Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Labour's framing failures

Episode 124

By Mehdi Hasan Published 23 January 2012 13:23

In this week's New Statesman, I have a piece on how Labour is now fixated on a political and economic agenda set by the Tories, who are much more adept at controlling the narrative and "framing" issues. I refer to the work of US cognitive linguist and progressive thinker George Lakoff who argues that attacking your opponents' frame ends up reinforcing their message. Lakoff outlines "a basic principle . . . when you are arguing against the other side: do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame - and it won't be the frame you want." For Lakoff, progressives rely far too much on just dry facts and figures, on Enlightenment reason; conservatives, meanwhile, focus on morals and values. Guess which side tends to succeed in getting its message, its frame, across to voters?

I couldn't help but think of Lakoff and the debate over framing this morning as I listened to Stephen Timms, the shadow employment minister, and one of the nicest and brightest politicians in the party, discuss the coalition's benefit cap on the Today programme, ahead of the debate in the Lords this afternoon.

It was, in my view, a car-crash of an interview and a perfect reminder of why Labour frontbenchers need to understand the importance of framing and get themselves copies of Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant!

The interview began with Evan Davis asking Timms:

What is your policy on the [benefit] cap?

To which the shadow minister replied:

We support the idea of a benefit cap but we are worried that the government wants to introduce it in a very damaging way that is likely to end up costing more than it saves.

In his very first answer, Timms unilaterally disarmed - Labour accepts the "idea" of the cap and quibbles only with the implementation and cost of it. Is this approach going to cut through to voters? Or is it going to confuse the Labour message and reinforce the Tory frame on benefits (out of control budget, feckless claimants, undeserving poor, etc, etc)? I think we know the answer.

Timms then outlined the details of Labour's specific amendment to the bill and pointed out how the opposition objected to the way in which the cap, in some cases, "would make a family homeless" and force them "to be rehoused by their local authority" - at a greater cost.

Next, devil's advocate Davis put forward Iain Duncan Smith's argument and took a pot shot at the Labour position in the process:

The guys is trying to save lots of money on welfare....he meets opposition at every count. he hears people who say they support werlfare form but oppose everything he suggests. I wonder if that's not what you're doing hear, because you say 'We support the idea of a cap but we don't want the cap to be nearly as high as the government are proposing', in effect.

Timms's response began:

We've tabled a specific amendment...

Yawn. A few moments later, the shadow employment minister volunteered the following, astonishing statement:

The government has suggested...there is going to be lots of transitional help. I don't know what that's going to be. We haven't heard any details of that. Maybe the House of Lords will be told what that amount to. That presumably will be costly. We're saying change the bill...

Hold on, did I just hear a Labour spokesman voluntarily, of his own accord, without prompting from the interviewer, remind the audience of a Tory talking-point ("there is going to be lots of transitional help")? Really? Timms might say he was trying to rebut the point (again, incidentally, on practical (i.e. cost) grounds, rather than on moral grounds) and so it's worth remembering Lakoff's dictum: attacking your opponents' frame - be it on benefit caps or deficit reduction - ends up reinforcing their message.

Timms then got caught up in knots trying to answer Davis's question on whether Labour would support an amendment to exclude child benefit from the cap, prompting the genial Today programme presenter to note, with only the faintest hint of sarcasm:

You're not really able to say anything...

He then added:

It would obviously help if you had a policy. We'd know what was going to happen.

Ouch.

So what could Timms have done instead? Well, for a start, he could have said:

Isn't it wrong that this coalition government spends so much time trying to take money from the poorest, most vulnerable members of society while refusing to tax bankers' bonuses?

He could have said:

Evan, let me ask you this: could you or any of the other Today programme presenters live on 62p a day? That's what the coalition government want hard-working, low-income families to try and do with this arbitrary cap. Is that right? Is that fair?

He could have said:

I happen to agree with the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown who says he won't vote for this bill because it'll increase child poverty. If even Paddy Ashdown gets it, why won't Nick Clegg and Vince Cable?

He could have said:

Shouldn't the Work and Pensions Secretary be focusing his energy and attention on creating jobs for the record 2.7 million people who are out of work right now, rather than trying to take money away from some of the poorest, most vulnerable families in this country? The best way to get the benefits bill down is to get people back to work - which this coalition government doesn't seem to be able to do, with 1,300 people a day being thrown onto the dole.

In fact, I happen to think it is both bizarre and unforgivable for a shadow employment (!) minister to appear on the radio and not then mention the word "unemployment" at all, or take the opportunity to attack the coalition's shocking failure to create jobs. "Jobs, jobs, jobs" should be the Labour Party mantra.

I should add, however, that it might be a bit unfair to pick on Timms like this; other shadow cabinet ministers make similar, if not worse, mistakes when it comes to opposing Tory (and Lib Dem) policies. Labour's frontbench is constantly on the defensive, unable to acknowledge or understand the importance of picking their own frames and making their own arguments. As I point out in my piece in the magazine:

There is a theme here - the Tories set the agenda, Labour operates within it.

Until this changes, I think it'll be pretty difficult for Labour to win a majority at the next general election.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Welfare Iain Duncan Smith Child Benefit unemployment Coalition Labour

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

29 comments

Tue, 2012-11-20 22:10 — qoreexv (not verified)

xfxyqxg

Fri, 2012-04-13 14:49 — EVANGELINE35Mckenzie (not verified)

From time to time even professional high school students cannot to manage with difficult essays. What can they do? My intuition hints that they must ask: " write my essay ".

Sat, 2012-04-07 12:18 — WolfBROOKE34 (not verified)

I think that to receive the personal loans from banks you should have a good motivation. However, once I have received a small business loan, because I wanted to buy a bike.

Fri, 2012-01-27 14:47 — Awake!

er mehdi u trying to become an mp or something??

Mon, 2012-01-23 20:41 — Politico (not verified)

Medhi you really do need to get a life.

What would Lakoff say to this

Is it wrong that politicians of all parties including the Lords spending so much time spending tax payers money on a subsidised canteen, expenses and giving up to 15% bonus to their office staff whilst making decisions on the poorest that does not affect them.

He could have said:
Medhi let me ask you this: Could you or any other London wide boys like Dan Hodges and Neal Lawson live on 62p a day. Is that right is that fair?

How much do you earn Medhi?

Whoops. Your framing really does work.

Sat, 2012-01-28 18:16 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Iain Dunce Smyth never was good at sums. Don't stop the Tories - let them suffer the consequences of class cleansing.
Been in Budapest recently?. The dispossessed there, no, not teenage vampires, are even taking bites out of better-off city dwellers.
There's no easy solution. Remember Mrs T selling all the 'free' blood supplies, not gold ingots, just human gore, to foreign blood-suckers whose dead-beat stock had become of dubious qualitiy.
Blood out of a stone - that's Iain's speciality. Let's hope he's solved his housing problem, reviewed his parliamentary expenses and settled the boarding school fees charged by Eton. Unless his son/daughter is in receipt of a bursary.

Widow's mite

Dracula

Tue, 2012-01-24 00:22 — Simon (not verified)

Medhi...does anybody actually pay you to write this crap? I hope my subscription to Sky is not used as payment for your appearances. Find something else to do. I think the students union is looking for a president, I think you would find it more suitable. Ta

Tue, 2012-01-24 00:35 — Phil (not verified)

Excellent analysis, Mehdi. I couldn't agree more.

Tue, 2012-01-24 00:41 — mary8

Romney has come unstuck in the States, over revelations that he only pays tax on his immense income at 15%. Amongst all this rhetoric about irate taxpayers up in arms over benefit payments, as a taxpayer, I would love to know just how much tax, and at what percentage, is paid by the millionaires in the cabinet.

Wed, 2012-02-22 10:12 — Abraham2

It was this kind of thinking that got Obama elected (though it got dropped the moment he entered power rather stupidly) and makes far more sense as a means of setting the debate rather than following free market doctrine. The biggest crash since the 1930's has shattered faith in the free market, but no-one has put forward a real alternative, and until Labour starts challenging the Tories head on they might as well not exist. http://www.101realestate.net/

Tue, 2012-01-24 10:47 — Anon (not verified)

Very true Mehdi. However the terms are set by TINA not the Tories. Until Labour steps aside from this charade and behaves like they believe there may be an alternative to runaway elites and crushing of the masses, then they are a bit stuck when it comes to differentiation. Put simply how can they frame it in their own terms when they are unable or unwilling to countenance any overarching theory but the prevailing one?

For example the two news items yesterday provided two opportunties. 1 - decry the runaway, uncontrolled, irresponsible, destructive, crony capitalism of exponential pay at the top (surely a vote winner if done with sincerity), 2- get caught up in messy political posturing on tinkering with the safety net for the bottom (It's a f*cking safety net, someone spell it out - some will always play their sad little games)

If they wanted a frame there was a golden opportunity. Good article.

Tue, 2012-01-24 13:28 — Drivel Spouting Pleb

This is absolutely correct, its not even some kind of deviant spin, its about communicating your own ideas with your own language rather than justifying your policies upon the opponents turf. Like with the deficit, rather than talk about how Labour would deal with the deficit or even stating that the cuts are wrong they should be putting forward ideas for growth and jobs rather than play the Tories game.

The biggest crash since the 1930's has shattered faith in the free market, but no-one has put forward a real alternative, and until Labour starts challenging the Tories head on they might as well not exist.

Mon, 2012-01-23 14:11 — arif merali (not verified)

i'm sure this approach would work better but its pretty dirty, obfuscatory stuff - you don't want labour to discuss specific policies - i know it works but its pretty cycnical - i for one hate it when politicians don't answer questions specifically. Isn't there a way of being serious, analytical and effective?

Mon, 2012-01-23 14:35 — Tony (not verified)

So Labour isn't very good at spinning a line, is that it, Mehdi. Maybe they should get somebody in. What was that Press Officer's name again? Alistair Mandelson was it? It's precisely the kind of thing you are advocating which got them to where they are now. No policies, no message is what is happening.

Mon, 2012-01-23 14:47 — shufflebox (not verified)

Fair points. I read that Lakoff book and found it a bit annoying, but Labour really are a rubbish opposition at the moment, in the sense that they sound more like a coalition partner, supporting the general policies but opposing the specifics. Though kudos to the Tories (with a little help from the media) for doing all they can to close down the debate, with that Stalinist 'There is No Alternative' line.

I'm also sympathetic to arif merali's point though; is it possible to be both emphatic on an issue and yet show you understand the complexities ('tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' does this brilliantly, imo, though it was just a slogan in the end)? Perhaps not in a 5-minute interview...

Mon, 2012-01-23 14:52 — Tony (not verified)

BTW. Good hatchet job on the buffoon Con Coughlin on Boulton.

Mon, 2012-01-23 14:56 — mcquade

First BIG D'OH of the day goes to Tony. His name was Alistair Campbell and he contributed to keeping Labour in power for 13 years.

Mon, 2012-01-23 15:16 — Politico (not verified)

Mr Hasan. Why are you still here. You wallow in a quagmire of political depravity.

Mon, 2012-01-23 15:36 — betterdeadthanred (not verified)

In other words - Don't answer the questions, make up your own and answer those instead.

Mon, 2012-01-23 15:43 — Arturo Bandini (not verified)

They could point out that the real disgrace is our low-wage economy.

If people earned a decent living the benefits that some receive would not appear to be so generous, and we'd have greater tax revenues to pay for them.

Simple.

Mon, 2012-01-23 15:45 — Tony (not verified)

Mcquade. Some people don't do irony, do they. You would be an American perhaps?

Mon, 2012-01-23 16:43 — Kernow Castellan (not verified)

You are absolutely right here (although I often disagree with you on policies).

Labour has forgotten that the government sets the agenda, and you have to work hard to not fall in line with it, thus reinforcing it.

This is how to be an effective opposition.

Campbell, Mandelson and Blair knew this in the 1990s and taught the rest of the Labour party. They learnt it from Thatcher (although the theories weren't around then).

Labour has forgotten how to be an effective opposition. In its hatred of AC/PM/TB's policy decisions, it has forgotten the lessons they taught it about messaging.

Unity. Clarity. Your agenda (not theirs).

However, it does not seem likely to re-learn them anytime soon.

Mon, 2012-01-23 17:10 — Hal (not verified)

The same is true on the economy. The real problem is private-sector indebtedness, both household and corporate, and how this has to be reduced before economic growth can be resumed. Government has a role in helping this process.

There, isn't that a better frame?

Mon, 2012-01-23 17:29 — AlmosJustice (not verified)

The Labour Party as constituted no longer exists and hasn't done since the opportunistic career seekers of New Labour emasculated the left. Labour don't seem to realise that many of their erstwhile supporters, and constituency, have not disappeared. We have not gone away, we have just realised that we have no representation in national politics. The mainstream are doing their very best to ignore movements like Occupy, UkUncut and Climate Camp. Acyivists everywhere are now concentrating on building alternative structures outside of the mainstream. We are fed up to the backteeth of what we perceive now to be a one party state. We are angry and disillusioned. We will also not be drawn back into the fold of mainstream debate and politics, as long as we PERCEIVE that there is no social justice representation. The political and financial/corporate classes dominate mainstream media, and so we take to other methodologies to conduct our politics. Labour need to wake up and take advantage of the huge amounts of anger that exist about government inability to seperate themselves from the neoliberal orthodoxy that has brought the west to it's knees. As a lifelong labour supporter of 30 years, they have lost me, and many others, perhaps for ever, or at least until we get a social democratic leadership back. For many of us on the left, we are more angry at labour's conversion to the neoliberal agenda, than the utter cruelty of the tory ideologues.

Mon, 2012-01-23 19:28 — andyg (not verified)

@ Mehdi.
He could have said: Evan, let’s be clear about the policy of the labour party. This barbaric government policy is to want the hard-working, low-income families to live on 62p a day. Paddy Ashdown has stated that he refuses to vote for a bill that will increase child poverty, a man who has now taken up the voice of the left wing because the left wing believe that they are so right with very few exceptions.
Shouldn’t the work and pensions secretary be focusing on creating jobs for the 2.7 million people who have been placed into a financial position of hardship; instead we see that it is these very people, some of the poorest and most vulnerable who he has in his radar for money extraction. What will the long term likely consequences of this Bill be for these people and their communities? The best way to reduce the benefits bill is to get these people back to work and not to throw 1,300 people a day onto the dole. Think of the health impact as a by product of unemployment and how some of these people will drift into the black markets. Think of the wasted generations of graduates and the young, is this really the way to run a country as a responsible government while at the same time not been able to make up your mind of how much you should be paying out in bonus’s for the few. Or, whether you should be taking away someone’s knighthood. When will this coalition do the right thing and set an example of these villanous people? When as a government they talk of responsible government, for whom do they really govern? Do you think that this is the right and fair way to govern Evan, what do you think mate? Do you think that this is fair Evan, stop shaking and answer the bleeding question, well do you Evan?
Keep it up mate........but the writings on the wall!!!!!