Much has been made over the years about the importance of capturing the ‘women’s vote’. It is oft-said that if women hadn’t been given the vote, Labour would have been re-elected in every election from 1945 onwards.
It was crucial, therefore, that women voted in large numbers for the Labour party to enable it to govern in 1997, 2001 and 2005. ‘Worcester Woman’ – a term given to a typical middle England female voter – was crucial in giving Labour its landslide in 1997. In 2005, if only women had voted, Labour’s majority would have increased from 66 to 90, whereas if men had voted we would have had a hung parliament. So what happened in 2010?
In YouGov’s final poll of over 6,000 respondents, the gap between the female vote for the Tories and Labour was far more pronounced than the male vote – 35 per cent of men voted Tory compared with 31 per cent for Labour, whereas 39 per cent of women voted Tory compared with 30 per cent for Labour. Women conclusively deserted Labour in favour of the Conservatives in far greater numbers than men.
In an election where Labour made such play of ‘women-friendly’ issues such as protecting SureStart, defending tax credits and rights for new mothers, this must be a blow to those who made play of treating women differently to men. The cold fact is that issues of family policy were not vote-winning topics at this election. The top three issues for women, and men, were the economy, immigration and asylum, and health. Family life and childcare came in at number seven in the list of issues YouGov asked which were most important to women when deciding which party to support at the general election.
It was a mistake, therefore, for Labour’s campaign team to think that targeting women on family issues would lead to extra support, not least because a significant part of the voting electorate are older women for whom these issues are no longer relevant. In the end, women do not like being treated as a separate group, fed tailored messages on issues which play to their gender rather than their heads. Where women do perhaps differ, is what they look for in leaders and what political parties stand for. That means that trustworthiness is key – 70 per cent of women felt that the UK government under Labour was not trustworthy. It was more likely that this was a major factor in women switching to the Conservatives than anything to do with Labour’s policy platform.
So, too, perhaps was a feeling that Labour’s style of politics and leadership came to embody the ‘men in grey suits’ which did for John Major. Comments on forums such as MumsNet show that women respond to politicians who embody human qualities of empathy and openness, rather than tactics or policy. The leadership debates particularly rewarded Nick Clegg for his straight-talking, easy-connecting style which shows that authenticity might matter more to women than a command of facts and figures.
A final problem could be that Labour failed to show the strength of its female politicians, particularly the new generation of younger women standing for election. Too often, major campaign announcements were made by men in the cabinet lending a sense that women weren’t part of the top team. In the post-election world, Labour needs to make the most of its excellent new female politicians to try look like a representative party again. But most of all we must recognise that women won’t be wooed back by SureStart petitions or opposing the Tories’ marriage allowances. Women will return to Labour when they feel the party, and the leader, deserves their trust once more.
Photo:
I accept much of what you argue here Jessica, but how do you square this with your enthusiasm for David Miliband for leader? Aren’t we in danger of replacing one dithering poor communicator with another. Or if you like the inverse of the Tory succession, that saw Hague replaced by Duncan Smith, as someone quipped.. if people won’t vote for William they’re unlikely to vote for his dad. The Miliband candidates and that of all of the others who seem likely to gain sufficient nominations to make a pitch for Party leader, possess the deficiences that you rightly claim in my view, helped lose Labour support amongst women. They all strike me as rather grey limited candidates, men in suits, more interested in tactics and positioning rather than communicating a clear message. In short, all candidates come from within the party machine who have a restricted hinterland with little beyond having toiled as a researcher and having undertaken a scholarship in the US. As you allude to in your article we have 81 MPs who happen to be women, some of whom have credentials other than a life in party politics, to hold high office. For what it’s worth Kate Green would be an excellent leadership candidate in my humble opinion. If you have any influence and there’s still time – tell her to run or Harriet who seems to be shaping well in the acting role. Should Dave, Ed or the other Ed win we’ll be in danger of looking indistiguishable from those two career politicians currently leading the government.