Labour needs a new approach to media

It is a given that the majority of the Press has a right-wing bias and that it defends the Establishment. Insidiously, though, this has worsened under the current ultra-reactionary government such that the spin peddled by the latter has become the orthodox, even for the supposedly neutral BBC (but look at the inclinations of their leading political journalists).

 

This situation leaves Labour yet more isolated from the means to promote its legitimate messages. It is remarkable though rarely remarked that Labour has sustained a poll lead for so long against such a background. So, other than those critical friends, the Guardian and Mirror, what recourse does the Left have to reach out to the public?

 

First, even the hostile organs must afford some coverage to Labour, albeit in a cynical or fault-finding mode. Currently this mainly presents EdM etc as dull, incompetently managerial, except when, on occasion, they let go; when they step away from their controllers and show real passion. No media could have ignored the passionate oratory of Lloyd George or Bevan; nor the demagogic brilliance of Heseltine, Crow or Kinnoch. Nor today do they do so for Brand, Johnson or Garage. Telling it like it is is news, so Ed and Co need to let themselves show their true feelings. Staying in the Party aparatchiks' corset can only play into the hands of enemies.

 

Social media offer much more to Labour's demographic than to the aged Right. Tory Central Office may spend like water on Facebook ads but these are manifestly artificial and unlike the genuine chatter of friends and followed. Twitter and Facebook have no editors to constrain their content. Labour-minded tweeters need proudly to shout their allegiance beyond their partisan followers and share as widely as possible the values and truth of its policies as a demotic medium.

 

Thirdly, Labour must move onto more differentiated ground, away from the petty comparisons so beloved of their critics. Simple, bold messages highlighting Labour's raison d'etre in today's world may attract brickbats but will also be attention-grabbing - and vote catching. And if this means upsetting Big Business, bankers and hedge funds, this can only mean we are on the right track.

@uckfieldlabour aka The Cell

Leadership, power and integrity

Large sums are made by authors, trainers and self-appointed gurus claiming to know what it takes to be or become a leaders. Politicians, at least elected ones, have to be leaders. They set themselves up to be followed by thousands, after all. Their success at the ballot box may be merited by their talent; it may also reflect their brass neck in putting themselves forward and/or the brand to which they attach themselves. Their staying power or the hindsight of history produce the evidence as to the validity of their selection. Another factor may be worthwhile including in this judgement: the greater good.

I suppose that most entering politics genuinely want to do something worthwhile on behalf of their community. What is clear, though, is that the power which popular support offers to those elected can affect the latter in different ways. To some, it increases their sense of responsibility and drives their energies. To others, it feeds ambition and creates a sense of entitlement or grandiosity which can actually prevent them from being good leaders. My suggestion is that those who maintain their original or even an enhanced desire for the greater good are likely to be far better leaders than those others who let it all go to their heads. It does not take high office for this leadership to manifest itself. There are politicians who act as the conscience of their peers or content themselves with achieving social good. These can be seen as leaders just as much as those in charge of departments of State - and some of the latter should not be where they are, based on this criterion.

Those who accept the votes and responsibility without delivering on their original ethos are not leaders but failures. We know who they are, even if they do not; but too late. The trick is to be able to identify at the selection or election stage who will become which. This is not so easy but integrity should overrule ambition, perhaps, as a yardstick.

Tom Serpell

Who will dare to be different?

Argument between leading political parties is so often about relatively small differences in emphasis or detail of a shared strategy rather than real difference of strategy. No wonder polls often fail to separate them; and the public become frustrated with there being so little to choose between them. We, the ovine voters, must not be allowed real choices, if these could threaten the Establishment, which, across the political elite, has common interests.
"There is no alternative but to pay down[ or off] the deficit" is a case in point. Why should there be no alternative? They may wish to exclude other options but that there are others is not in doubt, as other economists can aver. Governments make choices about how they spend in our name. We should hope that we could choose between choices - but in reality the options we are given are already selected by them to maintain their power base. Increasingly, the choices made deprive people of well-being in favour of flattering the interests of the powerful. There is an alternative in which the wealth of the country is shared more widely - and this could have greater benefit to the economy by encouraging spending.
Another "given" is that we work all our lives in order to leave "something to the next generation". This is an invention of neo-liberal capitalism - promoting creation of more capital-owning which will ultimately lead to unearned income. It was not always thus. Workers worked for subsistence, with, if they were fortunate, a pension to live in in retirement. For some, there was not always work; let alone a pension - nor a nest-egg. Now we are told that right-thinking people first buy their own homes, then retain them even after they move themselves out into care, while the State pays the cost of the latter. This is apparently a policy shared across the political spectrum: to have tax-payers money used to pay for care whilst the person cared for owns a home they no longer need, except to leave it to their off-spring, who may by this time themselves be entering retirement. The family thus cease to be workers but capitalists, thanks to government policy and at our cost. There must be an alternative where we pay for our own care out of what we have accrued; or rely on the State if we have no such back-stop.
So why does Labour not have the courage to say this? Could it be that all who attain power become capitalists?