There is an old adage that politicians, like generals, always deploy tactics to fight the last war – not the one they are in. Will this be true of New Labour in 2001 or whenever we go to the polls? Possibly, because old adages tend to be based on essential truths. It is like the maxim: ‘It’s Governments that loose election – not Oppositions that win them.’ It is an accepted wisdom that has the benefit of largely being right. Let’s consider both of these homilies, set them against the fact that Labour has never won a second full term and decide what kind of campaign it could, and should, be. All elections are about the same choice – do you want to stick with the ‘devil you know’ or is it ‘time for change’? The answers, according to the polls at the moment, would seem to be a clear, although less clear, ‘yes’ and ‘no’. If the election is almost ‘in the bag’ should the campaign, like last time, be based on safety first?
The 1997 campaign was compared to the agonising feat of carrying a hugely expensive antique vase from one side of the room to another. It was a simple task for Labour given its lead in the polls and the Tories’ unpopularity. But the price of any gaffe was potentially immense. It was, therefore, a campaign where nobody dared breathe. The stakes are still just as high, but this time the fear factor will not be as strong. Coming out of the Dome fiasco, the pensions debacle and the fuel crisis, Labour has learned that Nietzsche was right: ‘That which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.’ I detect more of a sense of nerve and confidence about the Government now, which will hopefully show itself in the election campaign.
The clear and present danger is that we will campaign too much on our record. This is understandable but misguided. Understandable, because at last we have a Labour Government with a record to boast about – the economy, education, minimum wage, etc. It is misguided because increasingly, voters are becoming complacent and reluctant to reward politicians who only deliver what they are expected to, like a sound economy.
Competent managerialism is a necessary but insufficient basis for a renewed mandate. It’s a box we must tick, but it might not be enough to make the difference we need. In part the economy no longer turns that many votes because the voter has been told that our macroeconomic policies are set largely by the rules of globalisation. Why then should politicians reap the benefit of growth? Potentially, and even worse for Labour, there is a theory doing the rounds that delivering long-term economic stability actually plays against us. Instead, ‘boom and bust’ economics, if tied to the electoral cycle (as Thatcher achieved in 1983 and 1987), provides a better contrast in voters’ fortunes and so creates a greater ‘feel good’ factor. Prosperity is a relative concept and might be better appreciated against a recent downturn rather than steady, but slow, incremental growth.
Anyway, to rely on our record of competence would be to fight the last war. Meanwhile the people have moved on. They already know that Tony and Gordon can be trusted to steer the ship, it’s where they are headed and at what rate of knots that now interests them.
In terms of campaigning technique, there is a growing mood amongst strategists in favour of a more targeted and sophisticated approach. They argue that general messages delivered wholesale through the press, via TV broadcasts or on billboards, no longer work. Instead, parties should concentrate on ‘below the radar’ personalised messages to swing voters in swing seats delivered by direct mail, over the phone or via the internet. So let’s see if the outward dynamics of the campaign are very different.
It will also be interesting to see if anti-Tory tactical voting appears to the same extent as it did in 1997 and whether the party nationally, either explicitly or implicitly, encourages it, as it did last time. It won’t just be Stephen Twigg in Enfield Southgate, but a whole swath of Labour candidates who will benefit if it does.
So what else should be different? Last time we won as ‘not the Tories’. This time we have to ‘win as Labour’. That means we have to inspire our activists, core supporters and the key swing voters. Inspiration for the left comes from the goal of a more equal society. To base our core message on anything else would mean we face the prospect of an American New Democrat slide into the quick sand. All campaigns are about a balance between power and principle. In hindsight, we over did it on power in 1997 and let too much principle slip. Our subsequent problems in government have not been our lack of seats, but our lack of purpose.
Last time our understandable timidity during the campaign not to over-promise closed down too many options once we were in power. This time we need to win a mandate to transform society. Tony Blair always had a two-parliament strategy. The first would be used to consolidate support, to prove the electorate that they were right to back us. The second was to put in place far-reaching reforms. I’m a little unsure that the tap of radicalism can simply be turned off and on at will. But it’s important I’m proved wrong. Delivering meaningful change and making the political weather, rather that reacting to it, will determine whether we get a third term to see through the process of transformation. If the 1997 campaign was all about winning, 2001 must be about winning for a purpose.
At the next election New Labour should break with the old political maxims. This time let’s win it rather than not lose, and let’s fight with an eye on the next election – not the last.