It’s fair to say that we are facing a decade of unprecedented change. None of us have a crystal ball and goodness knows what may  or may not happen.

I’m seeing an explosion of advice on social media on topics such as;

resilience;

how to lead through Brexit;

how to manage though uncertainty;

how Brexit may affect organisational culture,

as companies and individuals seek to understand,  gain kudos and see financial opportunity during this period.  I am neither shocked nor surprised at this proliferation of words.

Out of the chaos will come new order and in shaping new order there is a myriad of opportunities.

 

Personally I’m dealing with the result of the EU referendum vote by trying to understand the other side, by actively seeking out and listening to those who have a completely different point of view to my own.  I struggle to reconcile my perception of a United Kingdom with the harsh reality of what others’ think and feel.  However,  it’s obvious that others’ views and experiences of our country are very different to mine.  Each is valid in its own right.  So I’m stepping into a conversation where I put my own values and beliefs to one side and ‘whole body listen’ to an opposing view.  It’s hard sometimes, to not interject, influence or argue, yet ask probing questions.  Even harder to move the conversation forward when it’s obvious that to stay on that topic would potentially be detrimental to valued relationships.  I have learned a lot from listening; concerns over future employment, NATO, our ability to defend our country and its rights and rising immigration are all levers for people making their recent democratic mark.

Today, leaders are beginning to realise that listening, not transmitting, is a skill they need to demonstrate and deploy. No where is this need more evident than watching Tony Blair’s performance this week in light of the Chilcot enquiry.  There he is, stripped of the trappings of office, cocooned by self confidence and belief, veering between humility and belligerence as he responds to wave upon wave of questions while divulging more than he has done in the previous 13 years.  Yet despite being the most successful leader of the Labour party in the last 100 years, with 3 terms elected to Prime Minister’s office, based on the newspaper and media reports of this week,  his personal reputation, in the UK, lies in tatters.

Some were more  prescient about Blair’s weaknesses.  When the late Robin Cook, then Leader of the House of Commons, resigned  as a result of his opposition to the Iraq war, he was the first MP who was universally clapped  in the debating chamber by all parties at the end of his speech.  And the late Charles Kennedy, then leader of the Liberal Democrats, did more than most in his opposition of the war on Iraq, and was scathing in his damnation of Blair’s style of government, as the following extract from one of his many speeches testifies:

‘We are not the masters. The people are the masters. We are the people’s servants. Forget that and the people will soon show that what the electorate give, the electorate can take away.’ That’s what Tony Blair told his new MPs in his first speech to them after his first election victory. Good instincts. Great ideals. Today tarnished for good.

No more glad, confident morning for this shop-soiled Labour government. They seek to manage, not lead; to manipulate, not tell it as it is. I don’t actually subscribe to the view that all power corrupts. But absolute power – when secured on the back of massive parliamentary majorities, which don’t reflect the balance of political opinion in the country – can corrupt absolutely.

The soul goes out of politics. So the system itself simply has to change. I tell you this.  If the British House of Commons had known then what it knows now – about the events leading up to that fateful parliamentary debate and vote on committing our forces into war in Iraq – then the outcome could and should have been fundamentally different.

But, of course, parliament did not know these things. Because the government’s instinct is to shroud itself in secrecy. To act like the office of a president instead of as a collective cabinet government held to account by the elected House of Commons. This is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. What we’ve seen is a small clique driving us into a war, disregarding widespread public doubts. That is not acceptable.

Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrats party conference 2003

The Chilcot findings lay bare the consequences of selective listening.  Perhaps the decision to go to war, along with some other tenants of New Labour philosophy, planted the seeds of division and discontent,  feeding, watering and growing the reality of a Brexit exit.

Back in 97 The Labour government allowed nationals of new EU nations to come to the UK with little check or brake applied (unlike the rest of the then EU).  The effects of this policy are clear in the Institute of Public Policy Research.

 Many places in Britain previously almost untouched by immigration, such as rural counties and market towns, now host significant migrant communities. One of our contributors, Arten Llazari, an Albanian by birth, works in Wolverhampton, a city in which the long established communities from the Indian subcontinent  and the Caribbean have been joined by new communities of Iraqi and Somali refugees, as well as economic migrants from Poland and Romania.   London, and in a smaller way, Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff and Glasgow, have become super-diverse global cities. Over the last six years of Labour rule, the UK’s Polish population alone increased by some half a million – a population equivalent to the size of Britain’s fifth-biggest city, Sheffield. In short, it is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.  

                                The Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), Nov 2011

New Labour also adopted a more centrist approach to funding.  For example they continued to cap local expenditure, allowing local government to raise only 30% of its own funding, introducing more and more targets and reviews so local government became constrained and unable to respond appropriately to local concerns. Quangos, think tanks, Parliamentary and Ministerial ‘special’ advisers proliferated, choking and subverting the machinations and knowledge of the civil service, giving rise to underhand and contradictory media briefings, preventing a cohesive story to an increasingly disenchanted electorate.

In addition New Labour followed Antony Gidden’s “Third Way” philosophy, effectively creating the foundations of  more globalist thinking:

The Third Way sees the nation state as too big for small problems and too small for big ones – hence the enthusiasm for devolution in the UK and the passing of some functions to Europe. And recently with the war in the Balkans there has been the beginning of a debate about the end of the sanctity of the nation state and the emergence of a new moral order which does not accept the old notion that what one does within one’s own borders is one’s own business.

Niall Dixon, BBC Social Affairs editor, Sept 1999

A central tenant of the Third Way and  New Labour’s manifesto in 97 was the promise of devolution in Scotland and Wales.  As a result  of their election, this promise was enacted, swiftly followed by the recognition of a similar body in Northern Ireland as part of the 1998 Good Friday agreement.  Thus began the fragmentation of identity and sense of belonging to the United Kingdom.

Even with limited powers these parliamentary bodies began to create greater divide from the Westminster elite. And while  Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Ministers could still vote in English matters, (the ‘West Lothian question’) this was not a reciprocal arrangement.  The argumentative Scots took full advantage. And as a Scot living in England while the Scottish referendum for independence raged, I narrowly avoided several bursts of vehemence and frustration directed at my compatriots north of the border.  The normally placid Southerners were outraged that the Scots wanted more cake even though their bellies were full from all of the cakes they had already eaten!! It was clear even then that we were becoming a divided nation, turning inward to squabble.

The thorny issue of the West Lothian question demonstrated the extent to which New Labour proved to be very good at parking or ignoring difficult policy issues in the mistaken belief that once the policy was reality, the big issues would sort themselves.  Another example is GP’s pay and the subsequent impact on the much beloved and beleaguered  National Health Service.  Back in 2004, the British Medical Association (BMA) were incredulous when the Government offered GPs the opportunity to not do evening and weekend work for a 6% pay cut. While Doctors lost out in basic pay they were able to top up their earnings by hitting targets under a performance-related bonus scheme.  So when the new NHS contract came into force,  nine out of 10 practices opted out of providing weekend and evening care.  While most NHS trusts put in alternative arrangements at significantly increased costs, hospital A&E departments continue to this day to report on an increase in patients and an overload on costs, efficiency and the system. Protecting our NHS system for future generations is  less to do with usage and money being diverted than with the additional costs it has had to bear since the new GP contract of 2004 (since the deal started in 2004, average GP pay has topped the £100,000 barrier.  This is not the case for other NHS professionals!)

And while funding the NHS will alway strike a chord with the electorate, the popularity of making grandiose promises in party manifestos has grown in favour since New Labour’s historic election win in 1997.  Now most political parties make such promises – as the Scottish Independence tenant as part of the  Scottish National  Party manifesto demonstrates. Equally Cameron must rue the day he made an EU referendum vote central to his election promise in 2015. Most voters don’t vote on manifesto promises. However, this may ultimately change if the Liberal Democrats maintain their proposed manifesto promise of returning Britain to the European Union.

As for the Iraq war; going to a war that vast swathes of the population did not want, told the man on the street his views did not matter.   As the electorate discontent grew, the fighting inside the Labour Party reached a crescendo that eventually saw it fall to a hung parliament of Conservative/Liberal Democrats.  Thus began an uneasy alliance which seemed to herald a new era of politics for the country, a potential way forward, requiring collaboration and co-creation.  But the seeds of ill ease within the Conservative Party  were growing, more liberal policy adoption angered the right of the Party, who began more and more to align themselves with the venom of UKIP.  David Cameron, in order to see off UKIP in the 2015 general election, offered a simple EU referendum as part of his election manifesto.  Once elected he had to come good on this promise.  But his timing of this EU referendum was awful, too early in the parliamentary term and too close to the impacts of years of austerity.

Cameron’s inability to listen to large swathes of the population who had lost faith in experts, who had no relationship with an economic argument, who reacted badly to threats and fear and who wanted to gain back some control, created huge division in our country.  Listening, questioning, probing is crucial when forming narratives and story lines, adapting these as you build your understanding is crucial to winning hearts and minds.  Lamentably this was missing from the Remain side.

Ironically the parallels between Blair and Cameron’s leadership are all too evident.  Both had clear ideals and vision.  Both were buoyed by charisma and youth.  Both, eventually, believed too much in themselves, in their own rhetoric, in communication transmission. And with UK politics becoming much more Presidential in action (with ultimate authority effectively resting with one individual) rather than what the system is meant to be in practice – a parliamentary democracy, with collective decision making and accountability,  through a cabinet to Parliament – the increasing danger of one individual not listening, but following their own course of action is all too evident in today’s outcomes.

Effective communication is all about listening, engaging, responding. It’s about dialogue and discussion. It’s about flexing and adapting.  In a 24/7 digital world, where we all have a voice and opinion, being able to listen sorts the leader from the manager.

Women tend to be naturally better at this type of listening than men.  Let’s see what the next few months hold for the country….