Hmm, this word “narrative” that has become so incredibly popular over the last year.

What, exactly, do people think it means? The dictionary says:

n.
1. A narrated account; a story.
2. The art, technique, or process of narrating.
adj.
1. Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story: narrative poetry.
2. Of or relating to narration: narrative skill.

So, that would be either telling us a story, or the art/technique of talking as though something is a story.

Now, perhaps we want our politicians to tell us (bedtime?) stories.

Perhaps what people mean when they say “narrative” is a coherent binding-together of apparently disparate aims and values so as to present a unified programme, which people can support as a programme. This seems to be what Sunny means here, I think.

But that raises the obvious question: isn’t that exactly what Miliband is trying to give? A beginning part of his story where he says what New Labour got wrong, a middle part of his story where he suggests what it could aim to get right, and an as-yet-unwritten end part of his story where he convinces us all that by having him as leader will unite beginning and middle and hey-presto, the narrative will have been created.

In other words: don’t you just end up creating a narrative by doing what E-Mil did on Saturday, and whether he succeeds in creating a narrative will depend on whether he can successfully lump his laundry list together in such a way that people end up accepting it as a coherent programme? Which rather suggests that E-Mil can’t just offer you up a narrative in one quick go – he’s got to tell it over time. And hence, it might not be particularly helpful to keep hammering-on about the N word, as every member of the commentariat (myself included) has been so prone to doing in recent months.

We ought not to blame Ed for pleasing a room full of fabians – why would he lay forward his outlines for market and corporate responsibility, it’d be a nosedive – however the caveat is that we are going to have try and translate that ourselves; how will he stand up top audiences more inclined to scrutinise and pour their scorn.

The three things that Sunny wants to see here are narrative, policy and charisma/passion – the key elements to a good leader.

Ed Miliband has played a crucial part in defining who Labour are with his writing the manifesto, but this is a history that we ought to sweep aside pretty sharpish – perhaps Miliband is too connected to a narrative that is slowly coming to its knees.

Though, what we surely need is someone who reintroduces those old elements of labour, for a lot of the problems that forced the need for a democratic socialist party have not gone away, and will arguably rear ugly heads again in time for those looming austerity measures.

On policy Miliband appears like someone who can break with old, saying things left unsaid in days gone by; class and the immigration debate, spending time with Fabians on Saturday made me realise that the left of centre are also dying to have immigration come to the fore, as some party line on the subject would benefit them when they knock on doors. By not talking we open the door for the far right, and it looks like Miliband is happy to take this to the next step.

However, what’s more, our identity should not simply be one of not-Blairrite, or not-Brownite, we need to fully escape these terms and have an positive identity based on the values that have held Labour as a party for years. Another possible candidate for leadership spelt out the best of what Miliband is saying, and more, with a ten point plan including:

* electoral reform
* economic democracy (social banking, away from that of speculative banking)
* social housing crusade
* a cancellation of Trident
* scrappage of ID cards
* closure of tax havens
* cancellation of third Heathrow airport
* devolution of power to local authorities
* fair employment contracts for all
* the protection of those in poverty who would be affected by a future of Tory cuts (in more detail here)

And with passion and charisma, Ed Miliband is doing his best but he is soft, I wish this didn’t matter but it does, and for anyone who has seen him speak on panels with more scrutiny (say, for example, Question Time) debate is not a strong focus.

Instead the leader needs to be a good speaker, but can talk sensibly and clearly to people, even those who may be marginalised. We need someone who spells out from the start that they are on the side of everyone, even those people hard to reach, and a reasoned opinion of people that have sought answers from the far right – like Jon Cruddas said of his constuents, Barking is not full of neo nazis, Labour just needs to reconnect with a portion of the population dispossessed by the politics of the last 13 years, and would be by succeeding politics too far still in its shadow. In fact, we need Jon Cruddas as leader.

Has Ed M been interviewed by Paxman before, one-on-one? I’d be interested to see how he holds up.

The Giroscoper has sensible discussion of the Fabians’ week-end do over here:

http://giroscope.blogspot.com/2010/05/reflections-on-fabian-conference.html

[3] the portents do not look good?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwitI_18uHg

In response to blanco, Ed Miliband was interviewed briefly by Paxman at Lab Party conference last year. He actually didn’t come across that well – became flustered and irritable. Whilst I’m a big fan of Ed, he needs to work on his communication style and ability to deal with hostile questioning if he’s to be a successful Labour leader.

Regarding policy detail and overall vision, I think that will come later in the campaign. As there are officially only two horses in the race so far its too early for Ed to set out his stall in its entirety. But I think he’s certainly got the ability and passion to outline a strong vision for the left.

I disagree with his strongest supporters that Ed M ’speaks human’ and comes across as very affable and down-to-earth.

He comes across as an arrogant elitist who has never done a proper day’s work in his life and is more interested in getting one over his sibling than standing up for any principles.

Are there any substantial policy differences between the candidates?

I hope I can manage to engage constructively with this thread, because it is very important. Here are some random thoughts.
I think we need to join up the discussion and debates about narrative(s), civic nationalism and what we mean by ‘progressive’ with any talk about strategy and tactics, organization and presentation. .
After Obama’s win, the Fabian Society held the first meeting on “What can we learn from Obama’s win?” (I have now attended too many, feel most have ‘been missing the point’ and am bored with the discussions, so apologise for bringing this up yet again)

At the end of the (very good) conference Ben Brandzel (OFA and 38 Degrees) asked the audience to list the defining moments/achievements of (can’t remember how he characterised them) either the progressive movement(s), labour movement or party. I was really struck by how much difficulty people had in coming forth with much beyond the NHS and a few others. Some things should be at our finger tips: just for starters, Magna Carta, abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, universal suffrage, abolition of slavery, de-colonisation NHS, welfare state, trade union rights, anti-discrimination laws, equal pay, minimum wage, abolition of hereditary peers, Human Rights Act etc etc.

While none of these are the property of one Party (and I am a Labour Party supporter), they were not the ‘gifts’ of one party either: they are all the achievements of what could be called progressive movements (I am not comfortable with the way the term is used here, but we can use it broadly to say moving forward towards greater democracy- which includes civil liberties and human rights – and social justice(now called fairness) – which I consider the distinguishing values of Labour.

On Progress, I posted a version of the following in response to Nur Laiq’s post on ‘Clegg’s Hopey Change Thing.’

“Obama had a very clear narrative with a very specific ‘message of hope’ that was anchored in a progressive reading of US history. For example, his ‘not red or blue states, but a United States’ was reinforced by historical allusions to those moments when Americans ‘worked together.’
He also constructed his narrative as a progressive one: we struggled to achieve a better America – again with references to the work against slavery, for women’s votes etc. The power of his ‘hope and change’ message was continually re-enforced by the critique of the ‘present’ and therefore the need for ‘change’ being accompanied by ‘hope’ that was realistic because we have achieved it before.
The resonances were powerful because they used/conjured up traditional images of Americanness and yet deployed them effectively in a call for change.
In contrast, for example, Clegg tried to present his party as ‘new’ and thereby severed any links with its ‘liberal’ roots which would have shored up his arguments re civil liberties against Labour and ‘social democratic’ adjuncts which would have positioned him well against the Tories. Labour also failed to construct its own narrative of achievement powerfully enough and could/should have countered that it was the party of ‘hope’ because it has a long history of ‘progressive change,’ and is the only party to give real hope to the people who are weighed down with burdens.”

For Americans (and I have a foot in both camps, but am more active in the US one), constructing this is perhaps easier. We have a powerful civic nationalism which gets concrete expression in our national holidays (Independence Day, MLK day), anthems, and symbols. The interpretation of these is always contested. As John Stewart pointed out (roughly paraphrasing) on Thanksgiving, half of Americans are celebrating the ‘founding of a shining city on the hill’ and the other half are atoning for its genocide of the Native Americans. And you can recognise the politics of a gathering by what ‘anthems’ are played (so it was great to see Pete Seegar playing This Land is Our Land at one of the inauguration events). While that call for a ‘united’ rather than red or blue states has obviously not been successful (I never thought the analysis was right or that it would be), it was a very powerful call-out.

Obama’s win depended on its very effective organizational underpinning for the campaign –building upon well-established ‘progressive’ organizations and new ones and a very friendly media (except for Fox who pursues its revenge relentlessly).

Here I think the apparent popular support for the ‘coalition’ is at least partly to do with its ‘fit’ with the narrative(s) about a need for a ‘change’ and ‘new politics’ so emphasised by the LD/Cons and amplified and validated by the media narratives about ‘corrupt politics/politicians’ and its persistent characterisation and trashing of Labour and Brown as ‘old, tired and tribal.’
Very initial and random thoughts.

Just a quick point in response to Sunny’s observation that the speech was light on policy detail. It must be quite difficult, so very soon after the election, to know how to play this. If you stick to the policies Labour focused on during the election it looks as though you aren’t responding to the fact you’ve just been voted out. But if you offer something radically different then that will also seem rather odd, as though you didn’t agree with the manifesto, or have only just managed to think up some really *good* ideas.