Don't sweat the small stuff

Many people don't spend much time focusing on politics.  This comes as something of a surprise to many of those who work in and around politics, but it makes perfect sense.

There are only so many hours in the day, and people in the course of their work, their family lives, their hobbies and so on, tend to focus on what matters to them most.  They zone in and out of politics, and probably pay a bit more attention when elections approach.

That lack of sustained attention to politics is something that is key to the task for Labour of moving from opposition to government.

Couple this with a different insight.

Two primary drivers of people's actions are the two most powerful emotions we feel: hope, and fear.  The side of politics that gets the balance of hope and fear right wins elections.

Think of Key in 2008, or Clark in 1999, or Bolger in 1990, or Lange in 1984, or Muldoon in 1975.

The hopes they conjured up?  A brighter future; restoring faith in politics; the Decent Society; a brighter future post-Muldoon; a secure future in troubled economic times.

The fears they summoned to the table? A slide behind Australia; an atomised society where dog eats dog; more economic madness; total chaos and dictatorship; socialism red in tooth and claw.

Those hopes, and those fears, were relevant to the times. They were woven in with what people were feeling at the time, with what had penetrated the public consciousness, with what the country faced both as challenges and as opportunities.

It's the zeitgeist that they matched.

Those winning politicians were all ruthless at stirring hopes and raising fears, and they did so with lazer-like intensity. They all had simple messages that they were repeating for months, if not years, on end. They had evocative language. They were, and were seen to be, in tune with the times, and able to chart out a future that our not-so-paying-attention typical voter could get their heads around and nod towards as some kind of "common sense".

They got through that general disinterest and managed to make an impact on people. They got noticed.

Which brings me to Labour's campaign. 

As someone who has been in and around the party for a long time, I think I can safely say that sometimes we take for granted that people get what our take on their hopes and aspirations are. That they are clear in their minds what Labour's vision is.

I don't think they are. The consistent feedback I get from anyone I'm talking about politics with at the moment is that they don't know what Labour stands for.

It's reasonably easy to tell them: fairness, hope and change.

That our society ought to be one founded on a fair go for everyone.

That by making that into reality, we bring hope to all the people, no matter who they are or where they come from.

That achieving that vision, so far from today's reality, requires significant changes in New Zealand.

I think that's straightforward. It isn't what the media wants to hear: they want personal or political attacks. We have to give them those too, because part of the job of opposition is holding the government to account.

But we need to keep running the big picture.  It's the only way to remind people that our vision of New Zealand is their vision: a place where everyone has the chance to get ahead.  If we don't tell them that's what we stand for, then our opponents will fill in that blank. They'll misrepresent us, to put it politely, in ways that harm our interests and advance theirs.

It's also the foundation of the "hope" part of our pitch. There's plenty to be frightened of from the current Government, and Labour is well able to summon up that fear. But we need hope too, and hope is founded on our vision of a better world. We need to put it front and centre of our politics.

It will help to have more of the bones of our policy agenda out there, some of which will happen at Congress this weekend.  It helps to have specific issues we are campaigning on: keeping state assets in public hands is the one of the moment, and more are coming down the line.

If I have a plea to my fellow candidates it is this: keep the big picture in mind, never assume your audience knows what it is on our terms, and tell them every day. Find your way to tell it that resonates for you and that you can be passionate about, and work it into all our campaigns and arguments.

It will energise you and it will matter to the voters you are talking to.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

Comments

[TB12]

Jordan,
My fear of Labour is it will, in opposition, continue the nonsense about BMWs, H-Fees and the like. As you say, don't sweat the small stuff.

I think Labour are onto something with the cost of living, but the BMWs, H-Fees, and other trivia detract from the fear message you are trying to sell. Perhaps it's a case of refining the fear message and cutting out the crap that a) turns people off politics, b) isn't important in the bigger scheme. In reality, the economy is.

Here are 2 predictions:
1. National will win the election and form a minority government with combination of confidence and supply/formal coalition
2. That you will miss out on becoming an MP but make it in during the next term due to retirements and the like

[Rob Salmond]

Hi Jordan,

I agree with the thrust of this post, and good on you for writing it. But I think your proposed statement of vision for Labour is too vague. Here it is:

"It's reasonably easy to tell them: fairness, hope and change.

That our society ought to be one founded on a fair go for everyone.

That by making that into reality, we bring hope to all the people, no matter who they are or where they come from.

That achieving that vision, so far from today's reality, requires significant changes in New Zealand."

What does "a fair go for everyone" mean? And what does "bringing hope to all people" look like? There isn't even a hint of the answers in the vision statement.

I know we can't fit everything into a vision statement, but we need to give the politically uninterested a substantive clue where we're headed if we get their attention for a few seconds. The Nats sure do. Within ten seconds they have usually checked off "less government" and "maximizing growth," which are both specific and substantive in a way that "a fair go" and "bringing hope" are not.

FWIW, I think our substantive hints should revolve around "equal opportunity," and/or "maximizing wellbeing."

[Phil Quin]

Thought-provoking stuff. My thoughts, as provoked are here: http://www.thenewtasman.com/2011/05/jingles-all-the-way/

[Jordan Carter]

Phil, thanks. I didn't quite capture what I was trying to say then... if we don't have the big message right, people won't have their ears open, was the point I was trying to make. Focusing on specific issues is important for the reasons you set out.

More soon