Labour Party woes: only connect

June 8, 2009 by
Filed under: Politics 

On Friday the Observer asked me for 100 words on Labour’s problems. They only used the last forty, but this is what I sent:

‘ It’s easy to say what Labour needs to compete in the next election; signs of economic recovery, a compelling policy programme, credible dividing lines with the Conservatives. The political pendulum has swung several times over the last 2 years and the Conservatives still have some frayed edges. From where he is now any improvement could create momentum, but Gordon Brown’s biggest problem as a politician is how hard he finds it to relate to the public at large. Unless he can find a way to connect, it won’t matter what Labour’s message is it simply won’t get through.’

Behind all the talk of conspiracies and betrayal, Labour faces a simple dilemma. Gordon Brown is in some ways a very good leader and in other ways he is not. Arguably his greatest flaw is that the public find it very hard to relate to him; which for a politician is fairly fatal. To say that anyone who expresses this view is obsessed with personalities is a bit like criticising a modelling agency for being obsessed with looks. 

Over ninety percent of human communication is non verbal. If this emotional communication is going wrong it gets in the way of the other 10%; the words themselves. For some reason our Prime Minister finds it very hard to get over this non verbal barrier. A friend once said something like this:

‘When I listen to Gordon Brown it reminds me of watching the weather forecast. It all sounds very clear and I think I am paying attention, but if at the end someone was to ask me if it was going to be sunny tomorrow in North Wales I wouldn’t have a clue.‘

This isn’t just about winning votes. Political leaders need to be able to appeal to our better nature, but to do that they must be able to form an emotional bond. I have argued before that the biggest challenge facing the political class as a whole is to get us, the people, to own the dilemmas facing the country; to stop making impossible demands (‘Swedish welfare on American taxes’ as pollster Ben Page says) and to recognise that we are all responsible for making a better future possible. This is as much an emotional appeal as a rational argument.

The Labour Party faces a very tough choice. In some ways its apparent willingness to stick with Gordon Brown despite his failings is commendable (the Conservatives have traditionally been more ruthless with their leaders) but for MPs and activists to ask for an urgent answer as to how the Prime Minister intends to overcome his demonstrable inability to connect is entirely reasonable.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , ,

Comments

7 Comments on Labour Party woes: only connect

  1. Pete B on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 3:48 pm

    2. Alan Johnson, of course, is excellent at building a rapport with the public. Through the television set and in person he comes across as charming, relaxed and sincere – none of these qualities could be used to describe Gordon Brown. Johnson really is a very appealing potential replacement.

    This, of course, ignores the many other factors which the Labour Party has to take into account in deciding whether to back or sack Mr. Brown such as the risks associated with appearing disunited, alienating grass roots members and necessitating an early general election.

    This will not be an easy decision, the arguments for backing and for sacking are strong. Labour MPs will have to make fine judgement calls in the coming days.

  2. matthewtaylor on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 4:08 pm

    3. Thanks Pete – spot on

  3. Joe Nutt on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 8:43 pm

    4. Your friend’s weather forecast analogy is pure genius. I have only seen (and listened) to GB speak in person once and was really keen to hear what he would say but ended up profoundly unimpressed. He made not the least attempt to engage with his audience (to the point where I felt mildly offended) and rattled through his script as though it was an irritable necessity on his way to a pub lunch. I have never really understood how anyone thought he could ever be a vote winner.

  4. David Price on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 1:29 am

    5. Matthew –

    I have had a first pass at adding your observations to The Independent’s map (http://bit.ly/14MaFU) of Labour’s leadership dilemma here:

    http://debategraph.org/flash/fv_indep.aspx?r=19705

    David

  5. paul on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 9:36 am

    6. Matthew. Accept the points you make about Gordon Brown and what one might term his lack of charisma.
    But you’d agree that it’s only a small part of the problem and gets us only part way down the road of dealing with your related issue: how to get the public to accept their own role and responsibility. Your contention is that a politician with different skills would be better attuned to appeal to the ‘better nature’ of the public. But what is that nature? You’d agree that under conditions of plurality it is difficult to uncover virtues we can all agree upon. And that there is a risk of coercion when politicians are tempted to operationalize what they think are universal moral beliefs.
    This is the point made by Prof Michael Sandel in his opening BBC Reith Lecture which I’ve just listened to on Radio 4.
    In his lecture he makes the important observation that the western democratic state is afraid of having this moral debate for fear of the differences of opinion that it will show in our society. Such an observation, if true, has profound implications for us. It means we can’t have the debate.
    Politicians can’t assert a universal moral code that appeals to the better nature of all people. And yet we urgently require a discourse aimed at uncovering what we agree are right and moral ways to act.
    Is anyone aware of any research into this operationalization of moral discourse? I’ve heard lots of theory, but any practice?

  6. Brian Hughes on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 10:00 am

    7. Give it a few months is my advice to Labour MPs. That way they leave open the real possibility that Mr Brown’s communication skills might be improved to a level at which they properly complement his many others.

    And they avoid a winter election which would have been hard to resist had the leader been changed now. Dark evenings = low turnouts = bad results for Labour…

  7. Pete B on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 1:38 pm

    8. Brian – Labour MPs have three main courses of action open to them regarding Gordon Brown’s leadership. They can back him as the man to lead them to the next election. They can sack him and choose someone else. Or they can continue to squabble about whether or not to keep him.

    Backing him and sacking him are both very risky options. Continuing the debate, however, beyond a few more days entails plenty of costs in terms of party unity and media coverage but entails no benefits whatsoever.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!