Did Ed change the nature of political debate in his conference speech? Many out there think he did. A few disagree, but there is no doubting that the language of the debate is changing – and more towards Labour than the Coalition. His Conference speech is now more powerful, on second reading, than it was when I watched it in Liverpool.
Ed Miliband has understood something quite powerful in politics: the power of words. When his ‘squeezed middle’ concept was first floated commentators on the left and the right bemoaned it as a generalization and a construct of a man desperate to make his mark. A year on and the squeezed middle is as powerful and as clear a description of much of the British public as any I have seen. Labour’s sometimes tiresome reworking of ‘hard-working families’ has been replaced with something that is all the more encompassing and embracing of Tory, Lib Dem, non-voters, the swing and Labour’s core vote. Everyone thinks of themselves as being part of the squeezed middle.
Ed’s phraseology sometimes doesn’t deliver the instant knock out punch of Blair’s era or the caffeine hit of the Prime Minister. It should perhaps be seen more as a time bomb. A political explosive that won’t go off right away but will explode as the days and weeks pass. His notion of ‘predators and producers’ is one such time bomb. Superbly placed to capture the very real and genuine disregard held by the public for asset-strippers and their City chums. Predators and producers are the long-life milk to Cameron’s often sweet tasting but short-lived soundbites.
But let’s look closer at what Ed was saying in his speech. Now, as a strong supporter of Ed Miliband, it is important to know what Ed is good at and what he isn’t so good at. Set piece speeches, however much en vogue in political circles, is something that Ed struggles with. You know this, I know this and I suspect he knows it too. If there were more honesty in politics, we’d pump that line out before such set pieces to ensure the political credentials of a leader are as much about credibility, thoughtfulness and empathy as the somewhat fashionable ability to stand on a stage, without a lectern, and read of giant autocues at the back of the hall. There’s more to a good speech than just delivery – although it does help.
Let’s focus more on the language of Ed Miliband than his oratory. A good way of doing this is to read the speech not watch it. Ed’s delivery is improving all the time and this year’s conference set piece was a much-improved product from last year. But reading it like a political pamphlet, the lost art of written advocacy, gives you quite different impression.
In its written form the language and its power comes alive. Discussion of what is right and wrong is not moral lecturing, it replays back what voters tell us on the doorstep. That some people with the wrong values are getting more than those with the right values is what I hear campaigning in Plymouth. His words also helped shoot many Tory foxes: the knighthood for Fred Goodwin, the legacy of Brown and Blair, the love in (perceived or actual) with big business of the New Labour days. Being on the side of ‘wealth creators not asset strippers’ realigned Labour’s moral compass. Whether it actually needs it or not, this is part of the rebirth of the party and many in the public need to see us acknowledging what many of our voters who deserted us in 2010 regard as mistakes. You can keep much of the substance but the process of refounding the movement requires such public statements as this.
Being in opposition seems to be a bit like join the dots. Bear with me here. You know what kind of picture you want to create you just need all the dots to be joined in the right way. Two dots that stubbornly refuse to be joined together seem to be the powerful message architecture of our Leader for which I have heaped much praise above, and the delivery of that message via leaflets, sound bites, interviews and grassroots engagement.
This is not lazy shorthand for community engagement, but a simple requirement to turn words, ideas and phrases that are awesome and powerful into campaign materials that will (should) reach many more than the speech alone and over a longer period.
Let’s have dovetailed PrintCreator leaflets, template letters, brand imagery and all the paraphernalia of political campaigning to deploy on the ground immediately. The Tories are often better at this than we are. They have understood that big pockets buys nifty designers, high quality paper and shiny inks as well as couriers to get them out of printworks and Westminster and into marginal seats. We don’t need the pizaz of Tory literature necessarily but we do need the paper and the message. And that’s where I hope our new General Secretary will help join up the party’s campaign arm with the Leader’s office. Ed’s speech is campaign gold, with ideas that act as a mirror to the concerns of ordinary voters.
Unsurprisingly, it works online too. Instead of sending an email to volunteers just with a link to the speech, let’s also add on a link to template leaflets so volunteers in Plymouth, Brighton, Edinburgh and those who live just outside the secure zone in Liverpool indeed, can be revving up the risographs and taking the message to the public.
Look at the trade unions as an example of how this works brilliantly. No sooner than Ed had walked off the stage, had the unions adjusted their language to talk about predators and asset strippers. Their message changed to support those workers with the right values (Bombardier workers for instance) against those with the wrong values (Cameron’s city banking friends). And they use it in their media and their outreach – making the language more powerful and turning the war of words in our favour.
And let’s remember why winning this war of words is so important. Do you remember top up fees? As a student I campaigned against the then Labour government who were considering introducing top up fees. The idea of upfront fees with the cap taken off was abhorrent. The government listened and created something a bit more palatable with capped post-dated fees – still pants, but better. These weren’t top up fees but our opponents and indeed, many on our own side called them it from day one. We lost the war of words. We spent years fighting on someone elses’ ground having to fit our arguments around their termingology. Let’s never do that again. Let’s win the war of words and have the Tories justifying their actions on our terms.
Language is a powerful tool, and in this respect Ed Miliband has changed the nature of the debate. Subtly and astutely the battle is being fought not on Cameron’s terms but Ed’s. Nick Clegg has little to offer in terms of a convincing narrative. Language becomes more powerful when it is echoed, discussed and shouted about. That was something we did par excellence in the New Labour era where Tony’s messages were echoed by the Cabinet, Junior Ministers, backbenchers and often constituency parties. Such a concert of voices is powerful and with powerful language is almost unstoppable. We could do with a bit more of an echo chamber to build the volume of Ed’s speech in towns and cities across the land.
So, my plea to you is to do two things now. Firstly, read
Ed’s speech in plain text. Don’t watch the video snippets, but read the text. Secondly, spend a moment thinking how his words would work on a leaflet. Because they do. They really do.
Luke Pollard was Labour’s Parliamentary candidate in South West Devon at the last General Election. He lives in Plymouth and works in the travel industry.
