The best thing about the Liberal Democrats is the inherent independence of the individuals involved. It means that every issue that comes along is usually judged on its merit rather than what the party machine says it should be judged on. Debate is kept healthy as a result; and many journalists have recognised that our party conferences are by far the most democratic and “unscripted”.
Unfortunately, what can be our best asset is occasionally our worst enemy. The one thing that tears local parties and council groups more than anything else is the fact that by whatever means necessary, members will stick to their guns. Unfortunately this “stand of principle”, as some like to call it, actually means that the damage done to the team as a whole can be so fatal that they are no longer able to enact their principles in a positive manner, bringing an abrupt end to their progress in making a difference to real people. The recent elections in Liberal Youth highlight this quite aptly.
“Politics is broken” has become the mother of all bandwagons. Everybody says it, all politicians clamber to acknowledge it, but the constant revelations of things that these politicians are doing wrong (or the things that are, at the very least, morally questionable) immediately gives the topic a radiation of insincerity, hypocrisy and empty hollow rhetoric. One of the unfortunate effects within the Liberal Democrats is that local councillors have identified that people are turned off by the usual negative campaigning, but there are many disagreements as to what negative campaigning truly is. The entire debate (if you want to call it that, I prefer ‘rant’) is personified in the discussion of literature content.
I am sick of seeing barcharts. I am sick of seeing “Labour can’t win here!” everywhere. Why am I sick of it? Because I see it all the time. I deliver the leaflets regularly, and it is always the first thing right at the top of the page – the famous squeeze message. Other councillors have transferred their own annoyance at their own perception of this repetition onto the debate on what residents really find off-turning about politics. They could not have missed the mark further. The golden rule within politics is that no matter how much our entry into public service was driven by a hatred for those currently in it, once you get involved, your perceptions slowly disintegrate from that of a normal resident to somebody who is actively involved in promoting and enacting the principles of a political party. The irritation you feel with the content of your own literature should not be assumed to be the embodiment of the irritation residents feel. Squeeze messages are vital. Short and snappy messages are vital. These are the basic principles of marketing.
Those are the people on the one extreme of the debate. They would like to think that residents are pleading for the return of election literature that reads like a PhD thesis; that the Focus newsletter is the highlight of their month so they can sit down, pour a glass of wine, and spend a good hour absorbing a 800 word essay on the pros of proportional representation. They are, in my opinion, misguided and wrong. Their interest in the workings of party politics does not transfer to the average Joe – otherwise all average Joes would be putting themselves forward for election with the same enthusiasm and vigour as our councillors and candidates do.
Whilst I tip my hat to the middle-ground in this debate, it would be wrong to mention one extreme without countering it with the other. There are campaigners within the party who believe that more is more, that negative actions have a direct link to positive outcomes, that the ends always justify the means. These were the people who wrote a campaign article in Henley attacking the Tory candidate for being employed by a company that lobbies councils on planning matters. The argument, of course, was that the Tory candidate surely couldn’t claim to care about rural issues if he worked for such a company. It reaks of hypocrisy – we would say that Vince Cable is an environmentalist, despite the fact he used to be a chief economist for Shell. Attacking somebody for what they do as a job is such a low blow, and it was the reason I chose not to come out and help in Henley. If a political party has to stoop to that level, then they do not deserve to win. Like the other extreme mentioned formerly, I believe that the people who condone and implement this way of thinking are misguided and wrong.
I don’t understand why so many people cannot see where the line is in this debate. People do not like seeing politicians being hypocrites, so the simple answer to that one is not to accuse the other lot of something you yourself are (or have been) guilty of doing. People do not want to see you ardently attacking the opposition as a main plank within a campaign, yet of course it is your right (and obligation) to highlight the flaws of your opponents so that they are kept accountable.
Those of us in the middle ground want to see literature that keeps us in line with our principles. Forget jumping on the Obamawagon; forget pandering to local activists who don’t like the barchart; forget sensationalist headlines that do more to fuel public distaste with politics than they do in keeping your opponents accountable. Don’t waste your time bickering with each other on how best to do things – if you find yourself spending more than five minutes discussing (or ranting) it with your local party, then perhaps as penance you should do an extra round of leaflet delivery. Always remember, of all the squeeze messages there is one that is most important: infighting NEVER wins here.
Tags: "Broken politics", campaigns, election, literature
