by Garry Abbott
There’s been a lot of talk and chatter this week on the airwaves about Ed Miliband’s need to construct a more coherent ‘story’ and ‘narrative’ if he is going to win at the next election. He has been accused by some party supporters and critics of ‘sitting back’ and letting the Tories dig their own graves. Apparently ahead in the opinion polls (who actually does them?) – even his own head of policy was secretly recorded at a focus group saying his policies had been novelty, cynical and few and far between.
But what could be more cynical I wonder, than the accepted conversation about an opposition leader who needs to ‘come up with’ (i.e. ‘invent’) some kind of narrative in order to present some option to the electorate? Is it just me who finds the rhetoric of ‘story-telling’ both patronising and worrying?
It smacks of political elitism in an age where we are regularly told that they are losing touch with the people – yet they don’t see that this kind of circular politics is exactly why. We shouldn’t have politicians and parties who are content to sit back for five years and watch the country descend into wreck and ruin, just because it means they will have an easier job winning votes at the next election. The hope is that by May 2015 we will all be begging for change (or at least most of us), at which point Miliband will just stand up and loudly exhort through his nostrils “I will save you”. Similarly, we will have the likes of Clegg, making back-of-throat guttural utterances about how they are the only party who can be trusted to reign in the Tories, after spending 5 years propping them up.
An example of a successful opposition ‘story’ that I heard quoted by a labour supporting media expert, was David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. In political terms, they think that was the bomb. Do you remember that? Cameron telling us that instead of the state doing things for us, we basically need to do it all ourselves (yet still pay taxes). If that’s the kind of narrative Miliband is lacking, then I don’t want to hear it!
There should be no need for a story. The problems are evident for anyone who has even an iota of socialism about them, or as I like to call it, common decency and compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves. There should be no need to wait five years to hear this. If he and his party were truly passionate about their cause and actually represented an alternative, they shouldn’t rest or tire from doing whatever they can, whenever they can, however they can to promote it and stop the shameless pillaging of the poor and vulnerable by the current government. As it is, the little we hear from them is often just slightly amended echoes of right-wing policies with no firm commitments to reverse the damage done. Same ideas, different faces, all ugly.
So here’s a little story for Miliband – he is welcome to use it if he likes:
Ed went to the fair.
There once was a boy called Ed who went to a funfair. He walked around the funfair, looking at all the games. He looked at the coconut shy, and whack-a-rat, and test-your-strength, and hook-a-duck, but they all looked really hard, and poor Ed couldn’t decide where to spend his money. Eventually he decided not to bother and to go home and spend his money on lashings of ginger beer instead. But then, just as he was about to leave, he saw one last game.
A red faced man called David was standing on a soap box brandishing a sawn off shotgun in one hand and a box of cartridges in the other, shouting “Fish in a barrel! Who can shoot the fish in a barrel? One winner only!”
“Hey mister” he said, “what do I have to do?”
“Simple,” replied David, “in this barrel of water I have placed a fish. Here is a shotgun. All you need to do is kill the fish and you win.”
“What do I win?” asked the wide eyed Ed.
“It’s a surprise.”
No one else at the fair had played this game before, and before long a huge crowd had gathered around him, waiting to see what happened.
“Why has no one played this game before?” asked Ed, suspiciously. It seemed too easy, and Ed has his smarts.
“Because each cartridge costs one million pounds a go, and none of these plebs have that kind of money”.
“Hmmm” said Ed, pondering the situation, for you see, Ed did have one million pounds to spend, and some more, but he still wasn’t sure.
“Go on!” shouted the crowd, “we want to see it done! We can’t afford to have a go ourselves!”
What was he to do?! He really wanted to win the game, but he didn’t really want to spend the money or any effort on it. What if he missed the fish? What if the game was rigged and the shotgun blew his tiny face off?
Ed thought about it long and hard… for about five years. By that time, everybody had lost interest, and the fish had died of old age.
Ed asked David, “so, does that mean I win?”, to which David replied “Yes! You’ve won! Well done” as he removed the dead fish from the barrel and replaced it with a new, live and wriggling one.
“What do I win?” asked Ed.
“This barrel, this fish, this shotgun and cartridges, and this entire funfair! ”
And then David walked off into the sunset, able to retire a happy and rich man.
Ed looked down at the barrel with the new fish. He picked up the shotgun and ammunition in his hands, before standing up on the soap box and declaring:
“Roll up – roll up! Fish in a barrel! Only 1 million pounds a shot!” and once again, the crowd gathered.
2 thoughts on “What’s the story: mourning Tories?”
Thanks for the article, Garry! The lack of true political alternative in this country, if not the whole world, is pretty worrying to say the least. Until someone comes along and advocates compassion, sharing and community, we will forever be treading amidst the excrement of capitalism and the division that this system creates. Our survival should not be based on competition fuelled by fear. Humanity is at a crossroads but sadly there is no lollipop lady at the moment to guide us to another level of thinking that is needed to transcend our current plight.
Well said! And thanks for the read/comment James. It is eternally frustrating to have no one you feel you can support, who actually represents an alternative. Simply rolling out pledges the year before an election is the worst kind of opposition, and having one chance every five years to tick a box is barely democracy. The real problem is what do we do about it? The odds are stacked against anyone who disagrees with the general shape of things and wants real change. It’s a puzzle. G