Don't Think of A Sycophant.

I am currently reading the excellent 'Don't think of an elephant!' by George Lakoff, a brilliant book on how successful conservatives have been in America at 'framing' political debate. One of the books central messages, understandably stems from its title. This is the old thought experiment in which if you command someone to not think of an elephant, they without fail will. In relation to politics its central premise is that in America those with progressive values often lose the debate because they choose to fight it on the conservatives terms. It is obvious to see how this has ended up in America. Obama's attempts at a centre left presidency which conservatives ought to be able to accept if not agree with is hamstrung on every side by conservatives moving the goal posts further and further to the right, only for Democrats to follow and attempt to squeeze in the left hand corner.

For us in the UK it is a little more complex, on some issues progressives* have succeeded in 'framing' the debate since Thatcher's time. We live in a socially more tolerant country than before, many of the coalition's more right-wing policies have had to be described as a 'reform' or performed under the cover of deficit reduction. (many are cuts that save little but hurt some profoundly.) The likes of Norman Tebbitt sabre rattle from the right about pet issues, impotent because the debate has moved on. Yet in other areas the frame never changed. On welfare, tax, crime, the marketisation of services and regulation, right-wing ways of thinking hold sway. It would be easy to blame this on the Tory Press (and in some ways right). However the reasons for it lie in one of the central tenets of New Labour, its original sin if you will: triangulation.

The best example is perhaps tax. Lakoff uses the example of 'tax relief' in his book of a way in which progressives accept a right-wing way of thinking even when arguing against it as the word 'relief' implies that somehow tax is an affliction to be alleviated rather than the price to be paid for the upkeep of a civil society in which businesses and individuals can prosper. Why is it now that in our country that people on benefits are vilified routinely but tax avoiders lauded and asked to provide advice to government? Because New Labour accepted the terms of the debate that tax and government spending are both inherently bad in many cases. The two New Labour positions on the issue were 1.) To not waste any opportunity to 'go after' benefit cheats and constantly talk up initiatives to 'get the feckless off benefits'** and 2.) To be 'intensely relaxed' about the richest having tax arrangements that led to them paying very little in tax. For the public then it's not a huge step to see the Tory position of 1.) Regarding all those on benefits as fair game for raids and 2.) Actively encouraging tax avoidance or trying to cut rates of corporate tax to ones not worth avoiding as reasonable. Under New Labour 'reform' came to become a byword for increased marketisation of public services, now 'reform' is happening at breakneck speed, without the furore this would have created in the past, and crime became a childish debate between those who 'locked up' criminals and those 'soft' on crime.

Even the Lib Dems, for so long the only party to not accept these frames of debate (except in that now notorious tome The Orange Book) now do. Having in the past chosen to champion public spending as a real force for good, they now seem to see their main objective to be to somehow squeeze their own progressive ideals into the goal posts which the Tories have moved miles to the right. Marketise education? Fine so long as our pupil premium might mitigate its effects a little bit. Raise VAT? Cut services the poorest rely on? That's ok, some will pay a bit less income tax. These Lib Dems haven't necessarily lost their ideals but they now must try and achieve them within a Tory framework. They should learn from New Labour's failures that this leads to poverty of ambition and ultimately failure. Putting wheels on a tortoise doesn't make it a limousine.

Ed Milliband then did exactly the right thing in appealing to disaffected Lib Dems to help Labour. This is vital for both progressive Labour and Lib Dem supporters. Labour because it doesn't have the monopoly on wisdom and needs help in escaping its tired New Labour ways of thinking. Lib Dems because they are being drawn into the same trap, winning the odd victory, trying to do the right thing but failing because they are accepting premises that should be an anathema to them. Tim Farron's response to Ed Milliband's offer was telling. In its first line it rebuked Labour for sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and George Bush (2003 called, it wants its political insults back.) then went on to list Lib Dem 'achievements' in the coalition government, such as the pupil premium and income tax plan. Putting aside arguments over the merits of those policies (see here and here.) if he's throwing his lot in with the coalition because of the odd sop to progressive policies he's doing exactly what New Labour did by buying Conservative arguments on the nature of tax and public spending then trying to mitigate their effects. A Labour Party reaching out to Lib Dems and offering them the chance to shape progressive policy for the future offers them a choice: not to become the true heirs to New Labour's worst mistakes.

*Progressive is a clumsy term, for a general definition Lakoff p14. seems about the bst I've come across.
** The point here is not that there shouldn't be fewer people on benefits but how you portray them: victims needing help or wastrels needing a shove?