Labour has a list of 106 seats it plans to take next May. It urgently needs to revise it
As Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke, chief of staff of the Prussian army for more than 30 years, once famously remarked: ‘No plan survives first contact with the enemy.’ Von Moltke’s aphorism has been a handy explanation for why things go wrong with grand strategies ever since, from England’s failure to win football matches to the Iraq war. The point he was making, though, was not to put defeat down to some cosmic law, but to build swift adaptability into the command structure of the army.
Labour electoral strategy was launched at an all-day session for party staff in November 2013. The party aims to win 40 per cent of the vote, and gain 106 seats, to form a majority government. There are no Labour seats on the 106 target seat list. Labour’s strategy assumes that everyone who voted for the party in 2010 will do so again. The assumption is that the voters in seats such as Hampstead and Kilburn (majority 42), Bolton West (majority 92), Southampton Itchen (majority 192), Edinburgh South (majority 316), Wirral South (majority 531) or Great Grimsby (majority 714) will stay with Labour. That means we are witnessing the absurdity of Labour candidates in these seats campaigning elsewhere to support candidates in one of the neighbouring 106 targets.
Yet political circumstances have changed in many of these Labour ultra-marginal seats. Thirty Labour MPs, and counting, have announced their retirements, many in marginals. There has been a referendum on Scottish independence. There have been local elections and European elections which saw the United Kingdom Independence party surge. There has been a war in Gaza, during which Ed Miliband threw Israel under the bus, disenchanting north London’s Jewish community. In other words, the world has turned since 2010, when many voters in these seats clung to Labour in the midst of economic turmoil and out of fear of a Conservative government.
When Labour lost in 1979, not all of those who voted for James Callaghan stuck with Michael Foot’s party in 1983 – in fact, they switched in vast numbers. The Tories are throwing their huge resources at seats such as Bolton West, Derby North, Dudley North, Telford, and Birmingham Edgbaston because they must win here to form a government. Labour’s strategy assumes these seats are in the bag.
But the biggest flaw in the plan is that it is built on the old assumptions of a two-party system, and the idea of a national swing. This is dangerous nonsense. Today, voters have a smorgasbord of choice beyond red or blue. Voters disaffected with the government could go anywhere: in Brighton Pavilion, Green member of parliament Caroline Lucas may soak up the protest votes. In Bradford West, Respect may win again (it is not even on Labour’s target list). In Dundee East, the Scottish National party may keep its seat. In a swath of the 106, there are local factors which make Labour’s job harder. At the top of the list are seats such as Thurrock or Waveney where Ukip’s support is solidifying. At the bottom of the list are seats such as Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Finchley and Golders Green or Leeds North-west where, with the best will in the world, the thought of an easy Labour victory stretches credulity.
Labour’s 106-seat strategy is a two-party strategy in a four-party world. Labour has no strategy to deal with Ukip. Those Liberal Democrats who are going to switch to Labour switched long ago. Some have already started to switch again away from the party. There is no offer whatsoever for the disaffected Tory voter who Labour needs to win over in the bulk of its 106 seats. Nationalism is on the march in Scotland and Wales. As the psephologist Lewis Baston has noted: ‘Even in the age of coalition, the alignments of Westminster encourage one to think in two-party terms and not really take on board the full multi-dimensional complexity of the current environment.’
It is never too late to change the strategy. For a start, Labour needs to identify the 20 seats it holds with the slimmest majorities, and pile in resources. There is no point winning target marginals if we are losing Labour seats. Next, we need to switch resources away from the 30 seats at the upper reaches of the Brewer’s Green wishlist. Last, we need special tactical support for seats such as Thurrock, Brighton Pavilion or Bradford West where Labour’s main fight is not with the Tories or Liberal Democrats.
As von Moltke understood, as circumstances change on the battlefield, so the generals’ plans must take account of the shift in fortunes. Labour must make 67 net gains on 7 May 2015 to have a majority of one. To achieve it the party requires a strategy of fine-tuned complexity, anchored in intelligence from the field of battle, rather than dots on a map drawn up in some French chateau miles from the front.
———————————
I wonder to what extent this article actually involved researching the specific dynamics on the ground of those target constituencies further down the list. In Bermondsey and Old Southwark for instance where SImon Hughes has held strong for over 30 years we took a clean sweep of ward seats right across his heartland last May, many of which we hadn’t held for 25/30 years. We now have 16 of the 27 councillors in BOS, and huge momentum to claw back this key strategic inner London seat and enthused activists to help do it. Aggregate statistical analysis reveals little about what each CLP can mobilise for next year.
A similar story can be said for Finchley and Golders Green which has one of the most talented PPCs the Labour in Sarah Sackman who has recruited arguably more new members in her constituency than any other PPC in the country.
Agreed though with the difficulites of a multi-party choices in many constituencies. UKIP will easily outscore the Tories in BOS and we’ll need to address the concerns of many UKIP sympathisers as sensitively as we can next year.
Damn right about Bermondsey and Old Southwark “stretching credulity”. Lord Ashcroft’s poll showed us and the Lib Dems neck and neck there, and the weight of a strong Labour council in Southwark right behind their campaign.
It would a shame to forego a chance to displace an articulate LibDem incumbent in an urban inner city seat (albeit one the demography of which has changed greatly). Yes ?I know YouGov sees this as a LibDem hold, but I am not so sure. One factor always worth considering is whether fighting hard to win a seat would (a) mobilise support otherwise sitting at home, or (b) draw in support that should be working in a nearby more winnable marginal. We do want (a) but don’t want (b).
YouGov has got it very wrong before (as in the Scottish referendum). Surely the LibDem vote will utterly collapse at the next election? The indications are that seats such as Hornsey & Wood Green they will come nowhere this time. After all, they are supposed to be a progressive party, but under the Tories they have simply done what they are told by this pro-capitalist government that hates and despises the poor.
Using a dusty old Prussian general’s quote from 200 years’ ago just about sums up the progress that has been made at the dawn of the 21st century – nix. Most neanderthal-political-thinking should be left to the tories ref IDS’ boring, lacklustre chat earlier today, to the few that turned up, yawning tory conference in Birmingham.
Has anyone ‘clicked’ that war old fartage quotations from Prussians went out the door along with Adolf, Mussolini and Stalin? Its a new dawn. Bin and get rid of the tin soldiers and their crackpot ideas and come up with some progressive ideas. For a start – 1st-past-the-post-wins needs a total shake-up, ref Scotland, as half the folk up there are feeling neglected and put out. Its neanderthal.
Nonetheless it’s a sound maxim. Sticking rigidly to a preconceived battle plan ( sorry to continue the military analogy) can be unwise. On the other hand, in general we should make the other side dance to our tube, not vice versa. It’s a blink test – who blinks first?
We must hope that Ed Miliband can accept some advise, despite all the previous failures to do what even an amateur would do (especially with his conference speech). He must do something to convince Scottish labour voters that their best chance of Devo Max is a Labour Majority in Westminster (rather than 20 Scottish Nationalists MP’s trying to form part of a coalition). He must convince people that he understands the need to get the economy working efficiently so that the worst aspects of the deficit do not have to be solved by austerity (this will be difficult for someone living in an expensive, inherited house in Primrose Hill, who can even forget to mention the deficit). I am a pensioner and see no reason why any pension benefit such as Bus Pass, Winter Fuel Allowance, TV license, etc. should not be part of my taxed income. For the majority of pensioners these benefits would not even raise their income to their Tax Allowance level.
By all means have a strategy for target seats but I agree that this should only cover those that are polling as true marginals and not as hopeless cases. I have always considered the defeat of Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey in 1982/3 because he was gay, by Simon Hughes, another gay who had not come out, was a demonstration of LibDem hyprocracy that continues to this day. How can any party of the left cater for the likes of Danny Alexander and David Lees?
I should hold fire on the issue of Scottish voters and devo max until we see the draft bill published, all three parties to the bribe are still saying it will meet the timescale invented by Gordon. But at the moment it seems the tories want to offer the Scots more than labour; the conflicting issue of EV4EL will be separated out before then I reckon, as far as votes in Scotland go. It will be an election issue in England, not Scotland.
If all the Labour MP’s in Glasgow lose out to the Scot Nats there will be hell to pay for Miliband so he had better get his promises in fast. The Tories have nothing to lose in Scotland so why not offer more than Labour can afford. It is down to the belief of the Scottish voters as to how to spend the next 30 years until they become independent.
“The party aims to win 40 per cent of the vote, and gain 106 seats, to form a majority government. There are no Labour seats on the target list seat” That’s a relief! It’s a rum Party that seeks to displace its sitting MPs, though I imagine many in the Tory Party would like to do just that with some of their own MPs.
On the general point, yes we most certainly must not lose any of our own marginals, nor for that matter fail to capture any of the Oopposition’s lowest majority seats. it is easy to assume the latter will fall like ripe apples, but even if the bookies see them as walkovers, a nasty surprise can occur if the seat-holder puts up a vigorous defence. I would also hope the Party shows no bias against MPs or PPCs who it would rather had not been selected; for example such seats deserve their fair share of visiting Shadow Cabinet members, star speakers etc.
Also we should consider the performance of the key seats. Since the targets were chosen a whole lot of campaigning and organising has gone on and some seats will have performed well and others less so.
Similarly other seats will have been organising and campaigning maybe with more success than some of the target seats so they should be brought into the equation.
Also for reasons including those in the article, seats will have been thrown problems or advantages which will help them win or lose.
So a mid course correction may help us achieve our goal of government.
“. There has been a war in Gaza, during which Ed Miliband threw Israel under the bus, disenchanting north London’s Jewish community”. Too right! For members of the Jewish Labour Movement such as ourselves, we feel betrayed. Muslims who have left the extremist camp and become mainstream and even pro-Israel have explained – something we all suspected – that extremism is preached routinely not by a few particularly prominent preachers but routinely throughout the non-Islamic world and especially in English-speaking countries. We feel betrayed by Labour and the Left to whom we have given unswerving loyalty ever since socialism was founded. Only the Conservatives have pledged to eradicate extremism, the Labour leadership is still pandering to George Galloway’s constituents and antisemitism flourishes unabated.