ASK ME ANYTHING: ANSWERS
You asked. I will attempt to answer.
Earlier in the week, I asked through this email and on Twitter for your questions. Thanks to the many of you who got in touch. I don’t think I have left any out, but my Twitter filters are high so I might have - in which case I apologise. Please email me if I did and I will do a supplementary edition!
@Jruddy99 asks “Do you think the "Great Railway Betrayal" will have any impact on Tory fortunes in the North, come the next election (I'd like to think yes, but my head says probably not).
It is quite rare - in my opinion - for one bad or misjudged policy to make all that much impact on a government. There are ones we talk about - for example, Thatcher and the Poll Tax, Blair and Iraq. But even these iconic moments are not all that they seem.
Both the Tories and Labour went on to win the next election after these though with significantly smaller majorities. And I think that may be the game at play here.
What the disasters the Government have faced in the past fortnight have in common are two things. They are exemplary of the arrogance with which they feel entitled due to their large Commons majority and they are the beginnings of the concrete examples that the disconnect many have felt between the soaring rhetoric of their campaigning and their vastly inferior delivery.
In the end, it won’t be individual policies that will make voters think again about supporting the Tories at the next election. But those letdowns could form a much bigger narrative of arrogance and letdown that will feed into precisely the rich (and not unfair) seam of resentment much of the country feels that they so adeptly tapped into in 2019.
@forwardnotback asks 1: Should there be a limit on the number of consecutive terms MPs can serve 2: Should Christmas Day be moved to June 21?
My short answer to both of these is no.
Let me try to explain why.
On the first, I can absolutely see the temptation with term limits. Some MPs do become complacent and stuck in their ways, while the bottleneck that is inherent in what remains a popular job choice is limited to 650 people. If someone in a safe seat doesn’t want to stand down, there is very little that can make that happen outside of a rare deselection.
So yes, there will be some MPs who are past their best and out of touch with the reality of many of their constituents.
But there will also be MPs who have made a conscious effort not to lose touch. Whose weekly surgeries and many, many interactions with their constituency over the years have made them better MPs and better able to continue to do a difficult and complex job.
There is also the fact that term limits may well be a way of discriminating against MPs based on age. I have often argued in favour of there being younger MPs in the commons for it to be truly representative. This is true in the other direction. A diverse commons would not be made up largely of people doing 2-3 terms in their 30s and 40s (which would be the reality of this measure).
There should be other, better ways to hold coasting MPs to account that do not discriminate on the grounds of age and do not punish those who have gone out of their way to ensure they stay grounded.
On Christmas: Geez! How much does Summer want from us? We get most of our bank holidays then (and I assume if Christmas were to move, so too would the associated holidays). Kids get the long school holiday then. We usually go away from the sunniest it gets here to somewhere even sunnier. The days last *forever*.
Religiously, there is absolutely no reason for the celebration of the birth of Jesus to be held on the 25th of December. But spiritually, a time where we take time off to celebrate with family and friends at the lowest ebb of the year, just after the shortest day, make a great deal of sense to me. The week from Christmas to New Year where we take time off to relax and assess the year gone by is a great boundary between that which has passed and that which is to come and I would absolutely keep it this way.
Anonymous asks “Do you think Starmer is aware that going along with self-ID is going to lose him millions of votes? He acts as if he’s unaware, but surely he must know?”
I am here going to slightly question the premise of this question.
This is not to duck the issue. I’ve done so before a bit, but it doesn’t work. Once you are tarred with the very broad brush of transphobe (a label I reject utterly and consider a painful slur on my character and relationship with the trans and non-binary people I know, love and care about) then there is literally nothing you can do or say to remove it.
Knowing that to be the case, frees one up to talk about the genuine issues that come with the debate around self-ID. Because there are some and we have to accept and acknowledge that as a foundation to making the world better for trans people and for vulnerable women. There are spaces where these rights come into contention and there are places where they will need to be negotiated by people in good faith. Prisons, refuges, changing rooms and reserved shortlists are just a few policy areas where we will need to talk to each other not shout past each other. We cannot have a ‘winner takes all’ approach when it comes to the vulnerable because by definition that means significant harm to the losers. Whoever they are when the dust has settled.
Labour’s current position seems to largely consist of vague handwaving support for self-ID and an utter inability to be able to do enough research to understand the arguments for and against, and thus just shrugging off anyone who challenges you as a bigot.
The embarrassment senior politicians should feel is not at the positions they have chosen to take, but at their utter and complete inability to be able to make the arguments for these positions properly. This should be enormous and when they look back, it will be. But this is nothing next to the fear that both sides of this horrible and divisive argument should have about *any* policy made with so little debate and scrutiny. The capacity for backfiring is enormous and obvious to anyone who is willing and able to see it.
So that’s my stand. Like it or not. Most people won’t.
My question is how much this will really damage the Labour Party politically. The answer is that I just don’t know. Polls around this area are usually written in such a way that they end up with deeply contradictory outcomes. Most people will have a basic sense of ‘live and let live’ (a perfectly good and reasonable starting point) but few go on to consider the detailed proposals. Those who do, care deeply on both sides. But both groups are in loud minorities.
So will this affect Labour in terms of its relationship with the voters? I don’t know. What worries me is my sense that there is no appetite for a neutral source to find out while the battle continues to rage.
@LastBlairite asks “Why does the Labour Party appear so miserable all of the time? Why does it struggle with optimism?”
I think this comes down to a couple of things. Firstly, Labour is in opposition. There is an adage that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them and recent polling fluctuations may bear that out. That does mean that Labour’s job - particularly mid-term - is to highlight all the reasons why the voters should reject the Tories. That means highlighting what is wrong with the country after 11 years of Tory misrule and what is wrong with what the government are doing and failing to do right now. A certain amount of highlighting misery is necessary.
However, it will also be essential for Labour to offer a coherent, optimistic and deliverable alternative. The problem is that coherent and deliverable are rarely as inspiring as optimistic - something the current government are discovering to their cost.
Labour’s 2015 manifesto and campaign were far too transactional. Labour’s 2019 manifesto had a wild optimism the voters didn’t believe in. But other than a few headline-grabbing ideas, the policy difference was far less than either the left or right of Labour’s forever wars will tell you.
In many ways, the 2017 manifesto did capture the spirit of both optimism and deliverability. And while those who claim Labour really won that election make themselves look foolish, those who deny Labour’s advance under that manifesto and campaign do too.
So look at what worked then. What worked in 1997 too? But don’t think that this is about repeating old ideas. A spirit of optimism and realism have to be realistic about the reality we currently face and the future we are able to achieve.
@DrAndrewV2 asks “What’s the TV show theme tune that makes your heart sink?”
I’m not sure there are any these days. If I don’t want to watch something there is so much variety out there I can just change the channel or watch something I have recorded.
When I was little, it was the news - ironically.
There are theme tunes that I love though. The Snooker, Blake’s Seven, Knightmare, Rentaghost and anything by Ronnie Hazelhurst gets a thumbs up from me.
@ThicklyP asks ‘Which historical political/cultural figure do you reckon would have had the strongest Twitter game?”
What I wouldn’t give to have seen Dorothy Parker take on some of the current legends in their own timeline.
@Cuzlze asks “Does Labour attract a disproportionate number of absolute liabilities compared to other parties, or do I just notice them more because I'm a Labour Party member?
No this isn’t a Labour problem. All parties have this. Really and truly.
I don’t know exactly what you mean by liabilities but there isn’t a party around whose membership is not plagued by difficult people. We all have these. The downright dangerous perverts who are a genuine liability in poorly managed and policed spaces full of the vulnerable and idealistic. The single issue nutters who will bring everything back to their hobby horse. The rude careerist twats who have no time for actual people. The rude partisan twats who have no time for actual people. The rude factional twats who have o time for actual people.
As long as politics remains a minority, voluntary interest, it will sometimes attract those with poor socialisation. Unlike in other social spaces, these aren’t weeded out and many parties come to absolutely rely on them, just as party activity can give a lonely, shy and awkward person a social life. This is a lovely aspect of voluntary politics.
It is also open to and ripe for exploitation. This is why safeguarding is essential.
@BriW74 asks “Would Abraham Lincoln's love of storytelling and anecdotes have been successful on twitter?”
Only if he continued to employ the spirit of brevity that he used to such effect in the Gettysburg Address.
@suey2y asks “Why is #EllaVaDay so glorious?”
I am unfamiliar with the artist in question. So I am going to take this opportunity to say that people should follow Sue. Sue and I agree on a lot. She has a wicked sense of humour and fun and is incredibly knowledgeable on disability campaigning and law. She and I also disagree on loads. And we do so interestingly and with comradely humour which makes these the best kinds of disagreements. She’s ace.
@zoemum asks “What one thing would you change that you think would make the biggest difference?”
I am naturally cautious of ‘one big change’ ideas. I don’t think change works that way and the unintended consequences are often vast.
Take, for example, the classic beauty contest answer of ‘world peace. Who wouldn’t want world peace? Well, that very much depends on your definition. Do we mean no states fighting each other? If so, what do we do for the citizens of a repressive state? They technically live in 'world peace’ but also live in hellish conditions. Be careful what you wish for.
Most of the changes I would like to see would be instrumental. I am a great believer in subsidiarity and would like to invert the centrist tax collection and spending powers from being almost completely controlled by the centre to putting much more power in the hands of both local governments and local communities.
Anonymous asks “why are local Labour meetings such as GC are so awful. Endless procedural nonsense/ rulebook pedantry, factional infighting preventing real work being done for local people. Emergency motions of wedge issues (transgender, Palestine) which upset people rather than achieve something?”
In part, this goes back to my answer to Curzle above. These meetings have a wide range of people - each of whom has equal status apart from the officers. The people who attend these meetings are the people who have either prioritised going to them or who have nothing better to do.
The rulebook pedants and those who engage in procedural nonsense do so because this is their ritual. The ritual enhances their sense of belonging.
For reasons I won’t bore readers with I have been thinking a lot recently about ritual and the ceremony of religion and meetings. These things have rhythms that people not only find comforting but are part of how they engross themselves into the culture of the meeting.
If you look at a Labour Party meeting in the same way you might a church service (other religions are available but having been an acolyte this is the analogy I am most comfortable with) the ritual is part of the point.
The reading of the minutes and the taking of the register are like the Nicene Creed or the Eucharist. Sermons are like speakers, readings like motions. All are designed to bring a rhythm and order to a meeting and to increase a sense of familiarity and family. There is something quite powerful - be it in a drafty church hall, a meeting room above a pub or a concert of thousands - in singing or speaking as one. In performing a well-known ritual in concert. It binds us in fellowship.
Skyler Baker Jordan asks “I’m very curious as to what you think of the polls showing Labour leading. My gut feeling is that while welcome news, this is a response to Tory sleaze and not a sudden warming of the electorate to Labour. Do you agree, and if so, how can Labour capitalise on Tory corruption to win the next GE?”
I do agree that as things stand, the Tories are doing their best to lose the next election while Labour is not yet in a strong enough position to win it.
Two questions arise from this.
Are the Tories able to arrest their current decline?
The Tories are better at politics than Labour and have been for a really long time now. They are ruthless and power-hungry and let little get in their way. As such they have ended up being led by a popular and populist charlatan who is also ruthless and power-hungry.
The question will come if Johnson’s current troubles become a permanent downward trajectory. What happens when or as his popularity wanes. Will he go? can he be pushed? Who is hungrier - Boris or his party? Will the Tories be able to be their traditional ruthless selves quickly and sharply or will they once again descend into infighting?
Labour are not in a positionally internally or externally to take full advantage of the Tories weakness.
Can Labour ‘clear the barnacles’ of their own internal infighting long enough to unite behind a singular purpose of electing a Labour government and defeating the Tories? The signs are not great. It is possible that time, circumstance and rejection of the Tories will be enough to push a disunited, fractured Labour - endlessly bound up in fighting each other over factional or identity issues - into power. But it is highly unlikely that such a party could take proper advantage of such a moment to do anything transformative.
John Farrar asks “If you could have a free rail pass for one month no geographical boundaries , where would you go?”
Lovely thought. Do I have economic boundaries though? Cos the way my finances are (Please buy me a coffee) I would just accept a free London travel card for the month to get to and from work!
If we are assuming that finance is not an issue, I would use this to either explore properly one of the two continents I haven’t travelled much in - Africa or South America.
Jay Elwes asks “is there really such a thing as the “woke mob”? Does it exist and if so, where is it, because I’ve not seen it round Somerset way?”
In most people’s day-to-day reality there absolutely isn’t such a thing. And those on both sides of the arguments around cancel culture would do well to remember that when it comes to strategic rather than tactical planning.
There is an outside influence in politics from the spaces where we draw many of our recruits and where we have the majority of our discussions. That means universities for the former and Twitter for the latter. Are these the only places? Not at all. But they have outside influence on recruitment and on discourse so I will focus on these.
In both of these rarified spaces, there are ‘woke mobs’. Loud minorities with both outsized black and white takes and levels of righteous spite. They can be bloody terrifying the first time you fall victim to them. Online, they become less so when you live to tell the tale. In real life, we know of academics, politicians and others whose careers have suffered as a result of being on the wrong side of such a monstering.
Some see this as just and right. Others see this as always wrong. The truth is, each case probably needs to be looked at in detail on its merits and in far more than 240 characters. Nobody deserves to be free of scrutiny. Nobody deserves to be bullied.
I run a political and communications consultancy called Political Human. Please get in touch if you are looking for consultancy advice, copywriting, editing, training or coaching.
You can read some lovely things that some of my clients have said here.
I am also a playwright and director. My debut piece No Cure For Love can be seen here. I am working on my next piece Triggered with a view to staging it next summer. I do not have a fundraising mechanism for this yet, but a coffee to keep me going would be welcome.
What I’ve been up to
I liked The Drop so much I also wrote it up for Plays To See. really pleased to see it has extended its run.
Sadly, the same cannot be said for Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike which I did not enjoy very much at all. See why.
If you would like me to attend and review your performance, please get in touch on the email below.
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform that no longer hosts Donald Trump. I’m at emmaburnell@gmail.com or on Twitter (far too often) at @EmmaBurnell_.
I agree Christmas is perfect where it is. Please spare a thought though for those like me, Mon-Fri nine-to-fivers who have to work Crimbo Limbo!