So, it wasn’t the economy, stupid after all. Despite the majority of Americans enjoying the fruits of economic prosperity, Al Gore was unable to translate this into a clear win in the US election. It seems voters either didn’t link their prosperity to the policies of the Clinton-Gore Administration, or simply banked that success as nothing less than was expected of all governments.
As we step up into election mode, it’s vital that we learn this harsh lesson. We rightly consider Gordon Brown’s expert management of the economy as Labour’s proudest achievement. We must now face the possibility that, as in the US, the voters will take economic competence for granted and not see this as reason enough to reward us at the ballot box.
Of course, there are important distinctions to draw between the task that faced Gore and ours at the forthcoming election. The Vice President was effectively fighting for a third Democrat term, while we will not face the same degree of voter fatigue as we ask the voters for a second. Gore was also trying to both take credit for the Administration’s successes while also distancing himself from President Clinton personally. We will face no such complications. However, while still recognising these differences, there remains a vital lesson for us to learn if we are to secure our historic full second term.
Ultimately, Gore’s fundamental error was his failure to articulate one coherent message that inspired both traditional Democrat supporters and those new supporters who voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. By trying to appeal in different ways to each group, he managed to sound defensive and insincere to both, and fell into the political swamp of the mushy centre from which he never escaped. Never managing to espouse a big vision, it was often difficult to identify the clear agenda that would make up a Gore presidency. Often during the campaign, it was only the highly conservative beliefs and policies of George Bush, albeit disguised by centrist language, that made the Vice President appear different from his opponent.
And it is here that we must avoid making the same mistake. We mustn’t fall into the Tory trap of treating differently, let alone choosing between, our core voters and those we won over in 1997.
Our new supporters weren’t looking for a managerial, safety first approach to government when they voted Labour in 1997. That some are disillusioned now isn’t because we have been too radical, but because we have not gone far enough, fast enough on many issues. And just as in the US, sound economic management won’t be enough to get them out to vote for us at the election.
It is a mistake to think that we need to dilute our core message to appeal to so-called ‘Middle England’ voters. To suggest that ‘Middle England’ is one homogenous grouping with identikit views is over simplistic. ‘Middle England’ is made up of both the Daily Mail – reading tendency and a large progressive majority – a majority we won over in 1997. This progressive majority within ‘Middle England’ will not be won over again by a tepid middle-of-the-road policy agenda, but by being inspired as they were in 1997.
Diluting our core message will not only fail to inspire our new voters, but is guaranteed to disillusion our core supporters. There is a presumption that this core vote has nowhere else to go. Even if has nowhere else to go, it certainly has somewhere to stay – at home. We are disproportionately affected as a party from a low turnout – only five percentage points drop in turnout would cost us around twenty seats before we even start worrying about voters returning to the Tories.
And what of the other part of ‘Middle England’, the illiberal, anti-European, racist and homophobic parts of society, represented so accurately by the Daily Mail? Our appeal is wide enough that we can afford not to pander to this section of society. And if we lose their votes by taking on this agenda, then so be it. Those are votes we don’t need, and shouldn’t want – and more than likely votes we never won over in 1997 anyway.
It’s a myth into which we’ve too often appeared to buy that we can only appeal to ‘Middle England’ through tax cuts, illiberal criminal justice policy and an apologetic approach to Europe. This is false, and recognising that will allow us to pursue an agenda that will have the vital effect of enthusing our members, thus ensuring a vigorous campaign and getting out our core vote.
So, let’s learn from Gore’s mistakes. Let’s start espousing the radical agenda that will appeal not only to our core voters but also to the progressive majority in ‘Middle England’. Let’s stop sounding defensive and cautious. Let’s abandon the managerial style of government and trade it in for vision politics. Let’s make the next election campaign a passionate fight for true social justice, for a real equality of opportunity, a staunch defence of the merits of redistribution, for civil liberties, for a green radicalism, and for Britain’s natural home at the heart of Europe.
The past few weeks have shown that when we do this, we reap the benefits in poll ratings, just as we will in real votes. From the refreshingly robust defence of the EU Rapid Reaction Force to the passionate arguments in support of our public spending increases, from the decision to use the Parliament Act to force through an equal age of consent, to the lead that John Prescott took at the post-Kyoto environmental summit.
With an election possibly less than five months away, it’s time for us to once again define our mission: to stake our rightful claim to the principles of social justice and liberalism and take the fight to the Tories. We must not let them set the agenda and we should not feel the need to outflank them at every right turn. Whether we can win with as large a majority as in 1997 or not, we will have achieved something far more important – a mandate for a radical second term, in which we implement the progressive policies that will transform Britain in the 21st century.