The scale of the Labour’s losses in this month’s local elections was not, perhaps, as bad as many had feared. This, however, will come as scant consolation to the couple of hundred Labour councillors who lost their seats. It is perfectly natural and understandable that they should feel aggrieved that their efforts were severely handicapped by failings at a national level for which they bore no responsibility, and for which they should not have paid such a heavy price.
The question of whether Labour’s poor performance – and a 26 per cent share of the vote and the loss of 18 councils should not be described in any other terms – was the result of nine days of atrocious newspaper headlines, or part of a wider malaise, is one to which conclusive answers are extremely difficult to ascertain. However, it is clear that the local elections, coming on top of Labour’s disappointing share of the vote in last year’s general election, do indicate that the voters want the party to raise its game.
In the 1990s, New Labour recognised – in the face of much opposition from some on the left – that a radical renewal based on hard–headed assessments of the lessons of the defeats of the 1980s, was the only way that the party would ever see government again. New Labour must not fail to apply the same logic to the defeat the party sustained this month.
It is, of course, true that local elections have traditionally been difficult for the governing party (especially ones which have been in office for a number of years), and that voters frequently use them to cast a judgement on issues over which those standing have little or no impact. We can bemoan this fact, but only by reviving the powers and relevancy of local government (as part of wider process of what David Miliband has termed ‘double devolution’ to individual citizens and neighbourhoods) will it begin to be remedied. Luckily, as Chris Leslie argues in this edition (see p14), a New Local Government Network survey of voters in London on polling day indicated strong public support for the idea that local councillors, not national politicians, should take responsibility for the day–to–day running of a variety of public services, such as health and education.
Such a shift would certainly have been fairer to Labour councillors in this year’s elections. It is interesting to note, for instance, that, in the US, where much greater power and responsibility resides at a local level, voters are much less inclined to take out national frustrations in local elections. Had this been the case in Britain, excellent authorities – independently judged to be efficient and responsive – like Camden, would still be in Labour hands.
And while it is true that local election results are often a poor predictor of subsequent general elections – Margaret Thatcher recovered from bad mid–term elections to win re–election twice, while weak Labour performances in 2000 and 2004 were followed a year later by substantial House of Commons’ majorities – it is important to be aware of the national implications of the sapping of local strength. The Tories’ defeat in 1997 followed on from a ‘hollowing out’ of their party at a grassroots level; the result, for a large part, of repeated cullings of Tory councillors who formed the bedrock of the party on the ground. We do not believe Labour’s position to be comparable, but we should also be aware of the lasting impact of ‘mid–term blues’.
This warning is particularly relevant given the strength of the Tories’ performance on polling day. This has to be put in some perspective, of course. Although David Cameron led the Conservatives to their best result at the polls since 1992, his 40 per cent share of the vote was only marginally higher than that of the hapless William Hague in 2000. Despite making it clear that he did not believe there should be ‘no–go’ zones for the Tories, Cameron has still not been able to elect a single councillor in inner–city authorities such as Newcastle, Manchester or Liverpool. Worse still for the new Tory leader, despite the gains his party made in some of the more affluent areas of large towns in the north and Midlands, like Bolton and Coventry, Conservative support in these areas of the country still appears insufficient for them to win a majority in the Commons. Indeed, outside of London, the Tories only managed to average a one seat gain per council.
Nonetheless, Labour should be concerned about the Conservatives’ strong showing in London, echoing, as it does, the gains which they made in the capital during last year’s general election. While the focus on London does reflect to some extent the metropolitan bias of the Westminster–based media, it should be remembered that the city contains a string of marginal seats and is a critical general election battleground. Lose London, and the prospects of a Commons’ majority are slight and without historical precedent.
While the Conservatives can take comfort from the elections, the Liberal Democrats should entertain no such feelings. Indeed, the silver linings for Labour – regaining Lambeth, depriving the Liberals of control of Islington, and snatching seats from them in Liverpool and Manchester – all came at Menzies Campbell’s expense. His party also failed to gain targets – such as Haringey, Bristol, Manchester and Portsmouth – where they made advances at the parliamentary level last May. As usual, where the Liberal Democrats were in power, or had recently held it, they tended to do badly. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their ability to govern. Although it is too early to tell, the Lib Dems’ performance indicates that the general election may have been the high–watermark of the party’s challenge to Labour in some of its traditional heartlands.
What the elections do clearly show, however, is that the Tories are back in business. As we argued last year, some of the Lib Dems’ more spectacular gains from Labour in the general election, led some to under–estimate the signs of a Tory revival, especially in London, which were occurring even under Michael Howard. There can be no doubt about that now, nor about the response which Labour should adopt. Cameron has begun to rebuild Tory strength by making a play for the centre ground, which has been dominated by Labour since the mid–1990s.
Although the Tory leader’s approach has been more one of rhetoric than substance, this election proves that even this form of pseudo–centrism can, especially in the face of Labour weakness, have considerable popular appeal. That is why it is more vital than ever that Labour does not retreat from the centre, but stand its ground and expose the hollowness of Cameron’s claim to it.
The challenges ahead which Labour must face – narrowing the equality gap and boosting social mobility; continuing to improve public services at a time when the huge investment of the past few years begins to slow; improving the skills and productivity of Britain’s workers; and fashioning a progressive international and environmental agenda, to name but a few – are phenomenal and occurring in the context of both globalisation and large–scale demographic change which blur the boundaries between the domestic and foreign. Labour must now redouble its efforts to demonstrate that it has responses which can command a wide popular appeal, and which it can competently deliver.