The Old and the New

The big news in the Conservatives e-newsletter is not particularly political, it is more of the symbolic. Lady Thatcher is shown around the 'new' Conservative HQ before unveiling a bust of herself to accompany the same of Churchill in the reception. The script is full of symbolism, the attachment to the old but the break to something new and of course the very modern and cool David Cameron leading the viewer around.

The one odd bit of this is he calls Lady Thatcher 'Lady T', her face is not shown when he says it so whether he does so with her approval or what it is impossible to tell but its the 'call me Dave' informality - a little more symbolism perhaps.

Mixed messages

Wandering past one of the many TV screens showing rolling news that populate the modern media school I saw the most bizarre of events. The Labour Party conference, trying to follow the words of The Red Flag, which was being sung by a soprano opera singer, as Gordon Brown smiled on. So we have a collection of quite right wing pronouncements, coupled with the nationalistic overtones of the British Brown, all wrapped up with a nod to the history of the Labour movement. What Keir Hardie would have made of the spectacle god only knows. The Guardian's Simon Hoggart was less than impressed that's for sure!

But in considering the point of it all, this seemed to be the return of something iconic, something that denotes socialism, while everything that is proposed is as far from socialism as is possible. So why? Was this some attempt to revoke some core philosophy, or did someone suggest that they needed "a little something to keep the reds happy"? It certainly came across as a bizarre piece of spectacle that conferences have become (on the reform of conferences see James Stanyer's work).

For those interested in symbols, rhetoric and connotations, the song was signing the party up to:

It well recalls the triumphs past,
It gives the hope of peace at last;
The banner bright, the symbol plain,
Of human right and human gain.

It suits today the weak and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place
To cringe before the rich man's frown,
And haul the sacred emblem down.

With heads uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

One wonders how many of those whose minds are fixed on pelf and place see Brown as the man who wont let them down? Just a thought.

Airbrushing History

The problem for any modern day politician is that they need to come to the job with no past, as any form of past could be used against them. Most of the time we should pity the politician, at other times burying parts of their history may well be strategic.

David Cameron is inventing himself as a new, 'green', family man, just an ordinary guy with the same cares and concerns as the rest of us. This brackets off his very privileged upbringing and his membership of one particular group for ultra-rich toffs. The Bullingdon Club is a socially exclusive student drinking society at Oxford University, infamous only for its members' wealth and destructive capacity. Membership is by invitation only, and prohibitively expensive for most. The Club was founded over 150 years ago, originally as a hunting and cricket club but now exists primarily as a dining club with a vestige of hunting in the support of the point to point. The club traditionally meets for an annual breakfast at the Bullingdon point to point, and a club dinner, as well as smaller initiation dinners, before which the rooms of new members are wrecked.

As the above picture shows members, the pictured includes Cameron, 2nd along the back row and Boris Johnson, front right seated, traditionally dressed for their annual dinner. The event they are going to would find them booking a private dining room under an assumed name, then physically destroying the place. Very large amounts of cash are then offered to the owners to pay them off for the destruction. The Bullingdon Club is satirised in Evelyn Waugh's novel Decline and Fall (1928), now why do you think that nice and ordinary Mr Cameron tried to restrict access to and publication of this photograph. What perception does this offer of him and his background, how authentic does he appear?

Perspectives of Racism

Racism should not be tolerated in any form, hence the removal of a Conservative Councillor Ellenor Bland from selection lists and the dismissal of Home Affairs spokesman Patrick Mercer were absolutely correct. In particular Mercer should have been thinking of ways to ensure discrimination is removed as a normal part of life in the armed services and not condoning or excusing it - surely that is what we expect from MPs.

The problem is that the behaviour of these MPs is representative of views and actions that are widespread. Racist emails are circulated, many blacks have become accustomed to being referred to as 'the nigger' etc and worse in the factory; yet they do and say nothing as they do not wish to blow things out of proportion, be a trouble-maker.

But there are those that do use racism as a tool by which to undermine an opponent, and I wonder if this is something Lord Levy is employing. In the footsteps of Shilpa Shetty, he may be in the process of moving from crooked villain subverting British democracy to victim of anti-semitism. While some accusations may be grounded within hostility to British Jewry, once racism is introduced debate is stifled as to criticise the victim is to agree with the racists.

We need to separate out the small-minded xenophobic tendencies within our island mentality while ensuring that racism cannot be used as a cover by those who want to escape criticism, Mercer et al do society a gross disservice as they place evidence of racism in high places on the agenda, allowing others to see the potential in their differences rather than the problems.

What does citizenship mean?

Anyone wishing to come to the UK is to take part in a citizenship ceremony and may be asked to work in the community prior to their application for citizenship being granted. This is Gordon Brown's latest contribution to the immigration debate. But what does it mean to be a citizen?

There are the basics: paying taxes, obeying laws - fine! But the suggestions are that citizenship should go beyond this. It questions issues of culture: is there a 'UK' culture? Does it go beyond watching football and soap operas, binge drinking and eating curry? Should everyone speak English? What about devotees of Welsh and Gaelic then? Some talk of national identity, though Brown would use this more to attach Scottish nationalism. Then there is saluting the flag or the Queen. Suddenly all republicans on Labour backbenches are nervous?

A Telegraph article from 2005, written by Political Sociology Professor Anthony King, talks of feeling British, identifying with key symbols, images and elements of history. Others identify a vague idea of a 'British way of life' enshrined in the mythical constitution; another reason why any citizenship test is a dubious notion. So where does this leave us, how are would be citizens going to be tested on their conformity to Britain?

The answer seems that no-one is actually going to say. There is no 'pledge of allegiance' - yet! The other problem is that this becomes bundled up with terrorism. So is the test really about whether the immigrant is going to have loyalties to the Muslim faith, regardless of whether that is extreme or not? A bigger question is, how many of those of us who can claim to have British blood would pass the test? So what should be on this test? What does it really mean to be a citizen of a nation: feelings and reverence for symbols or an actual contribution to the nation. Many immigrants make the latter, but still feel supportive towards the sporting teams of their previous or ancestral home, surely this cannot mean they are un-British?

Twas the season!

I tried several times over the holiday period to post, however some problem with the interface between my home pc and blogger.com prevented this. Hence I offer a very belated merry christmas and a slightly less belated happy new year to anyone who reads this!

Christmas is a time for the political leaders to disappear off on holiday, according to one BBC reporter Blair spent his in a pop star's gin palace. Hence there is little political communication going on. Well there is, the civil servants and political advisers are running around doing their thing, yet it may not be quite as newsworthy as when the celebrity politicians are there. Equally few scandals emerge during the season of goodwill to all men, well not since Back to Basics anyway!

But there is one annual event that can sometimes be big news, or can slip under the radar, the designing of the party leader's Christmas cards. Arguably we all send Christmas cards that say a little about ourselves; hence I go for humour more often than not. But I am sure we all either think, or hear others say, "I'm not buying that, it looks cheap, what will people think of me". Of course, in the age of party and leader branding, the humble Christmas card now says so much more than is considered by the average man or woman in the street. So what do our leader's cards say?

The Blairs have gone traditional, having previously in 2003 been accused of exploiting the family image, it is the simply the happy couple, on the stairs of Downing Street, with his predecessors looking out from their photographs at him. The trappings of power, the images synonymous with the UK prime minister are all there. Slightly understated, but there. The only perhaps unusual aspect is that the picture is straight on. Normally leaders will be looking slightly down from their image, this though is not the Blair way. He likes to be the straight talker, the regular guy; hence he is not looking downwards but straight forwards at the proud recipient. This, his last Christmas card, says honest statesman regardless of public opinion.

The rivals for his post, at the next election anyway, however have gone for the less statesman like, but are also surprisingly similar. Did they get advice from the same card designer, or image consultant, or are all image consultants alike? Gordon Brown's appears as one of those Christmas cards we can all get, usually in one of those wonderful variety packs, that you wonder who to send it to. Personally I find it most appropriate for teacher friends - just to remind them of what they face after the holiday. The image of the tree, surrounded by representations of children of the world is perhaps reinforcing the notion of him as a caring family man, not the dour Scot the media labelled him way back in 1997. Also perhaps this links to his agenda on world poverty, but the message is far less clear here and far more open to interpretation.

Whether there was an image consultant in the background or not, Cameron's card was designed by a 7 year old Scarlett Sadler, a pupil at Woodstock Primary School within his constituency. The image is simple, the traditional child's view of Christmas. But behind this it says a lot about the sender. Firstly the local printing and production saves money, the green agenda writ large. But alongside this it conveys his image as the family man, the lover of tradition, children, community. It defies any analyst to describe it as cynical branding, perhaps a very smart move in this era of mistrust driven by spin.

Are these cards important, possibly is the answer! They usher in a new era of British politics. These are the men who will contest the next election, these are the images they are beginning to establish within the voter's consciousness; the cards are part of that regardless of what else is said. What then of the political brands when the next election is called. Can we expect a more caring, touchy-feely politics, a more responsive style of government? Probably not! The contest will remain the same, as will the imperatives of government; Cameron is stealing the clothes of Blair as he was in 1997, young, honest, not this opponent! Brown is responding.

The next election will be like any other, however image is going to be all important for both contenders, these cards suggest they may well be trying to enter the same territory. But can Brown cut it as anything but a serious guy, the manager of economic stability? Should he try? Will anyone buy it? We wait to find out when Blair finally leaves Downing Street, when the image consultants get to work on the new PM, when the election is called, and when we see the results of polls and voting who had the image that people responded most to.

Badges of Honour

I commented in 1998, at the time of New Labour's Strategic Defence Review that, rather than considering decommissioning of our nuclear deterrent, the report simply made any alternative to continuing to have some form of nuclear defence appear too expensive. While the growing threats from non-state actors was recognised, it was deemed too risky to abandon the UK's nuclear capability. Such ideas are reiterated 8 years later. Blair called it unwise and dangerous to not have the weapons, on the basis that 'rogue states' who also possess nuclear weapons may also 'sponsor terrorism'.

This reminds me of a wonderful exchange between fictional PM Jim Hacker and his Head of the Civil Service Humphrey Appleby from the wonderful comedy Yes Prime Minister. The conversation first enquired when the button would be pushed, 'When Soviet troops on manoeuvres in East German got lost in the fog and ventured over the border', no, no, no, of course not. 'When a Soviet submarine enters the Thames', er, no, well, I don't know. "So when Prime Minister", Appleby demands; prevarication continues. The upshot of the conversation is that the UK government knows they would never use them, the Soviet government knows the UK will never use them, the only people who believe they are a form of protection is the UK public. Perhaps again the rhetoric suggests that something is being done to prevent terrorism.

While it would be amusing to rewrite the exchange to include Tony Blair, 'so you suspect Pakistan of not acting as forcefully as it could against Al Queda; the button Prime Minister?', perhaps this misses the point. That while the deterrent may be a symbolic message that defence is being taken seriously, it has greater symbolic value in the post Cold War world.

What is this value, it is a badge of honour. In having nuclear weapons it places this small nation among the elite. It means that there is a seat at the top table when world leaders meet, the voice is slightly louder among the rest, the perception of power increases. Yet here also is the danger. If there was a visible state threat that required this form of deterrent,and one could envisage the usage of the weapon, then perhaps the position would be tenable. The problem is that many nations, North Korea and Iran to name the current suspected aspirants, previously India and Pakistan, want a slice of the pie. If all you need is a badge saying 'I gotta Nuke' to be heard on the world stage is it any wonder that nations who have felt marginalised historically want to wear the same badge, share the glow of the spotlight of power and dine on the meat with the kings of the world.

I accept this is an argument for unilateral disarmament. I am happy to state I have never been in favour of these weapons, their destructive capability, and doubt how these weapons can be used after the effects which can still be seen on the descendants of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, what makes the position seem more relevant is the fact that the enemies that are faced in the modern world are either impotent, as Iraq was, or unconnected to states. We cannot 'nuke' terrorism, equally we cannot 'nuke' global warming, so why else would any state leader want to waste money on such weapons?

Imagine the scene, the meeting of the United Nations. Prime Minister Tony Blair approaches the banquet hall. Take a seat anywhere the usher suggests, a quick flash of the badge. "Oh Mr Blair, nuclear defence, that will do nicely, this way to the top table sir!"

Symbolism, Rhetoric and Newness

New Labour, as a phrase, descriptor, perhaps even ideology, was largely a rhetorical device. Its purpose was made clear by Philip Gould in The Unfinished Revolution, the expose of how Labour was modernised into an election winning machine, it was created to delineate the Blair led party from that of his predecessors. It was a re-branding exercise, a marketing gimmick perhaps; fundamentally it was an outward representation of the fact that the party's policies were to be a fusion of the vague Third Way ideas emerging within the global socialist movement and the neo-liberalism established by Thatcher and Reagan during the 1980s. As such therefore New Labour in itself meant very little, only that it created another rhetorical device: 'Old Labour'.

But now we are told that New Labour has had its day, it is moribund, it will crawl up the curtain and join the choir invisible on the day that Blair leaves No10 for the last time. These are the ideas advocated by Welsh First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, the man Blair never wanted to be in that position and who, like Ken Livingstone, found himself facing all manner of tactics designed to hinder his election. Though reasonably quiet in his dissent it appears he now wishes to comment on Labour's future at this seemingly important juncture.

Interestingly he appears to invoke rhetoric familiar to many from beer adverts; that New Labour "reached parts that other Labour programmes and projects and political leaders have not been able to reach". He also likens it to the Venus di Milo "you have to gawp with admiration at its quality and brilliance, but it is indisputably incomplete and beginning to show more than a few signs of its age"; harsh words indeed. He also calls for a 21st Century socialism, though without offering too much detail on what this means. So what is this all about?

The answer is: nothing! Though deemed newsworthy it appears as nothing more than rhetoric on rhetoric about rhetoric. The purpose of New Labour as a phrase was achieved, it was probably moribund by June 1997. Its symbolic value is more in other rhetoric that has become attached to the phrase: 'best when at our boldest', 'New Britain', those phrases that demonstrate being of the modern and not of the traditional or out-dated or conservative. Therefore as an idea 'newness' remains at large, perhaps the point Morgan should make is that Brown can no longer aspire to this given that after 10 years New Labour is no longer new and neither is he.

But does the rhetorical and symbolic aspects of New Labour remain, I argue that they do. Not in the Labour Party, not in this vague idea of 21st Century socialism that is almost beyond definition; no the symbolism that thrust Blair into office in 1997 is alive and well and being exploited by Cameron's Conservative Party. They may not be calling themselves the 'New Conservatives' but they attempt to invoke that new image coupled with not representing themselves as the party not in power so an alternative to the Labour that people seem to be becoming tired of.

Rhetorically, the symbolic associations of new have long escaped from No10, slowly ebbed away by the familiarity that is unavoidable when in government. The clothes of New Labour are being borrowed and adapted to suit a new government in waiting, a new round of rhetoric begins as the Conservatives re-brand themselves in all ways but in name. Hence the fuzzy tree perhaps, though what this says rhetorically or symbolically is more than a little hard to grasp.