The defining sociological trends of today are very different from when Labour was last in opposition. The party needs to think boldly to address them, argues Graeme Cooke
In the aftermath of the 1987 general election, Labour’s National Executive Committee commissioned a major postmortem into the party’s third consecutive defeat. Combining insights into voting behaviour, public attitudes and sociological trends, the resulting report, Labour and Britain in the 1990s, was a clarion call to understand how changes in society were reshaping politics. The report painted a stark picture of a party in danger of being left behind by, and increasingly ‘out of tune’ with, the country it sought to govern.
There was strong backing for Labour’s values – with no majority embrace of Thatcherism – yet the party had lost support across all social groups. A widespread feeling that ‘Labour is not for me’, alongside the dominant sociological trends of the time – like the increase in managerial and professional jobs, the revolution in women’s lives and the expansion of home ownership – risked putting the party on the ‘wrong side of history’.
In the 1990s, Labour dramatically overcame this predicament, recasting its appeal to ‘go with the grain’ of economic and social shifts, while tapping into the spirit of optimism and modernity that characterised the end of the 20th century. This strategy delivered spectacular electoral results and underpinned a political dominance that lasted more than a decade. The right, ideologically rampant in the 1980s, could not come to terms with the country Britain had become, let alone be able to master or lead change.
A similar fate has now befallen Labour. Where once it captured the mood of the moment and enjoyed broad appeal, over time its agenda ossified and its support frayed. The result has been a fracturing of its electoral coalition, a loss of intellectual confidence and a crisis of political identity. This partly reflects the ebb and flow of politics and the impact of events. But it also tells a deeper story, transcending the day-to-day, about the task facing Labour now: not just to be electorally successful again, but to be politically transformative.
Opinion poll leads and government failures have put the spring back in to Labour’s step. But, in Still Partying Like It’s 1995, a forthcoming report from IPPR, I argue that the centre-left must use this platform to be more honest about the scale of the challenges it faces and more ambitious about its purpose. This is rooted in an analysis of political sociology – the economic, social and cultural forces shaping the context for politics. This is the space between debating abstract values and satisfying voter preferences.
The challenges facing Labour are profound and shared across much of the European centre-left. Its share of the vote dropped to 29 per cent in 2010, undermining its status as a truly national party. Fiscal and economic credibility needs to be rebuilt after its political economy was so exposed by the financial crisis. Pursuing social justice with less money and less reliance on the central state requires a profound rethinking of its statecraft. And Labour must address its ‘tin ear’ to expressions of cultural sentiment, like anxiety about the pace of change and concern for more than just the bottom line.
In thinking about how to confront these challenges, the Attlee and Thatcher governments provide the benchmark. Both harnessed the sources of energy in society at the time to advance their ideological projects and sink roots of popular and institutional support that long outlasted them. They constructed patriotic and majoritarian electoral appeals, framed around the national interest, which captured the spirit of the times and transformed the terms of politics. Based on an understanding of today’s society, that should be the scale of Labour’s ambition now.
One way of grasping Britain’s current political sociology is to consider the changes that have taken place since the mid-1990s when Labour last engaged with the country from opposition. For a start, decisive events – like the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the ongoing economic crisis, 9/11, the Iraq war and major constitutional reforms – have altered the backdrop to politics. But the defining sociological trends of today are also quite different from those of two decades ago in ways that have reshaped the central ideological and electoral tasks for Labour.
In the 1990s the premise of economic policy was that the advance of globalisation and technology would drive an expansion of ‘good jobs’, as unskilled labour was outsourced or automated. This would lead to social mobility and higher living standards, so long as government helped people improve their skills and adaptability. However, the labour market has actually experienced ‘polarisation’, with an expansion in professional jobs matched by a resilience in low- paid, low-status employment – and a ‘hollowing out’ of administrative and skilled manual jobs. Average wages have been stagnating, linked to rising earnings inequality and the apparent fracture between productivity and pay.
This sociological shift has profound political implications. Social mobility will require much more than just improvements in education, while higher employment may not be enough to raise the living standards of ordinary working people, especially in a period of severe constraint on the state’s capacity to compensate for market outcomes. The financial crisis has shown that markets are not self-regulating and that, left to themselves, they tend towards monopoly and instability. This poses the ideological task of reforming capitalism to advance a competitive, productive economy – while ensuring those on low and middle incomes ‘share in the proceeds of growth’.
There have been major demographic shifts too. Female employment rates have plateaued, after rising rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s. The central divide now is around the age that people partner and parent. So completing the revolution in family life means both childcare and social care for overstretched families and new routes to a better life for the rising generation of lower-skilled young people. The ageing population is well documented, but the political class continues to lump together an increasingly diverse group of over-60s as ‘pensioners’. Negotiating the tension between a younger generation, facing a bleaker future than their parents, and an older generation holding economic wealth and political power is one of the defining challenges of the decade.
These trends – and many others like it – do not just mean that the problems requiring a political response now are different from two decades ago, though that is true. The task for Labour is to attach a fresh ideological agenda to an electoral strategy which widens its base of potential support. This means breaking free of the psephological straitjacket which trades off caricatures of ‘core working-class’ and ‘swing middle-class’ voters. For example, the vital economic coalition is between the expanding professional class and a resilient ‘working class’ that is increasingly female, part-time and employed in the service sector. Standing up for pressurised families, in all their forms, and ‘active affluent’ older people would be another powerful electoral alliance.
Labour must also confront the cultural dimension to modern politics. Further IPPR research out soon analyses the British Values Survey and identifies three core values dispositions in society. We find that 41 per cent of voters are ‘pioneers’, globally focused, networked, innovators and seeking self-actualisation; 28 per cent are ‘prospectors’, valuing success and status, are ambitious and seeking the esteem of others; while one-third are ‘settlers’ and have a strong sense of the need for rules, value the local, are wary of change, and seeking security and belonging. Crucially, these values dispositions cut across different classes: it is certainly not the case that the formerly industrial north is full of ‘settlers’, metropolitan areas only have ‘pioneers’ and ‘middle England’ is a sea of ‘prospectors’.
This speaks to the task of regaining an ethical appeal to younger, graduate and liberal voters, while reaching into aspects of small ‘c’ conservative sentiment, by protecting cherished institutions and ways of life. Overall, the goal is to build a majoritarian political project, based on a governing agenda that responds to the national interest. The risk for Labour is getting stuck in an intellectual and electoral cul-de-sac; clinging to an outdated set of policies, standing for sectional interests and promoting a patchwork politics.
Perhaps more than in 1997, the current moment – characterised by crisis in the financial markets and riots on the streets – marks a political juncture where the future is genuinely up for grabs. Unlike in the 1980s, the Conservatives do not seem capable of more than tactical manoeuvres in response to volatile public opinion. That provides an historic opportunity for Labour, perhaps a larger one than it currently recognises. It can not only win power at the next election, but transform politics. But to do so it must understand the new sources of energy in society to recast its ideological agenda and redraw the electoral map. There is no time to waste.
—————————————————————————————
Graeme Cooke is visiting fellow at IPPR
—————————————————————————————
Thanks for this excellent article, Graeme, based on clear-headed and detailed analysis. I totally agree that we have the opportunity to forge a new political consensus, more so that in the 1990s, but that there is no time to waste. The old consensus in economics and in other aspects of political life is unraveling faster than we might have thought. We need to formulate the terms of the post-coalition consensus that we want to define, and then strategically form policies in a way that will change the terms of political debate in this country.
I think we all know the real meaning of “a new political consensus” that you are so keen for Labour to adopt. Let me guess: Nationalisation of the banks? Re-Nationalisation of the railways? Compul0sory membership of a union? I am happy to help in formulating Labour policies but my humble thoughts are likely to fall on deaf ears whereas yours, Tanweer, are likely to be entertained by some of our apparatchiks, regrettably.
Thanks for posting this Graeme, some interesting insights though I must confess I was a little disappointed that much of the article deals with the past rather than the present and you only got on to some (very brief) explanations of current trends quite a way in. Us web readers don’t always want or need the context before getting to the substance.
Nevertheless I very much share your conclusions – there is a narrative for Labour here in protecting the national interest through standing up for national institutions that the Conservatives wish to undermine, and building a broad basis of support for this agenda beyond purely sectional interests.
I also think it is important that we recognise that, as you point out, there is a question about whether Labour deserves to call itself a national party at the moment, so the importance and scale of the challenge (to win back that status) is a big one. In attracting just 29% of the vote (concentrated in ‘heartland’ areas), and effectively giving up areas as a short-term electoral strategy, Labour has been digging a hole for itself.
A good article for the comment on ‘core working class’ etc alone, which I perceive as a kick at those who favour just the opposite in their promotion of the dire ‘Blue Labour’ initiative.
change is required but defining it by the westminster and party elite is nto the way forward ,influence routes important as is buidimg networks at local level but ,old ways of canvasing are not enough,we must get much more slick about use of media and as you say not just the messages but aimed at different audiences, building a critical framework that has connectivity with those who will vote and the media ,power located within the party structures will have to give way to fresh ideas/shape the future ,connect with young people. what and how who why .
kinnock lost the value based election strategy there is no one audience anymore.the sign of strong leadership is that which surrounds itself with different views ideas challenge not being shaped by those that just agree and seek self gratification power ego trips
None of your arguments stands up to rigorous examination. You praise Blair’s victory in ’97 for “recasting its appeal” but then attribute Labour’s defeat in 2010 to policies cast in concrete. In otherwords, parties obtain power by radically changing their past policies and lose power by doggedly sticking to policies that brought them into power. On that basis, we can bet on this Tory-led regime who vehemently insist on sticking to ‘Plan A’ being thrown out in 2015!
You assume that once governments (particularly Labour ones) come into power they ossify while the rest of society evolves and changes at all levels. This is a depressing analysis of our politicians’ capability to respond to demographic trends!
You want Labour to be “politically transformative” so it can ‘retune’ into the wishes of the voters but this is equivalent to saying that electoral success is only possible by the party changing policy based on opinion poll results rather than political principle. It is an approach that Ed Miliband is embracing whole-heartedly by his criticisms of Brown and Blair and his present ability to sway with the public breeze.
Ed’s leadership pronouncements leave me with the question: ‘why, on earth, did I vote for Labour in ’97, ’02, ’05 and ’10 if Labour were generally in error and bad for the country’? According to the gospel of Ed I have been naive and too trusting in my voting history. Perhaps I should have behaved like Diane Abbott who, once re-election was assured, spent all of her media time rubbishing her government.
The reality is that parties become governments by convincing a sufficient number of the electorate to vote for them and this is achieved, I believe, more by presentation than policy. During the 2010 TV debates, for example, the viewers opted for Clegg and Cameron over Brown partly because of the promises they made (which have been universally overturned) but mainly because they appeared competent and trustworthy and that had a stronger magnetic attraction than gravitas. We live in a country where practically the entire media (Press and TV) is right-wing and anti-Labour (I am more than willing to avail you of countless examples of this political bias if anyone is in doubt) and, since a large proportion of voters’ political opinions are moulded by the media, it is a miracle that Labour ever get elected to power (which is a testament to the political strengths and character of Tony Blair – a record that too many in today’s PLP are eager to trash).
Cameron has convincing slickness to con the electorate at the moment and will continue to do so in 2015 unless we can produce a Labour ‘Superman’ capable of being a force for good for our citizens.
I’m sorry, but I feel Ed Miliband falls far short of being an effective hero (let alone ‘super hero’) for Labour. He is rapidly becoming a ‘non-person’ in the media (OK, he had his media appearances during the riots but his comments were always ‘political waffle’, i.e. generalised comments that avoid the real issues and solutions). The narrowness of margin in the leadership election result last year was the worst possible outcome for the party and for both Miliband brothers. The only credible candidate from the general dross presented to members (Diane Abbott? what a sick joke) that would provide an effective media opposition was David Miliband but, without a leadership resignation from Ed, we will see a) a Tory government in 2015 and b) a great Labour PM that never was.
Iraq. Labour lost about half their core. Going on the lifelong supporters i knew.