An open letter to Rachel Reeves: being "tough" on welfare won't work for Labour

Rather than trying to outflank the Tories, the party needs to think harder about how to create a greater sense of collective identity and solidarity.

Dear Rachel Reeves,

As the new shadow secretary for work and pensions, you are now the face of Labour's policies on social security and benefits, and will likely stay there until the 2015 election. So you have a unique opportunity to rethink the failed approach of the past and offer voters something bolder at the next election.

The conventional wisdom within Labour is that the party is seen as 'soft' on people who claim social security and too forgiving of people who abuse the system. You will know that poorer people are usually harsher towards others on benefits and want tough sanctions on abusers of the system. You will have seen polling that suggests Labour needs to neutralise that image or else people may be tempted to vote for the Conservatives in 2015. Hence you wanted to sound tough in your interview with the Observer on Sunday.

This is a safe approach and has been part of Labour's vocabulary since Tony Blair said he was "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". It has also stopped working; all the evidence shows it just takes Labour further into a cul-de-sac without a way out. Here's why:

1) It stopped working for New Labour
You couldn't accuse the last Labour government of being soft on people on welfare benefits. Successive ministers were trotted out repeatedly to deliver harsh language on "scroungers" and "fraudsters" who ripped off the system. Labour even unveiled billboard ads calling on people to report benefit fraudsters. And yet, a 2010 poll found that 66% of people thought Labour "was close to" benefit claimants. If being 'tough' on claimants is a good strategy, why didn't it work for New Labour?

Last week the American cognitive linguist and writer George Lakoff (the author of Don't Think of an Elephant) toured London and made a point that some campaigners have been making here for years: adopting your political opponent's language doesn't neutralise your disadvantage, it cements their advantage as the centre of gravity shifts in their direction (just ask your colleague Stella Creasy, she was there too). New Labour helped create a harsher climate for people on social security without reaping any political benefits, despite silly gimmicks such as lie-detector tests.

Most people don't pay attention to policy details. Labour would have to do something very drastic, perhaps beheading a welfare claimant live on TV, to cut through to voters and convince them that it is 'tough'. Otherwise they just think you're pandering for votes and dislike you even more.

2) Look at immigration as a warning sign
New Labour adopted the same strategy on the issue of immigration. Phil Woolas was regularly wheeled out to deliver sanctions and he didn't mince his words. The Conservatives didn't give Labour any breathing space of course - they shifted even further to the right and kept attacking Labour. Once again there was no political benefit for Labour. In fact, it created a monster for the Tories, as they now face public disillusionment over their absurd promises.

As in the case of social security, by feeding a war of words on immigration, New Labour ended up alienating some of its own voters while convincing almost no one. Even uber-Blairite John McTernan admitted this failure. Reports show that tough rhetoric only shifts attitudes even further away from where Labour needs them to be. As Emma Burnell recently pointed out, "If all we intend to do is ape the Tories in a macho punishment contest we will fail. Because the public refuse to see us like that however hard we tried."

3) Labour should appeal to voters but think broader
How about this for a message: "Labour is absolutely committed to reducing the welfare bill, but without the divisive and demonising language of the Tories. To do that we need to get people into well-paying jobs, and Labour will offer not just a jobs guarantee to the long-term unemployed, but refocus our economy to create better jobs. That is about creating a different kind of an economy that isn't reliant on property bubbles and the City, and one where we pay vastly less on housing benefit and unemployment." Tough on the costs of social security without the demonisation.

But there is a broader problem here. Britons are less appreciative of some welfare payments because our society has become more individualistic and atomised, with a breakdown of traditional social links with neighbours. Labour has to think harder about how to increase a sense of collective identity and solidarity within Britain if it wants to preserve the welfare state. We have to reverse government policies that increase loneliness and kill communities.

As Labour's policy review co-ordinator Jon Cruddas once said : "An ex minister wrote last week of how we needed to 'crack down on the welfare underclass'. Others argue for us to become the 'anti immigration party'. A new kiss up, kick down politics that blames the victim. There lies political death for labour. No language, no warmth no kindness; no generosity, vitality nor optimism. No compassion. If you seek to outflank the coalition from the right, you will turn Labour into a byword for intolerance."

This talk of Labour 'walking into a welfare trap' set by the Tories has itself become a problem: we keep returning to the safe ground of 'tough' rhetoric, without convincing messages or policies that favour Labour in the long term. It is time to bring some fresh thinking to this debate and I hope you won't shy away from doing so.

Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves.

Sunny Hundal is editor of Liberal Conspiracy.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.