong about taking direct action to speed up the removal of a false government like this one, which has no democratic mandate. Since this government seems determined to wreak a dance of devastation and despair across the face of this country, and poor and vulnerable people will die as a result, we may even have a duty – not just a right – to do this.
Arrogance?? Moral Superiority?? What planet are you on? Are you suggesting that Labour policies are generally no better than Tory ones: that they are ‘morally equivalent’? If so, I would politely hint that you have ‘lost the plot’! To claim that Labour has a “rigid moral code” is quite ridiculous. Morality and Politics is like Oil and Water – they don’t mix – just look through the comments exposed on WikiLeaks!
What I find particularly galling about your assessment of our collective “arrogant deafness” is your assumption that Tory ideology may be different to ours but is nonetheless morally acceptable, nay equivalent. In some sterile, academic debate one could accept that each ideology had merits BUT the REAL ISSUE is which approach is best for our country and in tune with the electorate. The Tory philosophy seems to me to be a carbon copy of the USA (minimum State involvement, low taxes, minimum welfare, total reliance on the private sector, private health care and pension provision, no minimum wage etc.) whereas Labour has traditionally advocated a more collectively caring and supporting role of the State. In economically prosperous times (1997-2008) either ideology would probably have been acceptable to people. The merits and “morality” of traditional Labour versus Tory ideology are only tested during harsh economic times (2008-?). I believe that since the beginning of the global crisis the Labour government has been successful in protecting the interests of our economy and people and, further, the state of the Nation would be alla Ireland if the Tories had been in power (Peter Watt appears to disagree).
I love America. I love Americans but I have no desire to have to have to rely exclusively on their ‘laissez-faire’ approach to life. It’s great if your are rich but hell if, today, you have just been sacked and are having your home re-possessed and no State support. That is why, Peter Watt, I ferfently support traditional Labour philosophy on State v Individual. I care passionately about the welfare of our citizens and wish to treat everyone with dignity. Do you, Peter?
left is forward ,i vcouldn’t find on reason in your critiicsm,why you feel Peter is wrong, And DAvidB unfortunaley I thin your right, were not going towin back ex albour people by criticising the Tories for the sake of it,
@left is forward `But Mr Reasonable, Sweden and Japan both structured their democracies so that the one party that represented the great bulk of decent people (left and right wing respectively, so this isn’t political bias on my part), was actually able to maintain a government majority.`
err, Sweden has a centre-centre right coalition at the moment.
If you want this social democratic society have the good sense and decency to describe the eye-watering benefit reforms required, the restriction on personal lending and the taxes required.
Left is Forward: If you believe it unfair that Thatcher got 100% of the power from far less than 50% of the vote will you then be backing AV?
George W Potter, the problem with Thatcher is not just that she was elected with a minority, but that she then proceded to harm the majority. AV is not necessarily a solution, PR would have guaranteed no Tory government in the last 50 years assuming constant voteshare though.
John – yes, Sweden’s currently on the right and Japan on the left! But for a period of around 50 years they had stable long-term left and right wing governments respectively. Japan is likely to return to the right soon, Sweden in the long run will return to the left (and their “centre right wing” government is really quite left-wing, having had to compete in an environment where the left have set the political narrative for decades).
I found this article very interesting, and I agree that Labour need to start listening if they want to regain power (God forbid).
Mr Watt is correct that voters in general are not tribal in their politics, and I do believe that they listen to what politicians say, watch what they do, and make decisions based upon observation.
However, reading the comments it is clear that Labour supporters such as “Left Is Forward” are mired in ideology and blind to reality. The days of “Them and us” politics are numbered, and as Mr Watts makes clear, Labour will get nowhere while it continues to berate voters for making “wrong” decisions.
Well, Peter Watt, are you proud that your silly article has generated a host of zombie replies?
Sorry, we shouldn’t grace their status with such a term – let’s call them Tories!
So, PW, what is your designation – Tory or zombie?
I don’t think Peter Watt wants to define himself as either a Tory or a Zombie. But he seems to want to give to succour to both groups!
I wouldn’t be too worried about what IDS’s real intentions are or hurting his feelings. But where Peter has a genuine point is that do have to understand where those people who voted for other parties are coming from, communicate with them and convince them to vote for us if we are to achieve any thing at all – and I somehow doubt that we stand much chance of doing this if we start by insulting them or doubting their motivations – or even not bothering to listen to them in the first place. If you want to change anyone’s mind the first rule is to listen to their concerns rather than giving a lecture regarding your preconceived notions.
As well as not listening – I see very little thinking going on as to where the last Government went wrong on the economy, because everyting I hear this is what most people are concerned about and is the basic reason why we lost the election. It is quite possible to construct such an analysis in Social Democratic/Keynesian terms rather than relying on the current Conservative Party analysis which appears to have become the most ac cepted explanation.
Blog Post: We need to stop being arrogant thinking we have moral superiority and that we are the only party who care about the population.
Comments section: How dare you suggest that the tories don’t eat babies and want to kill all the poor. Only we know whats best for the population- sometimes they are deluded and vote the wrong way.
*Slaps Forehead*
You don’t need to understand WHY you lost the last election. You need to understand that your party was hi-jacked by a spiv and a thief, and that 13 years of telling the rest of us how to be, do and have (and how NOT to) according to THEIR precepts was quite unwelcome.
As an example, I loath smoking, but YOUR enforcing various bans AGAINST the wishes of a huge swathe of our population I loathe even more. WHO THE HELL DID YOU THINK YOU ARE. Sadly, you still think the same thing, and will never change.
Not that the coalition seems much different – they seem to have acquired the nanny mind-set you worshipped.
Alan Douglas
Actually Mickie mas, when labour had the closed shop in the 70;s and people who refused to join unions were sacked from their jobs and not entitled to unemployment benefit , as in Michael Foots words “they had no one to blame but htemselves, for refusing to join a union”, the tories were more moral than labour in opposing this as its diosgraceful that you had to give money to a union or be sacked and not entitled to benefit.
well done left is forward proved the article is totally correct
I don’t understand some of the vitriolic reactions to this article, or at least parts of it. All he seems to be saying as far as I can see is that, even if you vehemently disagree with Tory policy as many do, it is unfair to suggest they are somehow immoral and delight in causing suffering; they might well be very, very wrong, but most of them are still surely decent people who want to do good, and demonizing them rather than their policies is not a good tactic, even if it makes you feel good to do it.