Summer 2015 issue of Healthcare Manager is out

This issue celebrates the tenth birthday of Managers in Partnership (MiP), the union for NHS managers and publishers of the magazine. We feature exclusive interviews with ten key NHS players on how MiP has supported managers and contributed to the development of the NHS. We also have the Health Foundation’s chief economist Anita Charlesworth on NHS productivity, Daloni Carlise on how to engage NHS staff, and the fantastic Lis Paice on how to give presentations people will stay awake for. There’s also vital information for NHS managers about their pensions (sorry). Healthcare Manager is edited by me, and designed and produced by Lexographic, on behalf of MiP.

Read or download the digital edition here.

Middle Gingers, Frimley, Surrey

Look left, look right, look left again

When I joined the newly-formed North West Surrey “Young Socialists” (as young Labour members were somewhat patronisingly called back then) in 1985, one of our first campaigns was one to save a 16th-century cottage in the middle of our village (although we never thought of Frimley as a village, to us it was sprawling London suburbia). The house was apparently under threat from Thatcherite property developers, who wanted to bulldoze it to make way for some sort of executive housing. We didn’t do much – maybe we held a couple of meetings and wrote an angry letter to someone at the council. I very much doubt it had anything at to do with our “campaign”, but Middle Gingers (pictured above) was saved. It was later beautifully restored and extended, and is now no doubt the property of some proud multimillionnaire (with a very un-Elizabethan swimming pool).

It wasn’t social housing, and the campaign wasn’t particularly socially useful. So it may seem like an odd cause for enthusiastic Young Socialists to champion in the white-hot political atmosphere of the 1980s. But there weren’t any pits to save in Surrey and none of us were (yet) students with loans and cuts to protest against. There were apparently 250 homeless families in the borough of Surrey Heath, but we didn’t know any of them. None of us were even on the dole!

But Middle Gingers was local, tangible, achievable. It was also emotional. I think the reason we felt strongly about it was that we’d all learned about the cottage at primary school. It was the oldest building in the village. I think it had a priest’s hole. It was a tangible link to Henry VIII, the Armada, and the lopping off of heads which seemed to be the main feature of English history as taught in the 1970s. Middle Gingers stood right on the former village green, common land where our 16th-century forebears would have been able to graze their animals for free. It somehow felt like part of who we were, both as locals and as English boys and girls (and when you come from the Surrey working class you need every scrap of identity you can get). The idea that it could be done away with by some faceless company on the make felt just as wrong in principle as closing a pit or selling off a council house.

Thinking back over my thirty years in the Labour Party and the labour movement, I’m struck by how much time and energy we’ve spent trying to save things (and usually failing) — trying to stop change rather than bring it about. Think on it: we’ve opposed privatisation, we’ve tried to protect much of the welfare state, we’ve campaigned (mostly) against NHS reform. Lefties have worked to “save” comprehensive education and opposed marketisation at the BBC. We’ve tended to oppose – or at least be sceptical about – foreign takeovers of venerable British firms like Cadbury and Boots. Many of us are very worried by the erosion of communities (particularly in working class areas), the disappearance of pubs, and about not knowing our neighbours or how we barely speak to each other anymore outside of work.

And voters, too, have opposed – often by very wide margins – many of the supposedly “inevitable” changes of the Thatcher and post-Thatcher era. That’s a paradox for the left: for the most part voters have been on our side. Most people want to keep their local hospital and want to keep their local schools open to everyone. Most people didn’t want the Royal Mail sold off and didn’t much like the look of either Labour or Conservative NHS reforms. They wanted British Rail to stay in public hands. Most people now think selling off council houses was a mistake and they certainly don’t want the government to force housing associations to sell up either. Even in Thatcher’s pomp, support for privatising British Telecom and British Gas was at best lukewarm. Polls say most people want to stay in the the European Union, despite the EU’s best efforts to shit in its own nest.

If you look at what we like and what we want, a lot of people seem to be both social democratic and conservative. That’s not cognitive dissonance; it’s actually where most people on the left have been during the last 35 years. But it’s not hard to see why the conservative side usually wins out at the polls. People who support Thatcherism obviously vote for the Tories. They are joined by people who are basically conservative in disposition and actually think the Conservative party is, well, conservative. They vote Tory because of the party’s name and reputation. And then there are people, who for all their conservative and social democratic beliefs, simply think they’ll be better off under the Tories. Their personal financial wellbeing simply trumps their desire to save their local hospital or keep a good local school open to everyone.

But the British “Conservative Party” values nothing. It has been quite happy to sit back and see communities destroyed in the name of globalisation. It has been happy to see London turned into a global investment supermarket, driving more and more of the city’s working population to the margins or out of the city altogether. It’s done little to conserve rural Britain, encouraging fracking, axing transport services, cutting housing and social support, and leaving farmers exposed to the repacious power of global supermarket chains. If the “market” dictates and the market is controlled by a global elite, there is no room for community, tradition or neighbourliness. There’s no room for local people having a say. Those values are the enemy of the atomised, mobile workforce global capitalism demands – demands to which the Conservative Party almost always accedes.

UKIP has tried to cash in on this, but is hamstrung by its narrow and old-fashioned idea of English identity (conservatism isn’t the same as nostalgia), its quasi-racist reputation and hardline free-market ideology. Farage and his party have no answer to the insecurity and destruction wrought by unfettered global free market. Rather than tackle this difficult contradiction head on, they look for easy scapegoats – immigrants and the EU.

And Labour, while actually being more conservative than the Conservatives in opposing destructive change, offers no idea of the nation (despite Gordon Brown’s hamfisted attempts to articulate “Britishness”) and a very negative, cautious attitude to localism and community. Its conservatism is cut off from any sense of identity, heritage or even values. When it tries to be “conservative”, it just comes over as stick-in-the-mud statism or Blairite sucking up to the rich and powerful.

Community and togetherness ought to be something democratic socialists (or social democrats if you prefer) have in their blood. But the left has been terrible at expressing it and often seems ashamed to embrace community activism or localism (look at Labour’s feeble response to Devo Manc and its total incomprehension of what’s going on in Scotland). This has allowed an increasingly anti-community Conservative party to “own” the issue (in England at least) and, with the collapse of the “localist” Lib-Dems, bank the votes associated with it.

Socialism and conservatism (small ‘c’) are different but they are not opposites. As the steamroller of global free-market capitalism presses relentlessly on, they will be pushed even closer together. And, if blended well, conservatism and socialism are a powerful political cocktail. What is the SNP insurgency other than an effective mix of social democracy and traditonally conservative ideas about identity, national pride and “looking after your own”? What are the bouyant Greens if not a left-wing party of conservation trying to prevent what they see as cataclysmic change. Democratic socialists need to stop fighting it and embrace their inner conservative. Before it’s too late to save anything.

Bloomsday: Bloom contemplates his father’s suicide

Mr Bloom, about to speak, closed his lips again. Martin Cunningham’s large eyes. Looking away now. Sympathetic human man he is. Intelligent. Like Shakespeare’s face. Always a good word to say. They have no mercy on that here or infanticide. Refuse christian burial. They used to drive a stake of wood through his heart in the grave. As if it wasn’t broken already. Yet sometimes they repent too late. Found in the riverbed clutching rushes.

— James Joyce, Ulysses (1922), p120.

Social housing in Bermondsey, south London

Don’t forget – right to buy is also a directive to sell

I’m going to bang on about housing again. I’m probably going to bang on about housing until some Russian squillionnaire decides to launder his moolah by buying our east London maisonette (Crossrail’s coming soon, tovarishch!). At which point, we’ll be off and you’ll never hear from me on this subject again.

Almost everyone knows the government’s plan to force housing associations to flog off many more homes will make Britain’s (and especially London’s) housing crisis worse, not better. Almost everyone knows the replacement houses won’t get built – look what happened in Manchester, where only two out of 863 council houses sold off were replaced. Almost everyone knows less social housing will increase competition for privately rented hovels, forcing rents and prices ever higher for everyone.

So much for the consequences. But what about the policy itself? The effects will indeed be quite similar to the forced sale of council houses. But the politics behind it are quite different, and actually quite scary. “Right to buy” for council tenants was the state deciding to sell off a state asset for social policy reasons. The motives may have been suspect and the consequences disastrous, but it seems to me something a government with a democratic mandate was entitled to do.

Housing associations are charities. They are not arms of the state. The new policy amounts to sequestration of their assets because their aims and purposes differ from those of government ministers. Most housing associations were not set up to facilitate home ownership (however laudable an aim that may be), still less the profiteering that will follow as sure as night follows day. They were set up to provide affordable housing for people in need. That is what philanthropists give their money for and it’s what volunteers and housing association staff work for. The government is saying it doesn’t like those aims and is prepared to use the full force of the law to make housing associations serve the social policy objectives of the Conservative party instead.

It’s deceitful to call the policy “right to buy” without admitting that someone’s right to buy is also someone else’s obligation to sell. And in a democratic society, rights and obligations are supposed to be universal. So why won’t private tenants have a “right to buy” and private landlords a corresponding “obligation to sell”? (The fact that many Conservative MPs are buy-to-let landlords might have something to do with it.) Giving rights and public money to tenants who have enjoyed subsidised housing while denying it to people who have borne the brunt of Britain’s brutal housing economics is simply perverse.

But of course it is, because the policy has nothing to do with “rights” or extending home ownership. It’s about further reducing social housing, which Tories see as eating into the profits of private landlords and providing an electoral base for Labour and other dangerous lefties like UKIP.

It’s also a pretty naked attack on charities and social enterprise – the so-called “third sector”. Many Tories give money to the poor. Generally, they’re quite in favour of individual altruism, provided it’s on a modest scale. But the kind of grand, collective, entrepreneurial altruism which housing associations represent is beyond the pale. Charities that actually try to cure social problems rather than just alleviate the symptoms pose too much of a threat to their vision of a completely individualised and market-driven society.

Many people see social enterprise, self-help and community action as a democratic and non-statist way forward for the left. Perhaps the Tories agree. The government’s “directive to sell” policy for housing associations looks like their first attempt to block that way forward. It won’t be their last.

A lifetime of self-deception

My review of Tim Milne’s memoir of notorious MI6 double-agent Kim Philby is published in the Spring issue of Public Service Magazine.

Even at school in the 1920s, Kim Philby stood apart. According to this memoir by his schoolfriend and MI6 colleague Tim Milne, the future spy was a “fearless” loner, so secretive that he was never seen going to the lavatory. At cricket, Philby liked to field at deep cover, a remote position ideal for observing the game he loved…

Click here to read the cutting.

Cast from the new production of Rising Damp (2014). The guy being subsidised is the one in the middle by the way.

Subsidy Street

I’m going to propose something you don’t often hear from a socialist – I’m going to suggest we do away with a benefit. It looks like the government has its work cut out finding £12 billion of savings from the welfare budget so, in the spirit of post-election co-operation, here’s my contribution.

After pensions, housing benefit is the biggest element in the welfare bill, and is expected to top £27bn by 2018-19. Almost 40% – some £10 billion – of this is paid to private landlords.

Housing benefit isn’t really a benefit, it’s a subsidy. It enables landlords to charge rents that their tenants (i.e. customers) can’t afford to pay. If the government gave us money in order to buy a car we couldn’t otherwise afford, this would rightly be seen by everyone (probably including the EU’s lawyers) as a subsidy for the car manufacturer. To meet the social need to get about, we would expect the government to invest that money in better public transport.

What’s worse, it’s a subsidy that’s out of the government’s control. Landlords effectively decide how much subsidy they receive. They keep rents high knowing full well that the government will pay them on behalf of tenants (at least up to the ceiling set by the benefit cap). Rents aren’t set freely by the market; the market is “made” by the government. We don’t pay housing benefit because rents are high; rents are high because we pay housing benefit.

Of course, no good will come of withdrawing housing benefit overnight and on its own. It will simply lead to evictions and a collapse of the private rental sector. But that just shows how this is an economic sector dependent on state aid. Landlords are charging rents that are above what the market will bear because taxpayers are making up the difference.

If the government were to phase out housing benefit and invest all or some of the proceeds in social housing, tenants would gain security and (probably) better homes, while taxpayers would save money and acquire valuable assets which can be used to meet the housing needs of future generations. The social benefits of families being able to count on secure accommodation, rather than being shunted around from year to year on the profit-seeking whim of property speculators, are incalculable. (Of course, all this would be much easier to do in the short-term if we had a modern system of rent regulation, a policy unreasonably trashed during the election campaign by people who labour under the delusion – or pretend to – that we have a perfectly functioning housing market.)

The government knows this of course, but is happy to let the current situation continue because it doesn’t want a revival in social housing for ideological (and electoral) reasons. Right-wing governments always talk about getting rid of subsidies in theory, but are happy to pay them if the benefits are going to the right people – in this case landlords and property speculators, who are among the biggest supporters of the Conservative party. When the IPPR proposed something like this last year, it was endorsed by both London mayor Boris Johnson and Labour leaders. Nothing has been heard about it since.

Phasing out housing benefit, or even ending the practice of paying it straight to landlords, would cause rents to fall sharply, something which everyone knows has to happen sooner or later. Yes, some landlords will sell up, which would also reduce our stratospheric house prices. A lot of people wouldn’t like that. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.

Labour leadership candidates declared at 15 May 2015: Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Mary Creagh.

Wake up or smell the coffin

The UK, with or without Scotland, now faces permanent Conservative government. Once the Tories have redrawn the constituency boundaries in their favour, it will be virtually impossible for Labour to win a majority in England and Wales on its own, and Scotland is no longer willing to ride to its rescue. Exit poll guru John Curtice says Labour needs at least a 12% lead south of the border to form a majority government – greater even than Tony Blair achieved in 1997 – and that’s without the boundary changes.

Nevertheless, retired Blairites like Peter Mandelson, David Miliband and Alan Milburn insist the party must return to the New Labour strategy of the 1990s. If only it were that simple. The three Ms ought to understand their own project better: New Labour relied on both a two-party system and the existence of a substantial number of “soft” Tories willing to consider voting Labour. That way, Labour could safely move to the right knowing that its “core” support among working class people had nowhere else to go.

To borrow Jim Callaghan’s phrase, I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists.

First, there aren’t that many soft Tories. The Conservatives polled only 36% in 2015, compared to the 43% in 1992. There are your soft Tories, right there in that 7%. Secondly, move to the right and Labour’s core voters now have other choices. The SNP tsunami in Scotland, the UKIP surge in the north and east of England and the more modest progress of the Greens in the south, shows they’re increasingly willing to exercise them. Slim pickings on the right and leaking votes to the left – pursue the New Labour strategy and the fate of the next Labour leader will look more like Nick Clegg’s than Tony Blair’s.

How does Labour solve this conundrum of having to be both more left-wing and more right-wing at the same time?

I don’t know. Perhaps someone can work out a programme that will be both convincing to working class voters and credible to the Tory-leaning middle classes. Perhaps the Tories will tear themselves to pieces over Europe and people will flock back to Labour. Perhaps a spectacularly charismatic new Labour leader will generate such enthusiasm that all these dilemmas and past disappointments will be swept aside. Perhaps if all three of these things happen, Labour will be able to win next time. But I doubt it. And I bet you do too.

So let’s look at this another way. Labour can’t solve the conundrum, but maybe it doesn’t have to. The conundrum isn’t the problem. The problem is Labour.

The Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said something very important on the BBC last Friday. He said people have stopped seeing Labour as part of the British radical tradition and now see the party as “something narrow” and Labour politicians as “just in it for themselves”. He’s right. Since the election, Labour politicians have been talking about Britain as if it was a political party with a small country attached.

Stop it! I’m sick and tired of hearing about how “only Labour can” save the NHS, solve the housing crisis, end poverty and deliver a better life for working people. As we’ve seen, all too often Labour can’t. And if I’m sick and tired of hearing it, you can bet your last penny working people are fed up with hearing it too.

I love the Labour party (I’ve been a member for 30 years) and the labour movement (ditto), but they aren’t the the only progressive forces in the country. We face a daunting task in opposing the Tories’ ruthless programme, which seems to be nothing less than reimposing the plutocratic rule of the pre-democratic era. To stop them we will have to take on and beat the most powerful alliance of right-wing forces we’ve ever seen: global financial capitalism, a ferocious right-wing media controlled from abroad and a deeply-rooted Conservative party establishment, which extends into most areas of national life. Yes, the coalition of opposition we could range against them is formidable too. But only some of it is in the Labour party and the wider labour movement. Labour can’t do this on its own. And it shouldn’t try to.

Instead, we need some sort progressive alliance of all the anti-Tory forces in the country. We need to get a government elected that will introduce a fair voting system so we can – for the first time – elect a parliament that actually represents us. This is no time to be tribal, narrow-minded or cynically detached from electoral politics. The alliance needs to stretch from the Liberal Democrats through Labour, Plaid and the SNP, to the Greens. At a minimum, would it really be that hard to come to some arrangement that would allow Labour supporters to vote for Caroline Lucas with a clear conscience or save social democrats like Vince Cable from defeat by another Tory?

I know I might lose some of you here, but we also need to reach out to UKIP, or at least the millions of working people who voted for them. UKIP’s support for PR is self-interested, but that doesn’t make it any less justified. A single seat is an insult to the four million people who voted for them and the left shouldn’t be afraid of saying so.

But a progressive alliance or popular front is about more than a pact between political parties. It has to include anyone who rejects the Tory vision of a society based entirely on market relationships, where working people are just hamsters on a wheel in a global race that ever ends, where nothing humans make or do has any value except the profit someone (usually someone else) can extract from it. There are enough things we can agree on – an end to ideological austerity, investment in housing, universal human rights, fairer wages, better rights at work, fair votes, to name but a few – for us to put aside our differences for a few years.

And the same alliance should work together to make the Tories sweat for the next five years and beyond. Progressive politics in this country needs to be much more robust. Too often we’re content to fling statistics around to win the intellectual argument, and then to give in. A progressive alliance needs to link up all the groups around the country who will otherwise spend the next five or ten years campaigning in isolation. We need to win and be seen to be winning. People like winners. They vote for winners.

We can spend the next five years working our socks off in our different parties and campaigning silos, and the odds are we’ll be wasting our time. Or we can try to change our islands for good. The choice is ours, for once, not theirs.

None of this will happen, of course. No Labour leadership candidate will dare whisper his or her nagging fear that Labour can’t win on its own. The collective ego of the labour movement can’t take that kind of honesty. Probably the best we can hope for is a minority Labour government with a pact for voting reform cobbled together after the voting’s done. But if we’re going to do deals, wouldn’t it be better to do them well before the election so everyone knows where they stand? And wouldn’t it be so much better, so much more powerful, if Labour were to grow up at last and take the lead in such a progressive alliance itself?

Yellow peril, turnout wilt and Tory bulge – three more things we didn’t catch

Three other things are worth noting from the weekend’s number crunching. Firstly, the Tories did much better out of the Lib-Dem collapse than Labour. Partly this is because there were far fewer seats for Labour to gain from the Lib-Dems, but also because Labour voters were very unwilling to vote tactically to save a Lib-Dem MP (as some might have done up until 2010). So, ironically, the disdain felt by many Labour voters for the Lib-Dems actually hurt their own party.

Secondly, the dog that didn’t bark – turnout. Everyone was expecting a high turnout but it hardly budged from the 65% in 2010. When we see the detailed analysis, my guess is we’ll see that the much-vaunted surge in young people voting didn’t materialise. I’m not sure where the expectation of a high turnout came from. Perhaps we were taken in by high levels of election activity of social media. We should have realised that people talking about the election on Facebook and Twitter were probably always going to vote.

This election also saw a differential turnout effect – with turnout rising in areas where the Tories were defending a slim majority. We might have hoped this would help Labour; but actually it was Tories turning out en masse to save their Tory MP. Quite simply, the Tory campaign engaged their people much more than Labour engaged theirs. (This should be another warning against an unthinking Labour lurch to the right.)

Finally, there’s our old friend the Tory “bonus”. We need to face the fact that there is a long-term tendency for the polls to underestimate Tory support by about three percentage points. It doesn’t happen in all elections (not in 2010 for example) but it does happen in most – locals and Europeans included. I’ve no idea if this is “shy Tories”, “late swing” or whether it’s just, as former Home Secretary Douglas Hurd suggested on Friday afternoon, a sort of natural English tendency to plump for the “safer”, establishment option, which for middle-ground voters, seems to be the Tories. Even Hurd said this showed the English to be “odd”. Well maybe we are odd but we’re not going to change overnight, so during this parliament I will be adding three points to the Tory poll score and knocking a couple off Labour before drawing any conclusions.

farage-miliband.jpg

Clowns to the left, jokers to the right

The first step in making sense of this disaster for the left is to work out what happened. Understanding why the pollsters and everyone else misread the voters of English and Wales so badly will help us to work out what we’re going to do next.

First up, the polls didn’t get everything wrong. The scores for the SNP, UKIP, Lib-Dems, Greens and Plaid were more or less bang on. They correctly predicted the SNP landslide and Labour wipe-out in Scotland, even if no one quite believed it. But the polls got the Labour and Tory vote shares badly wrong, even if these were (just about) at the limit of the margins of error. And seat projections based on the polls totally failed to predict the extent of Liberal Democrat losses, especially to the Tories, or how the UKIP vote would hurt Labour so badly by stopping the party from picking up many key marginals from the Conservatives (and significantly reducing its overall vote share).

This last point is particularly important for Labour to get to grips with. It looks to me like we have vastly underestimated the loss of Labour and potential-Labour voters to UKIP over the last couple of years. These voters were probably telling pollsters they were undecided (which may have been true at the time they were asked, although the existence of “shy UKIP” voters seems plausible to me). I suspect many of these people were floating around between voting Labour (with little enthusiasm), UKIP, some other fringe party or not voting at all. Where UKIP seemed to be doing well, they went over to UKIP because Farage engaged them and Ed Miliband didn’t.

This would certainly explain UKIP’s unexpected surge to come within a whisker of nicking Heywood and Middleton from Labour in last year’s by-election. This, with hindsight, was much more of a straw in the wind than Rochester or Clacton. It might also explain the unexpectedly good showing on Thursday by UKIP in some Labour heartland seats, particularly in the north and east of England.

These voters – mostly working class, white and in insecure low-paid employment, have a disaffection from Labour stretching back into the Brown/Blair days. They have little stake in the system and so are easy prey for UKIP. They’re not worried by Farage’s clowning around or UKIP’s incoherent policies, because they think the political system’s broken anyway. They’re receptive to the idea that the EU and mass immigration are at least plausible explanations for their problems. Yes, some are probably racist, some are at least prejudiced. Most feel uneasy and insecure, and can’t see anyone else offering much by way of solutions. Reading James Meek’s excellent accounts of his forays into “Farageland” in Grimsby and Kent, could have told us much more than looking at the polls (warning: these essays are long but hard to put down).

My guess is we will find that a lot of these voters, alarmed by the SNP scare but unable to bring themselves to vote Tory, plumped for UKIP over the last couple of weeks. They were probably showing up in the polls as “undecided” or “weak Labour”. UKIP performed in line with the polls, so my guess is these “left-wing” Ukippers were offset by “right-wing” Ukippers (mostly ex-Tories) backing the Conservatives in order to avoid splitting the right-wing vote and letting in the Red-Tartan menace.

It’s important to remember that these ex-core Labour voters exist in every constituency, not just in Labour heartlands (yes, there are even some working class people in Surrey). There are certainly quite a lot of them in Tory-Labour marginals. In quite a few seats, they might have made the difference between Labour taking the seat from the Tories and falling a few hundred or a few thousand short (as happened all over the place). This would certainly explain why the UKIP vote was higher than expected in many key marginals but didn’t seem to hurt the Tories much. And for every one of these ex-Labour voters who voted UKIP, there are probably another two or three who felt the same but just stayed at home.

Labour really needs to get this before it plunges into the usual tug-of-war over whether it lost because it was “too right wing” or “too left wing”. For these voters, it was both. For what it’s worth, my view is that Labour lost because it was both not credible and not convincing. On the right, for middle ground voters, Labour’s economic programme wasn’t credible and the two Eds were not seen as credible alternatives to Cameron and Osborne. At the same time, on the left, it failed to convince working class voters who are seriously alienated from the political system (and from civic life generally) that it was going to do anything worthwhile for them.

Like Britpop nostalgists, Old Blairites like Peter Mandelson want to rehash all the old tunes from the 1990s, as if we still live in the comforting world of the old two party system (and they call themselves modernisers!) Putting all your energy into chasing after “soft” Tories doesn’t make much sense when there aren’t many of them (Cameron got 36% of the vote, John Major got 43% in 1992) and your core vote is slipping away faster than you can say Nick Robinson.

The idea that the millions of working class voters who voted for UKIP are really crying out for another Tony Blair is ridiculous. Yes, they may have voted for a nominally “right-wing” party, but their issues are ones left-wingers should have engraved on their hearts – jobs, housing, poverty, perpetual insecurity – as well as complex feelings about English identity and culture which are outside the conventional left-right framework. In the 1990s, these voters had no other choice than to vote Labour or stay at home. Now they do.

George Lakoff

Why are we still letting the right win?

Thinking about this election campaign and what might happen afterwards, I dug out this interview given by the American professor George Lakoff to the Guardian’s Zoe Williams back in February. It’s well worth a read if you want to know why the left has been generally losing the argument for the last 35 years.

Lakoff’s field is cognitive linguistics and his thing is “framing”. From what I can see this basically means the set of values we use to make sense of the world around us. They determine how we respond to events in our personal lives and well as things happening in the news. Frames “structure our ideas and concepts, they shape the way we reason… For the most part, our use of frames is unconscious and automatic,” says Lakoff. When we come across an idea that fits our frames, it strikes us as “common sense”. And in the long term political arguments are won by those who get most people to see their views as common sense.

Although he calls himself a “liberal” (US version), Lakoff is hyper-critical of both the American and European left. He reckons that by continually compromising with conservatives in spurious pursuit of the “middle ground” (which he says in value terms doesn’t exist — left and right are just two different ways of looking at the world), we are allowing politics to be shifted ever further to the right. Lefties are literally conniving with right-wingers in widening inequality, eroding human rights, trashing the planet and inflaming racial and national hatreds.

The left relies too heavily on reasoned argument and empirical evidence, when most people make political judgements on gut instincts about the world. Lakoff calls this emphasis on evidence, research and statistics (all produced within the framework set by global free market capitalism, of course) “Oxford philosophy”. Too often, the left ignores the emotional impact of political argument. Conservatives know this; they ruthlessly exploit emotion and present arguments that chime with people’s feelings. “Conservatives don’t follow the polls, they want to change them,” says Lakoff. “Oxford philosophy is killing the world.”

We’ve seen this during the British election campaign. Early on, the Tories’ blizzard of statistics purporting to show an “economic miracle” left voters cold and a bit mystified. The Tories panicked and spent a week trying to be more Labour than Labour with promises to splurge cash on the NHS and freeze rail fares. That didn’t work either – because it wasn’t credible coming from them. Finally, they reverted to what they do best: a highly emotional appeal to English nationalism coupled with lurid scare stories about the red and tartan menace about take over Britain. Everyone agrees that achieved “cut through” with voters, even if the Tories’ credibility is so shot that it doesn’t seem to have shifted many actual votes. But it did at least stabilise a campaign which seemed to be in meltdown three weeks ago.

One of the features of this later phase of the Tory campaign is the way they have stopped responding to arguments based on statistics at all: they just ignore them and press on with their emotional case. Household incomes down since 2010? “Alex Salmond is going to pick your pocket”. Record use of food banks? “The Labour recession.” Unbelievable cuts on the way? “Benefit scroungers.” Debt higher than in 2010? “Labour chaos! Greece! Jockalypse!” It ain’t pretty, it ain’t fair, but there’s a coherent message for people to respond to (think about how a novel can be completely coherent even though it’s all made up): Labour caused the recession. Labour spent too much of your money. Labour will do it again, aided and abetted by the SNP, who also want to steal your money. They want to break up the country. They’ll sell us out to Europe, and so on. Yes, it’s bollocks, but it’s coherent bollocks.

Labour has mostly tried to unpick the Tory case bit by bit – the recession was global, the deficit wasn’t that high by international standards, our plans are fully costed and set out in our manifesto and carved on a slab of stone we’re going to stick in the Downing Street garden – rather than make a coherent emotional appeal itself.

François Mitterrand speaking at Caen during the 1981 presidential campaign.

François Mitterrand wasn’t particularly left-wing but succeeded in making an emotional connection with voters.

Labour could say boldly that a decent welfare state is the cornerstone of a civilised society, especially in an uncertain globalised economy; it could argue that the recession was the product of decades of craven accommodation to the financial markets, pointing out how those markets can, in François Mitterrand’s memorable words, “ruin the work of millions of men and women in a few hours”; it could argue that public spending and collective endeavour built the world’s best universities, developed the internet, and established the world’s most successful universal healthcare system and the world’s most respected broadcaster (not to mention defeated the Nazis). When Labour has made some headway in this campaign, it’s been by making these emotional appeals rather than fighting on the Conservatives’ home ground.

For Lakoff, Tony Blair’s “third way” was just a symptom of the left’s confusion. We’re supposed to be against inequality but we’ve pursued free market policies which widened inequalities. We’re supposed to be against racism and xenophobia, but we’ve competed with Tories over who can be nastier to immigrants. We’re supposed to be against rampant corporate greed, but we’ve encouraged financial and property speculation and and let some very wealthy businesses pass their tax obligations onto working people. This isn’t compromise or moderation, it’s just weakness and incoherence.

And too often the left opposes the right in purely instrumental terms. We oppose benefit cuts by arguing the toss over the extent of the abuses. Instead we should be defending the principle of a welfare state and the values behind it — equality, human dignity, maintaining stable families and communities (remember when it was, rightly, called “social security”?) When the right attacks unions, we point out how far unions have been reformed, how little threat they pose to the oligarchs who control the global economy, how the “red menace” has been exaggerated. Instead, we should be asking how else working people are to supposed to get a fair day’s pay for a long day’s work.

This doesn’t mean a lurch to the left in policy terms. It’s more about emphasising what you stand for rather than the compromises you will inevitably have to make. There is a moral and emotional case for moderate social democracy as well as for more exotic forms of leftism. Labour’s policies in this election are actually more distinct from the Tories than at any time since 1992, but you’d never know it because the argument has been mostly about responding to what the Tories say is important. Which leads Labour wide open to allegations from nationalists and Greens that it’s betrayed working class voters.

If you think back over the last five years, it’s still much easier to grasp what the Tories stand for than what Labour is all about. From their campaign, you’d never guess the Tories have been in coalition and have achieved almost none of the objectives they set out in 2010. They’ve stuck to talking about what they stand for and what they’re against. Labour, on the other hand, has spent most the campaign talking about what they won’t do. That silly stone apart, Miliband’s done it quite well, but Labour had ceded too much ground before the campaign begun. It can take years for political ideas to resonate with the public: people didn’t really “get” Thatcherism until about 1985.

Lakoff’s argument doesn’t so much explain why Labour doesn’t win elections as why it fails to lay the foundations for future victories and build up the kind of loyalty that can see you through rough times. And it may explain why the left has to keep fighting the same battles over and over again.