This month’s elections were never going to be particularly easy elections for Labour: mid-term referendums on the performance of third term governments are frequently brutal as Margaret Thatcher found in 1990. Few, however, expected the scale of the carnage which ensued: the party’s worst defeat for 40 years and an anaemic 24 per cent of the vote.
Some of the damage Labour sustained was undoubtedly self-inflicted, most especially by the furore over the abolition of the 10 pence tax rate. This apparent muddying of the government’s commitment to the working poor is, however, symptomatic of a wider problem: the fact that the electorate no longer seems to know where the party stands. This confusion stems from the fact that the sum of the government’s parts doesn’t appear to make a coherent whole: a compelling sense of direction is lacking and even its four or five top priorities appear unclear, a reflection of the fact that frenetic activity has replaced strategy.
Too often, indeed, the government employs the language of progressive change without seeming to mean it, sending out conflicting messages on a range of issues, from public service reform to whether or not the era of ‘Whitehall knows best’ is really over. To paraphrase Norman Lamont, it’s not so much that the government is in office but not in power, as in office but without a defining purpose.
For Labour to find itself in this situation barely a year into Gordon Brown’s premiership is deeply depressing. But the party needs to move quickly to rediscover its self-confidence and recognise that, however bad these mid-term results, the next general election is still very much up for grabs. The opposition’s personnel and policy agenda remains embarrassingly weak and it’s arguable that the public are not yet convinced that David Cameron is ready for Number 10. Nor, as we have suggested before, does the country appear to be undergoing the kind of political sea change which it experienced prior to the landmark elections of the 20th century: 1945, 1964, 1979 or 1997.
However, as we warned in February, Labour should beware of the ‘safety-first’ option of relying on the Tories’ underlying weakness and the traditional recovery most governments experience as they move from mid-term towards polling day. May’s elections underline graphically the dangers of that approach: without a clear sense of where Labour wants to take the country, the siren cry of ‘time for a change’ is all the more difficult to refute.
But the suggestion that the party needs to return to a mythical ‘real Labour’ agenda in order to win back lost supporters is just as flawed. Yes, the results in traditional Labour areas such as Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent, and Hartlepool point to disillusionment amongst the party’s ‘core vote’. Equally, however, the party’s defeats in Southampton, Reading and Harlow reinforce the need to urgently address the growing problem of ‘southern discomfort’.
Ken Livingstone’s defeat sounds another dramatic warning bell about the weakness of Labour in the crucial London electoral battleground, where the party suffered some of its most dramatic losses in 2005. It also indicates clearly the perils of losing the suburban vote, which Labour did so much to appeal to in the late 1990s.
We have long argued that to follow a ‘core vote’ strategy alone is dangerously misguided and ignores the hard lessons of Labour’s years out of power: that the party must not be forced into a false choice between pursuing support in Middle Britain and its heartlands. In the 1980s, it accepted this notion and paid a heavy price. In the late 1990s, by contrast, it crafted an agenda which appealed to both and victory followed.
Tackling the plight of the disadvantaged is very clearly at the heart of the prime minister’s mission, but that effort must be allied with a new focus on an aspiration and empowerment agenda which can unite low and middle-income voters and appeal to those who voted Labour for the first time in 1997. The party must never forget that it is only with a broad, election-winning coalition that it can retain the power to pursue the policies which can assist those who most need its help.
The recent public sector strikes – the ‘summer of discontent’ as the media so unimaginatively term it – have led to predictable but flawed comparisons with the last days of the Callaghan government. But this parallel is correct in one regard. Then, as now, Labour faced a choice about whether it was able to demonstrate that it was in-touch with the times and the aspirations of not only the country as a whole, but also its core supporters. That government was not without ideas – the prime minister’s Policy Unit proposed a drive to raise school standards and council house sales – but they all came to nothing as the party retreated to its comfort zone, ceding a potentially vote-winning agenda to the Conservatives. Labour must avoid repeating this tragic mistake.
The big issue is the lack lustre leadership offered by Gordon Brown and his team.
I think the party showed a great deal of wishful thinking when it let Gordon Brown get the leadership virtually unopposed and is comparable to the choice of Michael Foot in the 80’s.
Our core vote are the persons who need the 10p tax rate and the middle classes who are anxious about the rising inflation particularly of foodstuffs and fuel, and the value of their property as negative equity still haunts many.
I think a leadership challenge is required to force the party to re establish its direction. Brown would have the opportunity to re think and re establish his credibility and the challenger, preferably coming from the next generation to offer a new vision for Labour.
At present the greatest Chancellor in the countries history is fast becoming the least successful PM.
I’m utterly stumped by the mess over the 10p tax band. I’m no politician by any means, but how could they have not seen this coming? I’m a fairly ditzy layperson most of the time, but when that was announced in last year’s budget, I raised it with my union the next week. Why did it take them to long to see the fallout?
The results last night, including the extraordinary decision by Londoners to elect Boris Johnson, do point very clearly to a disillusionment with our Party in Government. People do tire of seeing the same Party and people in power for long periods and yearn for change, almost regardless of what that change might mean.
This does not really mean there is great enthusiasm for Cameron and his version of Conservatism, I’m not sure people really know what he stands for, but it is rather the natural product of the political cycle.
Also at the moment we are giving the impression, however unfairly, that policy is being driven by events and headlines. People are feeling that there is no clear vision for Britain.
Labour is even losing it’s reputation for economic competence, even though the economy is clearly being seriously affected by issues that are beyond the control of our national government.
But we must not give in to despair. In these circumstances there is little to be gained by a knee-jerk reaction to the beating that we have taken.
Perhaps what we need is a period of cool reflection, looking in a balanced way at what policies are best meeting the needs of our traditional supporters and what best meets the needs of the broad electoral coalition that was assembled in 1997 and 2001. As a part of that process not being afraid to jettison that which has clearly not achieved it’s intended purposes.
Then putting those policies firmly within the framework of our Party’s traditional values and setting that program out for people in a sustained and systematic way.
By setting out a clear sustainable vision for Britain, regaining our sense of mission, working with our partners in the unions and with other social partners, re-connecting with our members and supporters, we can turn things around and set the groundwork for a progressive future.
If we react to electoral defeat with anger or haste we may leave the way clear for Cameron and his lightweight coalition. That would be the greatest defeat of all.
I guess Ipswich is in the south, though we think of it as the East!
Not everywhere had bad results on Thursday, and perhaps we need to look at what (if anything) is done differently in the areas where we held our own, or made progress.
Here in Ipswich, we have elections on a four-yearly cycle: County Coucil elections once every four years, with Ipswich Borough elections in each of the other three years – one seat in each of 16 three-member wards every year.
Of course campaigning from opposition has its advantages, but we made three gains, and were within a whisker (3 votes) of a fourth. We campaign 51 weeks per year – we’re taking today (Saturday after polling day) out. We ran a local campaign concentrating on local issues, and ignoring the national message.
Lets look at other areas which bucked the trend and see what if anything we are doing differently.
Gordon Brown is not providing the inspiring leadership either Labour, or the country, needs. He must take some of the blame for both his lack of style and his policy mistakes (10p rate). Why is he failing? I almost feel nostalgic for Tony Blair!
It does not take a lot to become Labour, not knew Labour not old Labour what ever that means, but Labour. I think if you ignore the working class or so called you do it at your peril.
I knew just around me people were saying are you voting Rob, do you want a postal vote, I’m mostly bed bound after losing the use of my legs and my spine has a lesion, so I said no thanks, but the got me one. so I voted but not for Labour, the first time in 40 years, I’ve not put a tick next to Labour.
It’s a shame really because it does not take much to keep Labour people Labour just do not ignore then a mistake Labour has done once to many. My local Labour party meetings are like watching paint dry now, we have to get people involved sadly not me, I’ve left.
I agree a lot Rob. Compass’ agenda of retreat is flawed and what Ken’s result shows is that we only lose elections to the right not in our heartlands – who turned out in their droves to vote for the incumbent Mayor.
The assumption here seems to be that if only the government’s direction were made clearer, voters would come back to New Labour.
However, this is patronising.
I think on the contrary voters understand exactly what the government stands for, only they don’t like it; and that’s why they want change.
New Labour has achieved a lot in ten years but they can’t abolish the electoral cycle.
After the disappointment of Iraq and the anti-climax that is Gordon Brown, when are progressives going to be honest and admit that the best thing for Labour might be a spell in opposition?
I’m not sure what Andy thinks would be achieved by a period in opposition, or why that would be the ‘best thing’. I remember clearly the last time Labour was in opposition, people’s lives were blighted by mass unemployment, house repossessions, high inflation, a declining NHS, and cuts in public services. Isn’t that too high a price to pay for a long period in opposition trying to reinvent ourselves? I am also not convinced that people really are yearning for a new approach, what is really new about the things David Cameron is saying? The Tories now try to occupy much of the same ground as Labour and it is a common complaint that there is no difference between the Parties on major issues. What really separates us are the values that we hold, and it is those values which make us Labour. It is those values which will endure beyond the current difficulties. This Government may have made mistakes, but it is better for ordinary people than any Tory Government.
Labour has flirted with a centre-right agena for a while now. It worked once, but now the rejuvinated Tory Party has the upper hand. Time for a change. Sorry to say this, but the Blair-Brown agenda is now flawed and tarnishe. Time to return to a centre-left agenda.