But those in the party who claim that we did better than expected are kidding themselves. Our grand total of 260 MPs masks a wipeout across swathes of the nation to which we need to make a fresh appeal if we are to win next time.
It’s perhaps complacent to blame Gordon Brown for our defeat, but we can now allow ourselves a degree of honesty on that subject that we denied ourselves 18 months ago in the wake of our calamitous European parliament election results (16 per cent of the vote, remember). It was crystal clear in June 2009 that the public wanted to see an end to Gordon’s premiership; they told us in unambiguous terms that if Labour didn’t dispense with his services, then they would. We didn’t, so they did.
Cameron will go into the next election with the authority of incumbency. If he manages to continue his clever strategy of using his Liberal Democrat partners as the fall guys for his administration’s failures while taking personal credit for whatever triumphs materialise, he will have succeeded comprehensively in the detoxification process of his party that met with only modest success during his years as leader of the opposition.
A lurch to the left, in whatever form we wish to label it (and ‘The New Socialism’ is as good a term as any) would certainly appeal to Labour’s grassroots and to the unions. But would it help to win back seats such as South Thanet in Kent? Labour’s going to have to get over its obsession with, and animosity towards, wealth and wealth creators. If our priority really is the poorest paid and those wasting their lives on benefits, then let’s focus on them, not on the ‘fat cats’, the ‘filthy rich’ and other pejorative clichés from a bygone political era.
Aspiration is alive and well in 21st century Britain, and we abandon the politics of aspiration to our opponents at our own risk. The vast majority of people want, rightly, to improve their lives materially; they want a bigger home, a nicer car, more frequent holidays, higher salaries, lower tax bills. They also demand better schools, safer streets, more responsive health treatment, more accountable local services.
And aspiration has another quality: the yearning to be free of government interference in our lives. Ed Miliband shouldn’t be offering the ‘squeezed middle’ government ‘help’; he should be promising to reduce the number of people who have to rely on the state to get by. Loeila, Duchess of Westminster, once memorably declared that ‘Any man who finds himself on a bus after the age of 30 can count himself a failure.’ Like it or not, the same stigma is attached, nowadays, to almost any form of government ‘help’. Success is measured in independence from the interference of the state, and that is as true of our own core vote as it is of our target voters.
If there is a more absurd and patronising political slogan than ‘post-material politics’, I’m afraid I’ve not come across it. It is very brave for people whose earnings reside comfortably in the top decile to lecture the rest of the nation on the need to move beyond the basic aspiration to achieve an increased level of wealth. My friend and colleague, David Cairns MP, has coined the term ‘conservatory voters’ to describe those who work hard and aspire to add a conservatory to their house; a modest, achievable ambition that encapsulates aspiration and progress for them. Brown had difficulty understanding such people; Tony Blair could find their G-spot blindfolded. If we speak to them, we win; if not we lose again and again.
its la la land politics for some. the electorate would have got rid of blair earlier if there had been a credible alternative. it was because of brown that blair managed to get a third term, not despite brown. the public gave brown an honeymoon period which he failed to build upon, they gave it because they beleived he was old labour, that he was different to blair. but he failed precisely because he was as galloway has said before now the other cheek of the same backside. and the tories had to a degree an electable leadership. the failure to recognise that blair came at the back end of a notoriously bad tory government and with added goodwill from the public because of john smiths untimely death. that his success depended on the deceits and fraudulently created “bubbles of prosperity” – be it IT or housing. and importantly because there was no viable opposition. a lipstick wearing pig could have led labour to 3 general election wins to misquote obama. at the first opportunity they got rid of new labour and the stench of the cesspool. unfortunately that stench remains within labour because like pigs at the trough nothing matters other than greed and power for the self. for labour to succeed, new labour has to be exorcised, there has to be a realignment , new visions and that recognition that a fairer , happier, just society is one where the distance between the rich and poor is short. tom harris is surely in the wrong party.
Whilst I agree with your comments about “post-material politics”, the problem is that wealth and the ability to accumulate wealth is still concentrated in the hands of a few. The real wealth creators are of course in the majority – how could we be against the electorate? I find it curious you don’t understand this. Labour’s “obsession” has rightly always been with the wealth accumulators at the top. We could ignore all this and rename ourselves the Capital Party but it wouldn’t do anything for the squeezed middle, nor would it win us many more votes when there’s an established party of Capital in office. Our opponents cannot meet the aspirations of the many because they cannot take on vested interests. Far from hailing from a bygone political era, animosity towards reckless bankers and corporate greed is very much alive in Middle England precisely because such concentration blocks further progress. We could follow the path of least resistance – but it’s a path of decline.
Except the numbers just don’t bear you out Tom. In 1997 Tony Blair got 43.2% of a 71.3% turnout. He got fewer votes than Major in 1997. Turnout now bobs between 60 and 65 percent. Most of the voters we lost did not go to the Tories, they just stopped voting, and get bitter whenever they hear that one D-Ream song. And considering the storm that erupted over child benefit, you’re clearly wrong that people feel like failures if they take government help to which they are entitled. Indeed, the only people who surrender their free bus passes and winter fuel allowances are the Polly Toynbees of this world, the people you decry as patronising. You want to talk patronising? Implying the working people of this country didn’t care about Iraq, or I.D. cards. They don’t care about social justice, or the well-being of their neighbours. Nope, all they want is a conservatory on their house. (Now trading at 7 times median income). If this is the vision, I’d rather have the Old Etonians. At least you can guilt a patrician.
Utter drivel, who have you been canvassing? Ayn Rand?
This is utterly delusional. As others have said, Labour won in 97 because the Tories couldn’t have been more unpopular – not because they became the party of avarice as you suggest. You are so far away from where public opinion actually is on bankers, greed, gross inequalities in wealth and opportunity as to make everything you have written here irrelevant. And I’m referring to genuine public opinion rather than the kind you bow to, dictated by rightwing media barons. 90 per cent of people earn below £35k. They aspire to a happy, healthy life, a decent home, security, fair and equal opportunities for their children and to feel like they’re rewarded fairly for the work they do. But you equate aspiration to nothing more than greed. How do you propose to ensure your ‘conservatory voters’ can afford to improve their homes? By out-righting the Tories on tax, allowing the rich to get richer and ensuring real wages continue to stagnate or decrease? What few policies you have beyond promoting greed would serve only to make it easier for those already with conservatories to get more and more while those without continue to go without. This cynical, centre right breed of Labour has been roundly rejected by the electorate. Blair and his style of politics are toxic and labour will turn back to them at their peril. Your point about public services is beyond parody. Is there ‘stigma’ attached to driving on our roads? Catching a train? Going to school? Is it ‘interference from the state’ to allow people to receive medical attention when sick regardless of wealth? The state enables people to live the life they want to live – it should free them from the worry of getting ill, becoming homeless or losing their job so they can be productive, decent members of society who can care properly for their family and enjoy many of the things currently only available to the wealthy. As a map for how to win power this article is utter garbage. But out of interest, please tell us what you think the purpose of power is beyond winning elections? And specifically what your brand of Labour offers that the Tories don’t?
Samuel wheeler, Most of the working Class people I knocked on the door of at the 2005 election could’nt care less about Iraq and were pro Id cards, Admitaddly in My part of outer East London the working calss were quite right wing, and htey didn’t like Blair and Liked Brown, But what did it for us at the 2010 election was unfortuantley Borwn being overheard commenting on MRs Duffy
but some are happy being power pigs in a trough, whaddaryagonnadoboutthat eh missus ?
an’ wot’s more they think it’s fair too and ya boo sucks to all of you ,suck -splosh- squoink -splursh-splat ,”ere,is there any pickles in this swill”