You are not 'politically homeless'
The concept of political homelessness is one of deeply political people mistaking what parties are for
NOTICE: From the beginning of March, I will be introducing paid-only content.
This will mean that I will be increasing posts to weekly and every other one will only be available for paid subscribers. I want to thank the 1000+ of you who have already signed up for free. I totally understand that only a small percentage of you will want to, or be able to, pay for this. Your experience of (roughly) fortnightly free content will not change for the foreseeable future.
I also want to thank everyone who has been kind enough to send me money through KoFi. I will maintain this link for those of you who don’t wish to subscribe, but who might wish to thank me for a post you liked occasionally. I will separately get in touch with the few of you who have set up a regular donation here to make sure you get a full subscription.
If you sign up for paid content before the end of April, you can have a 20% discount. Just hit the button below.
Homelessness is one of the scourges of modern life. It is deeply, deeply shameful that in a rich, modern country so many people are without homes at all and beyond that, there is an even larger group whose housing situation is incredibly insecure. Homelessness is something I have always cared deeply about. I’ve been spending my Christmases at Crisis for many years as well as previously working in social housing and serving on their executive (including as Vice Chair) of Labour Housing Group.
It is perhaps this history that makes me quite so squeamish about the phrase ‘politically homeless’. I get what it is trying to signal, but beyond the problems of what that is, I also find it a phrase that belittles the problem of actual homelessness. It’s a phrase I don’t think anyone in housing insecurity would use. It’s a phrase that allows middle class people (of different politics) to identify with a form of loss they don’t have a right to.
This, however, is just semantics. I have bigger problems with the notion of political homelessness. One refers to everyone who feels it - left or right - and the other is left-specific.
The groups of people who tend to describe themselves as politically homeless largely group around the centre of politics.
There are exceptions. For some on the far left of politics, having experienced the joy of running the Labour Party for a few years, they are now in despair at quite how far into the wilderness they have found themselves under Starmer. It is worth remembering that this is absolutely not true for everyone who voted for Corbyn as leader. Nor does it mean that everyone who voted for Starmer is 100% happy all the time. The Labour Party member’s default position is to be a bit grumbly about the general state of things (or a specific niche thing they really care about) while overall hoping the party will win the next election. But those who really saw the project as a fulfilment of their ambitions either for or within the Party have taken a real knocking and, as such, feel adrift.
On the right, the needs of those who just don’t feel Suella Braverman is quite vile enough have options that trouble the polls more than the myriad of tiny parties off to the left of Labour. Reform (formerly Brexit) does OK for a small party that doesn’t seem to really know who they are without Farage. There’s an opportunity here for someone with a bit of charisma (i.e. not Richard Tice) to come in and sweep up the attention. You wouldn’t ever have to be in charge of anything (which they never want to do anyway) but would get lots of cushy slots on Question Time.
But the largest contingent of people who complain are those in the centre. The centre-left, who quite like Starmer but don’t like Labour any more and think they’re just too contaminated by Corbyn, and the Centre-right, who quite like Sunak but don’t like the Tories and think they’re just too contaminated by Johnson.
You don’t have to agree with these opinions to think they are reasonable positions to hold. What I am arguing against here is not the low-grade moaning that goes along with politics in any democracy. God, I moan enough about the Labour Party - of which I’ve been a member for nearly 43 years (the 22nd of February will be my anniversary).
Nor do I deny that people for whom a party was once a career or all-encompassing hobby feel a sense of loss when they chose to step away from it. That is real and needs to be processed. But processed by them. It is not the responsibility of the party they have left.
Where I think, politically, it becomes a problem, is when it is projected onto the wider electorate.
Voters don’t think like political activists. They just don’t care as much as those who immerse themselves in politics all day every day. And that’s as true of a columnist for the Guardian or Mail as someone sending out hundreds of tweets a day.
The problem, though, is that those of us who are obsessed with politics are very bad at recognising the gulf between how we feel and the median feeling in the country.
We are at least a year from the next General Election. We’re three months away from the next set of local elections. Voters aren’t really tuned in, we know that. But instead of thinking that this is normal, too often people are projecting their highly emotional and deeply felt sense of disconnection onto voters whose sense of disconnection from the day-to-day drama of politics is perfectly normal for them and absolutely not something they see as a loss.
This matters because a lot of the loudest voices in this arena have quite large platforms and are trying to influence the behaviour of the main political parties to do things that will make them feel better. But these are not the same as actions that will make the electorate more attracted to the parties. In fact, attracting the politically obsessed will often have the opposite effect.
Ultimately, while the enthusiasm gap that Labour is experiencing matters and needs closing, it isn’t the only thing that matters. A half-hearted vote cast while taking your evening constitutional after Eastenders counts just as much as a vote cast at 08.01 having waiting impatiently outside the polling station.
Where I have a bigger problem with those on the left who pursue this narrative than those on the right is that I think the idea of ‘political homelessness’ is, ultimately, about the individualisation and commodification of politics.
Labour is a collectivist party. But we often lose sight of what that means. It means that we all have to compromise a bit on what we prioritise in order to bring the public an overall offer that best represents the place where our values meet theirs. That will often mean we don’t get everything we want. Sometimes that matters more than others. I have thought about leaving the party over its problems with misogyny but have chosen to stay and fight those from within. In doing so, I know that I will be seeking to elect a party with whom I sometimes have fundamental differences. Differences I will seek to change, but differences I know were there when I last put my cross in their box and differences I am sure will not be sorted out the next time I do so.
That’s the compromise I make when not being a single-issue voter. I think that, overall, Labour will probably always have the best offer for the majority of the country (including women). I believe in a stronger (if more agile) state. I believe in a strong and robust safety net. I believe in the power of government to educate our children, heal our sick and manage our economy in tandem with a well-regulated private sector. This is fundamentally why I am a socialist. It is why I will probably always vote Labour.
I think those who complain about Labour leaving them politically homeless have lost that sense of collectivism. The Labour manifesto is not developed in a ‘build-a-bear’ workshop. It is (or should be) the best expression of the collective will of the party expressed in the best way to the majority of the electorate. If you don’t feel happy with every dot and comma fine. But ask yourself this: why do you feel entitled to?
Collective politics do not always sit well with the individualism and commercialism of modern society. But democratic socialism - or social democracy - has to be about a compromise between people and a partnership between people and the state. That will never, ever match your personal emotional, atomised, individual needs and, frankly, that’s a good thing.
I run a political and communications consultancy called Political Human. Please get in touch if you are looking for political or media consultancy advice, strategic communication and campaign planning, ghostwriting, copywriting, editing, training or coaching.
You can read some lovely things that some of my clients have said here.
What I’ve been up to
We have recorded two editions of the House of Comments. One discusses the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill and the UK Government’s invoking of Section 35 as a result. The other covers the stench of sleaze permeating everything the Tories touch. Do listen and subscribe. We have a new episode for you every Friday.
I wrote for the Spectator on the Conservative Democracy Organisation and its similarities with Momentum. More widely the piece echoes some of the themes above about political parties’ need to balance the needs of members and appeal to a wider public.
I have been on GB News a number of times (I will be on Dewbs and Co every Tuesday throughout February). Here’s me discussing the menopause and how workplaces can and should deal with it:
Finally, I reviewed the charming but unpolished The Best Pints at the Hope Theatre.
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform. Hit reply or comment or find me on Twitter at @EmmaBurnell_
Excellent points made!