The true task of the politician, like the salesperson, is to persuade people to agree with them
In an interview with CBS the weekend following his final appearance as host of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart was asked if he enjoyed talking to politicians.
“I despise it,” he replied. “They’re salespeople. They live in a world of conjuring and denial. It’s very strange to talk to people who have lost their awareness that that’s what they’re doing.”
Jon Stewart is hardly alone in his disdain for sales and in rejecting its influence on politics, he joins the growing ranks seeking a ‘better’, more substantive discourse. None are doing so as loudly as the left, and nowhere has this had more impact than in the recent Labour leadership contest.
It makes sense, of course. More than most, lefties like to see themselves as purveyors of principle. Their raison d’etre is to solve problems, to help communities, to change lives.
That’s why they lose.
At every turn the true task of the politician, as of the salesperson, is to persuade people to agree with them, and then to act on that agreement. A salesperson knows that to achieve this they must convince the customer to believe not just in the product, but also in them, their company and their pitch. Ultimately in their ability to meet the customer’s needs.
In calling for more substance Stewart and the rest are saying we should concentrate almost exclusively on policy (ie. ‘the product’). This approach also forms the basis for Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘new politics’. As appealing as this might sound, it represents a massive misunderstanding of how most ordinary people interact with politics.
Throughout the leadership race the charge against Corbyn was that his policy prescriptions rendered him ‘unelectable’. It appears that the only conclusion his opponents drew from the general election result was that the electorate was put off by Labour’s policies. The reality was more complex.
While the policies surely played a part in Labour’s defeat, other factors – their leader, the message, and the party’s overall reputation in the eyes of the average voter – were at least as significant. In their desperation to be rid of every last trace of the Blair era, what Labour forgets is that It wasn’t Blair’s centrist policies that won them elections, but Blair himself.
For the fact is that Labour’s electoral difficulties will lie less in products that are difficult to push, than in a salesman with no appetite to push them. Jeremy Corbyn stood for the Labour leadership not because he wanted to do the job, or thought he’d be good at it, but to ensure ‘a broader range of candidates and a thorough debate’.
A salesman likes the sound of his own voice, welcoming any opportunity to speak to the customer. Since his coronation, Corbyn, cancelling interviews, running from reporters, in his conference speech that spoke only to the choir, has shown that he does not care for the business of pitching his case.
In thirty-two years as a rebellious MP, he has shown neither the willingness nor the ability to persuade anyone of anything they didn’t already agree with.
In his favour he has sincerity, authenticity and a reputation for caring about his constituents – all valuable attributes. However, if he can’t – or won’t – communicate, these qualities will do little to help establish his own image and rehabilitate his party’s.
Which is crucial. Because since the financial crisis Labour’s is a tainted brand. That they didn’t cause the crisis is pretty much irrelevant. They were the ones in charge at the time and as far as most people are concerned, that’s what matters. It was on Labour’s watch that 3.7 million jobs were lost.
However, that this belief in Labour’s culpability is so deeply ingrained can be attributed to the the party’s weak, incoherent pitch to the contrary. In the end the Conservatives, with their own messaging, didn’t have to do much more than remind the voter of what they already believed to be true. They had simple attack lines, that were easy to understand and delivered well.
The idea of reducing complex policy to a fifteen-second sales pitch may seem anathema, but it doesn’t change the fact that that might be all the time you get. It’s not about embracing Blair’s centrist policies but some of his other talents, which were so crucial in giving Labour thirteen years in government.
The Tories, although they didn’t understand this for a while, do now seem to grasp it.
David Cameron wasn’t chosen to lead the Conservative party because of his own ideas and principles but because he, better than anyone else they had, could sell the ideas, principles and vision for governing of the party he represents. The left needs to remember how to do the same. Because like it or not, sales is a feature of politics, not a flaw.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
14 Responses to “Comment: The left needs to understand the power of sales”
DemSoc93
I don’t think he would have appalled him. He wasn’t appalled by Bevan who, despite his support for an independent nuclear deterrent, wanted actual diplomatic steps towards multilateral disarmament and for Britain to have its own foreign policy rather than just enforce the US’. And in other areas, Bevan was very close to Corbyn’s position. In fact, Attlee wanted Bevan to succeed him.
The coal mines thing is a complete misrepresentation, what he really said was “Where you can re-open pits – yes – and where you can do clean burn coal technology yes.” his comments were then seconded by Ian Lavery MP who said “Jeremy’s comments are responsible and both economically and environmentally sensible. Deep mined coal production and consumption is on the increase internationally. In the winter months coal still produces on average 50% of the electricity generated in the UK.” So not quite the daft dinosaur position of the caricature.
I don’t think the idea of subsidising mortgage rates for people renting (many of whom could only dream of buying) funded by removing the excessive landlord subsidies is “daft”.
His “personal baggage” is far less significant than a number of right wing papers have put it. He tried to engage in a dialogue towards diplomacy with Hezbollah and Hamas. He is not friends with them and he does not agree with them. The fact is that Israel has the diplomatic ear of major powers like the US and UK. He was trying to involve the Palestinian forces like Hamas. Tony Blair has actually met with Hamas more times than Corbyn but we don’t assume he is I’m complete ideological agreement with terrorists, do we?
With the IRA, he supports Irish republicanism but does not condone terrorism. Once again, when the conflict was at its height he was trying to get them round the table. Mrs Thatcher’s government rnment was in secret talks with them at the same time.
If you want to talk about real “friendships” between dodgy regimes and British politicians, you should look at Mrs Thatcher and Pinochet and our own Prime Minister’s unwillingness to diplomatically lean on Saudi Arabia to stop it doing stuff like literally crucifying innocent people.
DemSoc93
You’re absolutely right, but they lived in a different age of media to Corbyn. I think he can learn something from both of them though. I think so far he’s shown signs of the down-to-earthedness of Hardie and the moderately expressed radicalism of Attlee.
Cole
Of course I deplore the Saudi and former Pinochet regimes. But you only have to look at the Sunday Telegraph’s well researched (for a change) article on Corbyn’s relationship with Sinn Fein/IRA article to see how problematic this is (and it’s pretty much the same with Hamas etc)? To suggest he was some sort of peace negotiator is spin of the worst sort.
The truth is that Corbyn is obsessively anti American and seems to support virtually anyone that that is in the anti US camp. That is not a Labour tradition, except on the hard left.
We can argue about the policies. But as for coal, we just need to get rid of the bloody stuff. Hasnt the man heard about climate change?
DemSoc93
I thought the Sunday Telegraph’s article was the same tired old attempt to make Corbyn guilty for the sometimes objectionable views of everyone person he’s ever associated with. I mean, I don’t agree on every point with everyone I’ve ever associated with, does anybody? To understand his “associations” with the IRA and Hamas as somehow indicative of ideological agreement is spin of the worst sort. What else would you think a prominent peace campaigner and someone who clearly believes in nonviolent change (he went to the trouble of becoming a well-loved constituency MP rather than a militaman, for instance) would be doing talking to people like Hamas and the IRA? It was strategically unwise, but I don’t think at the time he thought that in thirty years his past would be trawled for any trace, no matter how tenuous and irrelevant the link, of any time he and someone with objectionable views were in the same place or same organisation.
Calling someone who is a critic of American-led foreign policy is just a convenient way of ignoring their arguments. He doesn’t support virtually anyone who is in the US camp, he doesn’t support Putin, he didn’t support Saddam, or Bin Laden, or Hamas or Hezbollah. He’s trying to bring to nuance to the debate about international relations.