Labour's shrinking poll lead increases party jitters

Having previously enjoyed a double-digit advantage over the Tories, the party's lead has been reduced to single figures, far below the level needed to be confident of victory.

It was the Tories, rather than their Labour counterparts, who left for the summer recess with their tails up, largely for the reasons set out by David Cameron in that final, triumphant PMQs. "The deficit is down, unemployment is falling, crime is down, welfare is capped, and Abu Qatada is back in Jordan." Alongside this, as Thursday's GDP figures will confirm, the economy is finally beginning to recover and the party is united in support for James Wharton's EU referendum bill. 

Recess is always a time when Labour jitters increase as MPs return to their constituencies to find few of the party's messages are resonating on the doorstep and Labour's shrinking poll lead won't help matters. For more than a year after George Osborne's "omnishambles" Budget, the party enjoyed a double-digit advantage over the Tories but today's YouGov poll puts its lead at just three points, the lowest level since March 2012. 

We'll have to wait and see whether it's an outlier but the trend is clearly downward. In the four previous YouGov polls, Labour has led by an average of just six points, a level far below that required to justify hopes of winning a majority in 2015. History shows that support for oppositions invariably slumps in the months before the general election as voters come to view it as a choice between competing alternatives, rather than a referendum on the government. It's for this reason that Labour officials privately speak of the party needing a lead of around 15 points to be confident of victory. 

As I've argued before, it's still more likely that Labour will be the largest party after the next election than the Conservatives. The electoral system continues to favour it (the party needs a lead of just 1% on a uniform swing to win a majority, while the Tories require one of seven); UKIP, which draws around 60% of its support from 2010 Tories, will continue to split the right-wing vote; most Lib Dem defectors are likely to remain loyal to Labour (they'll never forgive Clegg for his betrayals over spending cuts, tuition fees and the like); Labour's brand is strong even if Miliband's isn't (46% of voters say that they would "consider" voting for the party compared to 40% for the Tories) and the Lib Dem incumbency bonus will hurt the Tories (who are in second place in 37 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats) the most.

But it's now far from unthinkable that the Tories could remain the single largest party (which would require a lead of around three-four points) and reunite the coalition for a second term in government. All of which means that, once again, the pressure will be on Miliband to deliver "the speech of his life" come conference time. 

David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby to listen to the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament on May 8, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Just face it, being a parent will never be cool

Traditional parenting terms are being rejected in favour of trendier versions, but it doesn't change the grunt-like nature of the work.

My children call me various things. Mummy. Mum. Poo-Head. One thing they have never called me is mama. This is only to be expected, for I am not cool.

Last year Elisa Strauss reported on the rise of white, middle-class mothers in the US using the term “mama” as “an identity marker, a phrase of distinction, and a way to label the self and designate the group.” Mamas aren’t like mummies or mums (or indeed poo-heads). They’re hip. They’re modern. They’re out there “widen[ing] the horizons of ‘mother,’ without giving up on a mother identity altogether.” And now it’s the turn of the dads.

According to the Daily Beast, the hipster fathers of Brooklyn are asking their children to refer to them as papa. According to one of those interviewed, Justin Underwood, the word “dad” is simply too “bland and drab”:

“There’s no excitement to it, and I feel like the word papa nowadays has so many meanings. We live in an age when fathers are more in touch with their feminine sides and are all right with playing dress-up and putting on makeup with their daughters.”

Underwood describes “dad” as antiquated, whereas “papa” is an “open-minded, liberal term, like dad with a twist” (but evidently not a twist so far that one might consider putting on makeup with one’s sons).

Each to their own, I suppose. Personally I always associate the word “papa” with “Smurf” or “Lazarou.” It does not sound particularly hip to me. Similarly “mama” is a word I cannot hear without thinking of “Bohemian Rhapsody”, hence never without a follow-up “ooo-oo-oo-ooh!” Then again, as a mummy I probably have no idea what I am talking about. If other people think these words are trendy, no doubt they are.

Nonetheless, I am dubious about the potential of such words to transform parenting relationships and identities. In 1975’s Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich describes how she used to look at her own mother and think “I too shall marry, have children – but not like her. I shall find a way of doing it all differently.” It is, I think, a common sentiment. Rejecting mummy or daddy as an identity, if not as an individual, can feel much the same as rejecting the politics that surrounds gender and parenting. The papas interviewed by The Daily Beast are self-styled feminists, whose hands-on parenting style they wish to differentiate from that of their own fathers. But does a change of title really do that? And even if it does, isn’t this a rather individualistic approach to social change?

There is a part of me that can’t help wondering whether the growing popularity of mama and papa amongst privileged social groups reflects a current preference for changing titles rather than social realities, especially as far as gendered labour is concerned. When I’m changing a nappy, it doesn’t matter at all whether I’m known as Mummy, Mama or God Almighty. I’m still up to my elbows in shit (yes, my baby son is that prolific).

The desire to be known as Papa or Mama lays bare the delusions of new parents. It doesn’t even matter if these titles are cool now. They won’t be soon enough because they’ll be associated with people who do parenting. Because like it or not, parenting is not an identity. It is not something you are, but a position you occupy and a job you do.

I once considered not being called mummy. My partner and I did, briefly, look at the “just get your children to call you by your actual name” approach. On paper it seemed to make sense. If to my sons I am Victoria rather than mummy, then surely they’ll see me as an individual, right? Ha. In practice it felt cold, as though I was trying to set some kind of arbitrary distance between us. And perhaps, as far as my sons are concerned, I shouldn’t be just another person. It is my fault they came into this vale of tears. I owe them, if not anyone else, some degree of non-personhood, a willingness to do things for them that I would not do for others. What I am to them – mummy, mum, mama, whatever one calls it – is not a thing that can be rebranded. It will never be cool because the grunt work of caring never is.

It is not that I do not think we need to change the way in which we parent, but this cannot be achieved by hipster trendsetting alone. Changing how we parent involves changing our most fundamental assumptions about what care work is and how we value the people who do it. And this is change that needs to include all people, even those who go by the old-fashioned titles of mum and dad.

Ultimately, any attempt to remarket parenting as a cool identity smacks of that desperate craving for reinvention that having children instils in a person. The moment you have children you have bumped yourself up the generational ladder. You are no longer the end of your family line. You are – god forbid – at risk of turning into your own parents, the ones who fuck you up, no matter what they do. But you, too, will fuck them up, regardless of whether you do it under the name of daddy, dad or papa. Accept it. Move on (also, you are mortal. Get over it).

Parenting will never be cool. Indeed, humanity will never be cool. We’re all going to get older, more decrepit, closer to death. This is true regardless of whether you do or don’t have kids – but if you do you will always have younger people on hand to remind you of this miserable fact.

Your children might, if you are lucky, grow to respect you, but as far as they are concerned you are the past.  No amount of rebranding is going to solve that. This doesn’t mean we can’t change the way we parent. But as with so much else where gender is concerned, it’s a matter for boring old deeds, not fashionable words.

 

 

 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.