The lesson we need to learn from the Bradford West by-election, as our deputy leader told us this morning, is to learn the lessons. The problem is: what lessons? A spectacular coup, such as that carried out last night by the newly elected member of parliament for Baghdad West, is so unusual, such an aberration, that it is hard to extrapolate a wider lesson for the rest of the political firmament.
George Galloway, like so many master manipulators before him, campaigns in a dazzle of oratory and fakery, but fails in the hard work of helping his constituents or representing them in parliament. Next time, they’ll vote him out.
The result of the Bradford West by-election does not mark the end of party politics, nor the rise of a new party in the shape of Respect. Unmarked last night was a victory for Labour in Sevenoaks, Kent, in a seat we haven’t contested for 20 years, and a great swing to Labour in true-blue Southfields in the London borough of Wandsworth. This may seem like small beer compared to the Galloway juggernaut, but these votes are more reflective of the shift in opinion that’s going on among former Tory voters, and more in tune with Labour’s 10-point lead.
That’s not to say people aren’t trying to peer into the entrails and tell us what it all means. Useful idiots are saying it’s a victory for the ‘left’ and the lessons are that Labour should be more like Galloway. That’s merely the squeaking of the last lemming over the cliff.
Others are saying Labour needs to ‘listen’ more. That’s true, but it’s not a new truth. Any progressive party must remain in tune with the voters it seeks to represent. But ‘listening’ shouldn’t lead to the appeasement of those who oppress women, hate gays, forgive dictators and incite the murder of British troops. The way to stop the enemies of progress is to stand up to their politics, not adapt to it.
It’s a miserable result for Labour. After a week when the farce of pastygate turned to the tragedy of the York woman now in the Burns Unit at Wakefield Hospital with 40 per cent burns, after she tried to decant petrol near a lit oven, Labour should have been triumphant. Instead, Labour is reflecting on a massive collapse of support in a heartland seat held since 1974.
I’ve been with a small group from Botswana, Kenya and Nigeria all this week in London, attempting to explain the news. One asked me the killer question – does everyone associate with one party or another in the UK? Thirty years ago, that question had a simple answer.
Today, more than ever, we are reminded that no party has a claim over a citizen’s vote based on their postal address, skin colour or size of pay packet. One lesson that Labour definitely learned last night is that no seat can be taken for granted, no matter how unpopular and out of touch the government. Labour lost its heartland seat of Bermondsey 30 years ago in a by-election, with a Tory government, a recession, and mounting unemployment. At the general election, Labour lost more seats than in the previous election. The Tories are aiming to repeat the pattern in 2015.
If we believed there is some great pendulum in politics, which swings back and forth, giving each party its turn in office, surely Bradford reminds us that’s bunkum. No one owes us a vote, no matter how disengaged, impoverished or dispirited they may be. A rejection of the Tories does not mean a vote for Labour. Every vote has to be earned by Labour afresh in every election. Yesterday in Bradford our offer wasn’t strong enough, so people shopped around. Beyond the clichés about lessons learned, wake-up calls and bloody noses, we need to construct a Labour platform which can capture the same kind of excitement and enthusiasm that Galloway has made his stock in trade. We’re not going to win because it’s our turn.
—————————————————————————————
Paul Richards writes a weekly column for Progress, Paul’s week in politics
—————————————————————————————
Is Ed Miliband the best person to lead Labour or should he make way for Yvette Cooper ?
Ed should resign and allow Douglas Alexander, David Miliband or indeed Yvette Cooper to succeed him. He cannot contine like this.
Rubbish. You should resign along with the other Progress entryists.
Indeed – they couldn’t win the leadership election so they will constantly whinge and brief against Ed until he is gone, and Miliband D comes riding over the (centre-right) horizon on a white charger.
Yvette is my favourite too. Galloway was a massive protest vote – a plague on both your houses which in the past the third party would have picked up but it is now a fatally tarnished product.
I know Ed M is clever and everything but he doesn’t have the common touch. Neither does his brother I’m afraid – they are both too cerebral for the electorate. Ed B does but is associated with the Blair-Brown infighting, although he was my vote in the leadership contest from a poor field. No, Yvette is the obvious choice and she loyally did not stand against her husband in 2010.
Unfortunately it is about presentation as well as policies.
Here the party should (a) take some control of what the banks are doing with the currency and thus recover the deficit that way rather than by slash and burn and (b) promise to return the NHS to where it was, at least by not allowing practicing GPs to sit on the boards or have any benefit from the service providers. In fact a good policy would be to nationalise primary health care anyway and build polyclinics that are NHS owned and run for the benefit. Doctors have covered themselves in muck with their greed over recent years.
Yvette is my favourite too. Galloway was a massive protest vote – a plague on both your houses which in the past the third party would have picked up but it is now a fatally tarnished product.
I know Ed M is clever and everything but he doesn’t have the common touch. Neither does his brother I’m afraid – they are both too cerebral for the electorate. Ed B does but is associated with the Blair-Brown infighting, although he was my vote in the leadership contest from a poor field. No, Yvette is the obvious choice and she loyally did not stand against her husband in 2010.
Unfortunately it is about presentation as well as policies.
Here the party should (a) take some control of what the banks are doing with the currency and thus recover the deficit that way rather than by slash and burn and (b) promise to return the NHS to where it was, at least by not allowing practicing GPs to sit on the boards or have any benefit from the service providers. In fact a good policy would be to nationalise primary health care anyway and build polyclinics that are NHS owned and run for the benefit. Doctors have covered themselves in muck with their greed over recent years.
Poor Ed was never capable of being a successful Labour leader, which is why the Party voted for David. There’s little point in blaming him for Bradford. A blatant, anti-west appeal to muslims in a muslim area was always likely to succeeed with such a weak leadet to oppose it.
Unless David wants to try again, I find it hard to think of a replacement. It may take a decade before one of the the new intake is ready.
Whatever happens, I’m sure we’re never going to find another three-term winner like Blair.
Then find another party which suits you more, if that’s your view. Blair won only because there was no opposition: the Labour vote went down each election
The point is that the Labour vote under Blair went down from government.
The current Labour vote is going down from opposition.
It’s odd that the party fails to recognise success,while actively yearning for the failure which that success replaced.
You think active party members ‘yearn for failure’ ? Not even in the most vivid of warped Blairite imagiinations can I ever imagine any party member yearning to lose.
Er, you may not have noticed that Ed *won* the election. The party is not just the members but affiliated Trade Unions as well. Ed won, fair and square. Using the same methodology that Labour has used countless times in London, Wales and other arena. But apparently, when an electoral system doesn’t deliver what you want, Progress now say that Ed ‘lost’ the election. Well, fancy that, eh ?
good lord what a muppet fest these comments below are !
Face facts here people below me – with David as leader, you would have suffered an even bigger defeat. David is too much, in this part of the world, seen as a creature of Tony Blair, someone who couldn’t carry a vote in a bucket in this part of the world.
The lessons we need to learn are that places like Bradford West are incredibly complex electorally. and we need a specific tailored response and candidate – preferably uberlocal – to win in an area like this. And that’s not, as the centre-right allege, pandering to local prejudice – who says the locals are prejudiced at all, actually ?It’s absolutely not a question of left or right or whether a Progress or Briefing candidate would’ve won here. It’s a question of addressing local education, housing, and development/deprivation issues sensitively and locally from MP down to Councillors and Community Groups. Not controlled from HQ or constantly ‘on message’. This way lies disaster and irrelevance.
By the way, from the comments below, you Progressistas just cannot accept your handpicked centre-right candidate in the leaders didn’t win the leadership election – using the system that your predecessors set up to ensure that the left would never capture the leadership again. A goodly proportion of comments on a number of articles on this site and on other forums on the web say exactly the same. Pack it in. You expect the left and centre left to coalesce around your particular choice of leader, but you constantly brief against Ed and slag him off. One rule for you, another for anyone out of your particular faction, apparently.
Ryszard: “It’s a question of addressing local education, housing, and development/deprivation issues sensitively and locally..”
That explains why Galloway won then
No, I didn’t say that. Galloway pandered to the lowest common denominator and won, For *US* to win, we need to “ocal education, housing, and development/deprivation issues sensitively and locally”. That’s what a credible candidate would do.
No, I didn’t say that. Galloway pandered to the lowest common denominator and won, For *US* to win, we need to “ocal education, housing, and development/deprivation issues sensitively and locally”. That’s what a credible candidate would do.
No it isn’t. Local issues around education, housing etc. have been part of Bradford West by-elections for many years. Galloway won because he was rhetorically brilliant at fooling young naive Muslims into believing his warped message on Western intervention in the Middle East.
See my comments below – the lowest common denominator here being whatever it takes to get disaffected socialists, naive young Muslims, and the like to vote for him. If you read what I wrote for *us* to win, we need to address – effectively – the issues outlined – which we quite clearly have not.
Progress and the centreright will have you believe that the only way to win – countrywide – is to pander to the centre-right and Daily Mail readers of the world. As I said before – that way lies irrelevance, disaster and obscurity.
There may well be no clear party affiliation or voting intention by class any more, but one thing is very clear: working class voters, public service workers, young black men and many others are hurting and hurting badly as a result of the increasing array of destructive Coalition policies. Labour’s response is inadequate, sometimes inappropriate and most certainly ‘the offer (isn’t) strong enough’! The current crisis is only partly one of leadership. Unless we can demonstrate a vision and a commitment to a fairer economy, an understanding that the public sphere is all that some will ever ‘own’ and show a desire to reverse the relentless shift of power and wealth to the already wealthy, why should those struggling to hold their lives together vote for us?
Sadly I have seen one or two members of the Labour Party celebrating the victory by Respect last night. The feedback I am receiving is that Ed is not up to the demanding role of leading our party–I repeat that is feedback from a few people.
Well, I’m a Bennite and a Livingstoneite, and *I* am not celebrating his victory, and I don’t know any party member in my town who is celebrating it.
The feedback I am getting from people who like Progress is that Ed isn’t up to the job; elsewhere, not. Strangely enough, almost everyone I do meet who think Ed isn’t up to the job voted for David. Funny, that.
We all know the Blairite ultras think that, but they are the last people who could tell us how to win in Bradford – as this article suggests….
well I ain’t never ‘briefed against Ed ! you’re ‘orrible you are !!
they will vote for ” us” if they can understand that what is available will be apportioned more fairly under Labour !! but projecting a fixed ‘vision’ now against such a volatile prospect would only have us be pretending – as are the Tories.
but Galloway played the ‘divisiveness’ card ,nothing to learn from that except to steer clear of its ultimate dangers .
I think to understand this victory one must never ignore a key accusation that Galloway made – the role of nepotism and community hierarchy in Black and Minority Ethnic community politics – which fail as a party to address, and in fact accept it in the belief that BME communities on the whole accept it. We dont ! most of us now join the Labour party and vote Labour because we are believe in something not because our community gatekeepers tell us too, thats changed with 2nd and now 3rd generation migrants! So i would say to the leadership stop insulting us by turning a blind eye and often in the past facilitating the historic structures and barriers which most of us want to pull down. One of the lessons to learn for me on this defeat is NOT about whether Ed is the right leader, is NOT about cornish pasties and to an extent not about Afghanistan and Iraq event though those are important too, for me it is about taking another look at how Labour engages with and faciltates the involvement of BME members and voters.
The first lesson must surely be that Galloway is better at campaigning in disaffected areas than other parties. The second is to understand what he was saying that struck a chord in the consituency. A massive 10,000 majority is not just a protest vote – it signifies that the Coalition and Labour are seen in a similar basket. Some writers still appear to treat voters like fodder, the Labour party canvasses as if the voter is fodder. The Labour party elite has lurched into a persona that differs in image very little from the Conservatives. In adopting policies that are just a shade different from the tories – (University fees “we would not charge as much” Cuts to public spending “we would not cut so quickly” are just variations of the same theme). the backdrop images of news reports on Bradford was incomplete regeneration.
As to the knee jerkers and plotters who are looking to undermine Ed Milliband – he is getting stronger but neither he nor any on his Labour front bench come near to displaying the leadership qualities that stamp authority and confidence. Combined to policies that are either slower or less than opponents is not much or a choice for the electorate.
Refounding Labour is turning out to be a sham – the new party rules on policy development and ignoring the NPF will contribute to even more dissatisfaction. The selection of MP’s who are clones of the existing middle class (mostly solicitor/ PR/Spav backgrounds) and in far too many cases relatives or friends of existing MP’s or party employees is turning the party into an incestuous self functional organisation which does not attract any but the centre right and relies on pocketing the loyal “fodder”.
Labour should be attracting more people with the talents of Galloway back into the party – it wasn’t so long ago that the party machine was trying to stifflean expelled Ken Livingstone.
An accusing finger is pointed at the tories for not being representative of all peoples with so many of them coming from the same classroom, let alone the same University or School. Unfortunately the Labour political bubble is being filled by too many couples from the same wedding service or children from the same womb.
Your opening sentence should read “The first lesson must surely be that Galloway is better at campaigning in MUSLIM areas than other parties”.
Baghdad West eh? At best your comment is patronising, at worst it is racist & Islamophobic. It indicates how blinkered all the main parties and their journalistic lackeys – like Paul Richards – really are. At the first sign of our diverse population flexing its muscles out come the hidden fears.
Of course George is a charlatan, after all he is a politician. Your nasty slip indicates how miffed you are that in Bradford West his brand of deceit turns out to be more effective than that of Labour. Equating bye-election swings in the South East with the happenings in Bradford West illustrates the delusional state of Labour Party politics.
‘Baghdad West’ is certainly not racist or Islamaphobic. It is both amusing and apt. If Galloway is, as you say, a charlatan why was he voted in by an overwhelming majority? Such an assessment implies that those who voted for him were gullible and easily led (which is a sad but maybe accurate description of many Muslim voters).
Your view that all politicians are deceitful and that victory goes to the most deceitful politician is a position I reject. British politicians may be highly biased, often ignorant and two-faced but on the whole they are conscientious and hard-working within the constraints of party policies. Deceitful politicians are few and far between and are soon found out and de-throned.
Baghdad West ??
Learn not to be racist Paul and learn not to be Northist too.
Bradford has lots of immigrants and lots of them are Muslims. Get over it
Like it or not, New Labour’s interventionist foreign policy is deeply unpopular, and wrong, and Galloway cashed in on this,
We must certainly not be involved in any more interventions into Muslim countries – attacks on Iran must be absolutely ruled out. An earlier date for withdrawal from the pointless Afghan war would be a good idea – as would a stronger stance on support for the Palestinians and sanctions against Israel’s occupation of Palestine
Yes – let’s use every opportunity up to 2015 to go around in sackcloth and ashes castigating Blair and chanting “Islamic terror is good, western democracy is evil” as we self-flagellate. We must also pledge to withdraw all troops immediately and promise never ever to invade Islamic despotic regimes that threaten our very existence. And when, after five years, groups of dim, easily-led groups of young Muslims blow up many of our citizens or explode ‘dirty bombs’ (thanks to Iran) in our city centres we should say “we have only ourselves to blame. Like our disgraceful treatment of black slaves in the past we should constantly apologise for the existence of the British Empire and ‘turn the other cheek’ when our present-day colonial descedants wreak brutal revenge on us. Furthermore, to show solidarity with our new Muslim superiors, we should put the invasion of Israel on the table. Better still, we should abandon Parliamentary democracy here and select ‘Gorgeous George’ as our new Shariah President, arrest Tony Blair and charge him with crimes against humanity and demand that the Queen becomes ‘defender of the Islamic faith’!
I find your comment disgracefully. You are an Islamophobe and those types of comments should have no place within the Labour party – Shame on you !
Yes, that’s what EVERYONE on the left is saying are the key targets to win this seat. What utter, utter rubbish. There hasn’t been a single offering here that has proposed ‘pandering’ this group. And Emineibrahim’s comment I accord with – how appallingly stereotypical you are of voters in this area, and of Muslims in general. I know of nobody in the Labour Party who holds anything even remotely connected to these views. I think you’d be better off joining the Lib Dems (probably a move to the left for someone like you) or BNP with views similar to those expressed above.
So angry cannot type properly …. its supposed to say
I find your comment disgracefully offensive . You are an Islamophobe and those types of comments should have no place within the Labour party – Shame on you !
Galloway managed to make Labour the establishment – the incumbent, the party to beat – and the rest looks like a classic by-election reaction: except that it was a reaction against the opposition, where the classic by-election effect normally works against the party in power. It’s obvious tories, lib dems, disaffected Labour voters and those of no party voted for Galloway, just as much as those for whom the Iraq war and Islam and its alleged oponents were the main issue. All those factors united to bring about an upset. The big lesson to learn is how did Galloway make Labour the scapegoat in a way that normally applies only to the Party in power – and could it be done elsewhere?
As you correctly state, “every vote has to be earned afresh”. It’s a pity Ed Miliband has failed to recognise that fact. Salmond’s overwhelming victory in Scotland should have been a monumental wake-up call for Labour to re-engage and re-invigorate with the electorate particularly in the face of politically charasmatic empty vessels like Salmond. Why on earth, after realizing Galloway would be in the fray, didn’t the Party machine pull out all the stops to counteract the ‘Baghdad’ affect? Where were the hustings to lay the lies of Galloway? What happened to the Labour MPs with the oratorical skills capable of challenging Galloway? Apart from John Prescott there probably aren’t any: and certainly not from our front bench. History tells us that ‘Gorgeous George’ has no respect for his constituents but has great facility in hoodwinking gullible and shallow thinking young Muslims yet Labour ignored the threat and got the result it deserved.
Although Bradford West was a unique result it does expose naivety and complacency running through our leadership. It is a weakness which may well spell doom for Labour in 2015.