Mar
26
The change we need: a review
Filed Under Labour politics | Leave a Comment
I’ve just finished reading ‘The change we need: What Britain can learn from Obama‘ edited by Nick Anstead and Will Straw. It’s the first political pamphlet I’ve read in a couple of years and I was pleasantly surprised. It’s a good read, combines narrative and commentary with hard data and despite the range of different contributors, maintains a common threat throughout. These are all considerable achievements.
The pamphlet is a good thing in itself. It is important that where there are lessons for progressives in Britain from the USA (or any other country as Luke Akehurst has pointed out) that they are learnt and good ideas replicated where necessary. Social justice cannot be achieved within one country and strong links between progressive parties is vital. Moreover, the unending optimism of US politics and the excitement and reverence they have for their President is always an allure for British political activists. I, too, have paid homage to the US and worked on campaigns over there.
Each contribution is also strong and whilst many contain things I already knew from journalism, others did not. For example, I always thought that micro-targetting was discredited by Mark Penn and the failed Clinton campaign and rejected by Obama. It’s interesting to see that beneath the rhetoric the political campaign remained focussed on what works. And whilst I knew that storytelling was a powerful political device (or sales for that matter) I enjoyed David Lammy’s conclusion that:
“The state is there to help society govern the market – not to stand back and hope for the best, as the right would like to do.”
The pamphlet should also be commended for its honesty and recognising that for all the real and rhetorical ‘activist-led grassroots campaign’ the Obama team also maintained iron discipline over the campaign and the things that really mattered to it, freezing out activists where necessary and always controlling the message.
However, there were two significant weaknesses in the publication. Firstly, it lacked a rigorous analysis of the extent to which Obama succeeded and why this was the case. Because whilst he won the election, it wasn’t a landslide. And whilst he got a greater share of the vote of some segments of the electorate (women and African-Americans in particular) he also under-performed Kerry in other respects. And his campaign only increased turnout marginally and won fewer states than Clinton in 1996. Howard Dean raised money online and lost and John McCain had a Facebook group. So what was it about Obama campaign structure that helped him win? This pamphlet doesn’t identify the answer.
Secondly, the pamphlet does not acknowledge sufficiently the differences between the UK and the USA. For example, Labour was using SMS in 2001 and the Democrats under-used it chronically in 2004. And for all the benefits of building an activist base as Obama did, the lack of infrastructure is a serious impediment. I found in 2004 that I was preparing leaflet delivery rounds a week before polling day – something that any marginal CLP would have had in place years earlier. And in the USA there were far more paid staff than is ever possible in the UK but even then the lack of experience led to poor use of resources as I found in Spokane. And whilst Labour party members could donate more, there’s a much wider cultural difference in giving than the way Labour treats its activists – just ask any British university about the size of US endowments.
As a result of these failings, the pamphlet arrives at some very weak conclusions.
1. “removing all barriers to participation”
I was able to campaign in Spokane last summer because of these lack of barriers. But if I was a US resident wanting to campaign in Hackney, I’d only have to go to Facebook to find out when the next campaign event was. There aren’t any real barriers to campaigning for Labour in Britain – only to attending boring meetings which is probably for the best. And as for scrapping subs, there isn’t convincing evidence in Britain that it’s the cost of joining a political party that is deterring thousands of activists.
2. “Enable channels for dissent and debate”
There are plenty of channels for dissent and debate – just not the people to use them or the creativity to use them properly. Unfortunately the pamphlet fails to distinguish adequately between the sort of debates that were allowed within Team Obama and the fact that it was a distinct machine from the Democrat party.
3. “Give supporters the tools to self organise”
As the pamphlet recognises, Labour is already working on this and I’m sure it would do more if it had the sums of money that coagulate around US politics.
4. Keep supporters better informed
As above. But there’s no evidence that better informed supporters (assuming they by-pass the national press - non-existent in the US) will be more valuable.
5. Reward hardwork and entreprenueralism
This is a really strong recommendation. Unfortunately it fizzles out with “moving towards open primaries for candidate selection”. This ignores the voter registration arrangements in the US but the pamphlet also fails to mention the competitive element of the Obama campaign which rewarded activists with better access – and is something that Labour did with its Passport to Victory in 1997.
For a pamphlet of this importance, I would have drawn a different set of conclusions. These are perhaps less exciting but far more practical and useful for the next election:
1. Reconsider the fundraising pitch moving beyond ear-marks and towards value-based giving
2. Test materials before distributing widely. This is a key element of micro-targeting and has to be better than distributing 25,000 election addresses with no idea of how they will be received
3. Ignore all expensive IT infrastructure. The party is too poor and mostly these things can be got free thanks to web 2.0. Instead invest in activists and party staff
4. Use the power of incumbency whilst it remains
5. Control the message better. Most of our politicians can’t do story-telling. They are like used-car salesmen in the late 1990s. Deny them airtime and only put forward politicians who really connect with the public.
EDIT: There are two really important and useful comments below which add greater detail in Obama’s achievements and greater nuance to the Fabian pamphlet. I accept that Obama’s was a considerable achievement and recognise that I sometimes underplay this. However, I do so because there’s so much hype around him and his achievements that I always feel a need for greater balance. In seeking to address this, I’ve perhaps gone too far the other way.
No related posts.