Aspiration Nation

What does 'Aspiration Nation' really add up to?

It has clearly been seen before during 2012; was used again by Call-Me-Dave during PMQs immediately before the Chancellor's budget speech and repeated therein several times, and subsequently. So is it a new dawn for the coalition or another gimmick like 'in it together' or 'localism' both of which seem to have died a slow quiet death in recent times?

So, 'Aspiration Nation' then? Is it a new vision, a strong, well defined and clear signpost to the future or another half-baked, half-hearted message that its creators hope might just fly?

The thing about slogans, strap-lines or 'mission statements' is that they can do great things for, or great damage to, reputations and outcomes. Ideally they should be relatively simple so that everyone can understand what is being communicated, strong and clear in a way which captures the imagination and, crucially, they must be committed to on the part of the proposer and supported by actions, in reality, on the ground. There are, I would suggest, four levels of quality when looking at slogans; 1 being the ideal, 2 being good (and arguably better than 1 - bear with me on this), 3 being a bit of a waste of time and 4 being damaging.

1. Strong, clear message backed by real, coherent activity on the ground.
2. Slightly more muddled, inaccessible message but with a clear connected vision being delivered.
3. Strong message but not supported in reality.
4. Half-baked unclear message with no resonance in reality.

Not being (particularly) party political here, but the example of 'New Labour' would seem to be an appropriate one to use. Following on from 18 years' of Tory Government, when the incumbents had run out of steam (as do all Governments after 2.5 terms or so) the New Labour thing was a breath of fresh air to many voters, signalling as it did; change, something new, a new dawn, a fresh start blah blah. (The word 'New', like the word 'sex' sells in advertising terms). So it was a strong vision which was, initially, backed by programmes and policies being delivered on the ground. Everything Labour then tried to do was set against the background of this vision: Education, health, the economy, defense etc, was all about delivering the New Labour vision.

And it worked, to the extent that it won Mr Blair three elections. It was a strong, clear vision that was (to an extent) supported in reality on the ground - or at least was repeated often enough and very effectively 'spun' often using stats rather than actual outcomes (see the stats-led disasters that are now coming to light in education and the NHS for proof of this), to convince many people that it was working. Critics would (and do) say that actually the whole thing was a slogan-led programme which was not properly reflected by achievements on the ground, which is where it descended from number 1 on the above list, towards number 3. It got lost along the way, but not for a considerable amount of time, and then Mr Brown came in without much of a clue about vision, communications, engaging with other human beings, finance, figures..etc you know the rest of course, and the whole thing fell into disrepute.

But having this strong, clear vision worked wonders for Labour for a number of years. And whilst I am instinctively not a Labour supporter, I can respect the clarity of vision that New Labour represented even if, ultimately, it failed and was not, after all, all that strongly represented in real progress.

So, just when we needed real leadership to get us out of the mess that engulfed the UK on the back of failed Labour policy and world economic activity (disasters which, by the way were not spotted by the same 'leading economists' who are now telling us where we went wrong and what we should now be doing. Bah), what have we got?

We had 'in it together' which was a laudable sentiment but one which was very open to miss-interpretation and (pardon the term) piss-taking in relation to the have-nots using it to kick the 'haves, particularly in Government. We had 'Localism' which was, I think, about 'power to the people' (irony claxon), but which simply didn't resonate because it wasn't clear what it meant and wasn't backed up, having been introduced, by any kind of commitment from the Tory party.

And now we have 'Aspiration Nation'. On the face of it it's quite strong if a little 'gimmicky' and not easy to define what it is. 'Aspiration' is quite a good sentiment to use - everyone aspires to bettering themselves, their family's prospects, their country etc. It also suggests improvement and ambition. 'Nation' supports the vision by suggesting inclusiveness, that it applies to everyone and also has some nationalistic overtones which, despite our now almost dominant PC culture, can still be a positive thing to communicate, especially in the current European political climate. So not brilliant in the way that 'New Labour' was, but I would say adequate, number 2 on the list, rather than number 1, 3 or 4. Yet.

And the thing about number 2, is that it is probably the best one in practical terms to be adopted, because it relies much more upon what is being done on the ground for its credibility and power, than does the brilliant number 1 slogan which can mask failings and be used to dupe people into thinking everything is fine, when it isn't. Aspiration Nation cannot carry people with it on its own (it's not strong enough), but it can, if matched by real, measurable progress, become a strong message to define positive improvements. And, the reason why I say it can be better than my defined number 1, is that it relies on real progress to be made rather than spin which will only ever get you so far. Mr Blair, Mandelson, Campbell ;).

But in order to work effectively it must be committed to by everyone in the coalition (that'll be a first then), must be repeated ad nauseam and must be related to positive achievements and changes to policy. It must be explained repeatedly and often by everyone involved in its delivery and every new initiative must be able to be measured and compared against the Aspiration Nation vision. In that way the credibility of the vision can be communicated, underlined and built upon so that it becomes stronger than the sum of its parts. And it can also provide direction and leadership in the formation of new policies: 'How does this Health initiative (for example) fit into our Aspiration Nation vision?'

My hope is that this will be the case: that reality - putting things right, solving the massive problems we face as a nation, delivering leadership on the big issues including Immigration, Defence, Europe, Health and Education (as opposed to gay marriage and a ban on hunting say [just to be even handed]) - will happen and then be credited as being part of the Aspiration Nation vision. It will then come to define what this Government is all about and might even allow it to take some credit for having a coherent, joined-up approach to its work that might just deliver electoral success, particularly when compared to a current opposition that is offering no ideas or coherent policy suggestions, but, despite that is well ahead in the polls.

It seems to me that it has taken a gargantuan effort for Call-Me-Dave to be trailing so disastrously in the polls following his replacement of one of the most morally and financially bankrupt administrations in history, and that, just maybe, a coherent communications strategy, including a strong vision, well delivered, might just have been of some use to him. Sigh.

Anyway, things seem to have gone quiet on the Aspiration Nation front since the budget and the danger must be, therefore, that it will, like its predecessors, be relegated to another gimmick that didn't quite work, didn't really communicate what the coalition stands for and what the country needs. If that is the case then 'Aspiration Nation' moves down my status list to number 4 - which means that it becomes damaging because it is seen as another half-hearted, un-thought-through piece of crap with which the spin doctors were trying to dupe us all and which just provides more evidence of the shallow, un-prepared and uncommitted nature of the current administration. It also makes any future slogans or promises less likely to be taken seriously in a way which can be truly damaging to their reputation.

Time will tell, but I'm not hopeful that the coalition really understands the value of a strong, clear and effective vision for the country, or that it could bring massive benefits to them amongst the electorate. Maybe they shouldn't have left it to the night before the pitch to come up with something?

Thanks for reading. I wrote a much more technical - and sweary, sorry - piece on the subject of vision last year. Just if, after the above, you're still not quite able to get off to sleep, you can read it here.