Labour recognises that it can't build a One Nation country alone

We understand that governments, on their own, cannot fix everything. Families and communities, businesses and trade unions, civic society, and elected leaders at every level must play their part.

Most of those gathered to hear Ed Miliband’s speech at the Labour Party conference in 2012 recognised that under his leadership the party had become an effective and united opposition. They also knew that fresh scandals over top pay, consumer rip-offs and banking sharp practices had vindicated his call for a more responsible capitalism, and that his analysis of the problems facing the squeezed middle and the need for deep reforms in the economy had struck a chord with millions of voters.

But it is only fair to say that some of those present last year in Manchester had doubts about how Ed could draw all this together into an overarching political project.

Those doubts were swiftly dispelled by an extraordinary speech, delivered without notes. Ed Miliband rose to the challenge, as he had done in the past. The theme of his speech, a closely guarded secret until he stood up, was a vision for rebuilding Britain as One Nation: "A country where everyone has a stake; a country where prosperity is fairly shared; where we have a shared destiny, a sense of shared endeavour and a common life that we lead together."

This was not just an audacious land-grab of a phrase once associated with a more compassionate era of Conservative government. Nor was he describing some impossible dream. Instead, the speech addressed, full on, the challenges facing Britain today. 

"Here is the genius of One Nation", he told the Conference:

"It doesn’t just tell us the country we can be. It tells us how we must rebuild. We won the war because we were One Nation. We built the peace because Labour governments and Conservative understood we needed to be One Nation. Every time Britain has faced its gravest challenge, we have only come through the storm because we were One Nation … To overcome the challenges we face, we must rediscover that spirit. That spirit the British people never forgot. That spirit of One Nation."

Since that speech, Ed Miliband and the shadow cabinet have been setting out what this means for our economy, our society, and our politics: a recovery made by and for the many, not the few; a society in which everyone has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to take part; and a party and a democracy that is open to everyone, not the preserve of closed circles or a narrow elite.

The building blocks of One Nation include not only new policies but also a radical process of party reform. Labour is renewing itself as a movement and helping to give a voice to people from every part of Britain and every walk of life. These changes will underpin the next Labour government, so that we can work with citizens, communities, businesses and civil society to meet together the challenges we face together.

Labour has already set out a series of radical new proposals that show how a One Nation government could begin rebuilding Britain, together with the people of our country: policies to get our banks working for our businesses, and our businesses fulfilling their responsibilities to their customers and employees; policies to ensure our public services give young people a fair chance to play their part and our elderly population the dignity and care they deserve; policies for the redesign of our tax and social security system so that everyone pays their fair share and responsibility goes all the way from the bottom to the top; policies to reform and renew our politics so that we can begin to reverse the disaffection and hopelessness that discourages too many from taking part. And of course the Labour Party will have more to say about all this and more before the next election.

The One Nation book we have edited is not about policy, or a blueprint for political reform. Instead, it shows how our policy programme and our campaign for the chance to implement it in government are anchored in people’s everyday lives, experiences, aspirations and struggles. Our values are vividly present in so many of the personal stories and local histories that make up our country. The brilliant, resilient and resourceful people and communities of Britain are ready and eager to play their part in rebuilding our country as One Nation.

But there is also a humility in the vision of One Nation. We understand that governments, on their own, cannot fix everything. This humility, though born in opposition, will continue when we are in government. We know that Labour will not be able to deliver the change Britain needs unless we make it a common endeavour – unless we work with families and communities, businesses and trade unions, civic society and elected leaders at every level. The fundamental renewal of Labour’s values, organisation, and approach to politics and social change, is the most important and transformative part of Ed Miliband’s project.

This is an extract from the introduction to the new book One Nation: Power, Hope, Community

Rachel Reeves is shadow chief secretary to the Treasury and MP for Leeds West

Owen Smith is shadow Welsh secretary and MP for Pontypridd

Workmen fix a Labour Party Conference banner to a fence outside the conference centre on September 21, 2013 in Brighton. Photograph: Getty Images.

Rachel Reeves is shadow chief secretary to the Treasury and MP for Leeds West

Owen Smith is shadow Welsh secretary and MP for Pontypridd

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.