Ed Miliband has said that we need to draw a line under the New Labour era and prove we have changed. He is right that by the end of our period in government the New Labour brand was contaminated. But by setting his focus on the ‘squeezed middle’ Labour’s leader is demonstrating he is aware that the party will only win again if we can recapture the support of the mainstream majority.
Our future success depends on attracting a combination of core supporters, disaffected Liberal Democrats and former Labour voters who switched to the Tories at the last election. Ed Miliband understands that persuading progressive Liberal Democrats to transfer their loyalties to Labour is only stage one of our fightback and will not be enough to secure an election victory. But he understands too that this electorate cannot be taken for granted, and to fail to win them to Labour would make our task at the next election far, far harder. In summary, we can only win again from the centre ground of British politics.
This month’s elections, with the exception of our disastrous showing in Scotland, was a good first step in the aftermath of our second worst general election result in history. But as well as a root-and-branch review of lessons to be learned from the Scottish result, we have to face up to the fact that there was little sign of those ‘squeezed middle’ voters in the southeast, southwest and east of England returning to Labour. On the whole, despite the government’s too fast, too deep cuts, tax increases and trebling of tuition fees, they stuck with the Tories. A situation which, if sustained, would mean we will not win the next general election.
So, how do the ‘squeezed middle’ view Labour and what can we do to address their concerns? They have benefited from Labour’s investment in childcare, schools, the NHS and policing. They depend on and value the public services which significantly improved during our period in government. But towards the end of our second term they started to question whether their quality of life was improving and whether they were getting a fair deal. Many did not qualify for the tax credits or other extra support available to families.
By 2010 they were angry with us and voted for change in large numbers. They saw Labour as the party of the north, standing up for the poor, benefit claimants, immigrants and minority groups, a party which talks a lot about rights but not enough about responsibility. It is important we understand the depth of people’s feelings and frustrations if we are to have any chance of them listening to us again.
So now we have established the scale of the challenge, what are some of the solutions? I want to focus on six issues.
First, we must have a vision for a better future, but one rooted in reality. The ‘squeezed middle’ are aspirational but insecure about their future. They are pessimistic about the kind of Britain they will pass on to their kids and the opportunities the next generation will have compared to themselves. Labour must offer a vision which gives people hope, is optimistic and shows how government can support people to fulfil their potential in a Britain which is confident, proud and fair. Being people’s voice in tough times is important, but we must paint a picture of the better country we want to build.
Second, we need to stimulate an open dialogue with the electorate about fair taxes, an active industrial policy to support the jobs of the future, and new national and global ethics to underpin the market economy. We must reassure people on middle incomes that we understand their anger at cumulative direct and indirect taxes which can end up being unfair. We must make the case for public investment as integral to our better future, but demonstrate an equal focus on ensuring value for money. We should introduce reforms to schools, the NHS and the criminal justice system which are consistent with our values and which give users, staff and communities more control in public services. Moreover, Labour’s history should remind us that misreading people’s tax tolerance levels always leads to the election of Tory governments which do not share our vision of the good society. In 1997 we offered reassurance by agreeing to stick to Tory spending limits and not increasing the top rate of tax. We will need similar commitments if we are to reassure people about our fiscal responsibility in the run-up to the next election.
Third, we are the natural party of the family, but have too easily ceded this ground to the Tories in recent years. Ed Miliband has rightly attacked the government for pursuing policies which will break the British promise that every generation will do better than the last. Parental leave, affordable childcare, universal children’s centre and nursery provision, a good local school, youth services, fairly funded apprenticeship places FE, and HE, a guaranteed job after six months, and a decent affordable first home – these should all be at the heart of Labour’s offer.
Fourth, Labour has to admit that it failed to develop modern welfare and immigration systems which secured public confidence or support, systems which also failed immigrants and benefit claimants. The perception and reality was sometimes that people who were not making any effort to work or were new arrivals in the country were supported by the government to have a better standard of living than their fellow citizens on low and middle incomes in work.
On welfare Labour should oppose headline-chasing punitive measures but equally we must be clear that it should be a requirement of citizenship that people either work or, in return for benefits, undertake compulsory training or voluntary work. The only exceptions should be people who through serious illness or disability cannot function in the workplace, and their carers. In addition, there is a strong case for unemployment benefit payments being time-limited and at the end of a specified period people being offered a job. The integrity and legitimacy of the system would be greatly enhanced if there was a correlation between people’s level of entitlement if they lose their job or are incapacitated and the contribution they have made.
On immigration it would be economically and morally wrong to promise people an artificial and undeliverable cap. However, immigrants should come to Britain from outside the EU only in circumstances where they are filling a skills gap or adding value to our economy. It must be very clear that new immigrants cannot displace British citizens waiting for social housing or get access to public services other than emergency NHS care. Labour market policies must ensure employers are prevented wherever possible from using immigrant labour to undercut the pay of British workers and threaten their jobs. Illegal immigrants should be returned to their country of origin and any court processes should be fast tracked.
New Labour too often appeared timid when faced with excesses by companies and their executives. Corporate excesses, including tax avoidance and excessive pay and bonuses, are properly the concern of a party which believes in a good society. The capacity of government to act may be limited in some circumstances but full disclosure and transparency will lead to greater accountability and scrutiny in the court of public opinion.
Fifth, Labour should recognise that in a global world, people are more attached than ever to community identity and pride. We must be the party which respects tradition and identity linked to place, faith or culture. Community cohesion means respecting the dignity of minority communities but also being uncompromising in demanding respect for the law and integration. Alongside a small state David Cameron’s ‘big society’ is an illusion. But support for volunteering, voluntary organisations, cooperatives and community networks should be central to Labour’s vision of a new state which is strong but decentralised.
Moreover, communities can only flourish if they are safe and secure. Labour must give police and residents the tools to be tough and uncompromising on crime and antisocial behaviour. The police cuts and scrapping of ASBOs run the risk of reversing the significant reduction in crime achieved under Labour. Strong communities respect individual rights but they also depend on personal and shared responsibilities. Labour must seek a new covenant between state and citizen based on rights and responsibilities.
Last, it is our duty to hold the government to account. ‘Squeezed middle’ voters are concerned about petrol prices, the VAT increase, reductions to child benefit, and tax credits. They are yet to see the impact of cuts to policing, youth services and elderly care support. Only now will the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and the trebling of tuition fees start to shift from a concern to a stark reality. Some will have lost their jobs, others will fear for the future. In these circumstances many will start to question whether David Cameron really understands how tough it is and begin listening to Labour if they feel we are articulating their concerns.
We will not attract enough ‘squeezed middle’ voters if we do not address the issues I have identified. By understanding their insecurity about the future, their doubts about Labour, and the reasons they currently identify with the Tories, we can build a narrative which reconciles our record in government with a compelling vision for a better future. Our duty to be an effective opposition is clear but we want our party back in government because that is the only way we can build a fairer and stronger Britain. Only when ‘squeezed middle’ voters start to feel at ease with Labour will we know that we are once again on course.