Perhaps the most poignant moment of my election campaign was questions and answers with a local Scouts chapter. A very bright young person asked me, ‘You work as a solicitor in the City of London and practice corporate finance law. Nothing about you says ‘Labour.’ So why stand for them?’ It is that question and the assumptions that underlie it that tell me why we lost the election.
That question, particularly from a young and politically engaged person, was fundamentally disheartening. I joined the Labour party because I saw my immigrant impoverished family work their socks off to give me a stable future. I joined because state schools with committed teachers allowed me to aspire to succeed in a career still closed to many. I campaign for the Labour party because I believe no matter where you come from, we should all do what we can to empower people to aspire and succeed. I believe the ethos of the Labour party is not just about protecting those most vulnerable – that is a given. I believe it is about alleviating poverty by enabling everyone to prosper.
For me, the reasons for standing for Labour were crystal clear. The fact that voters cannot reconcile a Labour candidate who talked about aspiration is a cause of concern. In fact this disconnect goes as deep as rank-and-file members of the Labour party itself. I have lost count of the times I have been met with the confused face of a colleague once they find out what I do for a living. Until we can see ourselves as a party that has members from all walks of life, we will have a hard time convincing the electorate we are suitable for government. We should not be ashamed of aspiration and success because it is at the core of what so many families want.
In Chingford and Woodford Green, the personal story of aspiration and empowerment helped us make a stronger case for Labour. With Iain Duncan Smith as our opponent, the Bedroom Tax and welfare cuts were a big focus. But we had a harder time with families who were looking for a story of hope and aspiration.
In this campaign, we did a great job of arguing that Britain should be about fairness and protecting the most vulnerable in society. The next point should be about making the case for empowering everyone to succeed in their jobs, businesses and feel part of a welcoming and inclusive community. Because we believe that is the key to everyone – prosperous or vulnerable – having a secure and positive future.
Had the air war, and big broadcast messages from Labour, been about this more aspirational offer – not just of first generation migrants and their descendants succeeding in London, but everyone being able to do better for themselves and their family, then we could have gone much further. On 8 May, with the committed support of local members and additional help from local MPs including Stella Creasy MP and David Lammy MP, we slashed IDS’ majority by around 5000 votes and obtained our largest vote share since 1997. Chingford and Woodford Green is a must win seat for Labour if they want a majority in England and Wales in 2020. A message of aspiration could just be what local people want to hear.
So more importantly than just asking ‘who will be leader,’ we have to ask ourselves ‘if we stand for everyone, how do we show it?’ Our inevitable choice of leader will reflect that fundamental question. Though saddened by the election results, I am hugely optimistic about the debate we are about to have.
———————————
Bilal Mahmood is the former parliamentary candidate in Chingford and Woodford Green
———————————
I’m not sure our disconnect with voters is that we were anti-aspirational. Part of the disconnect I found whilst canvassing this time out is that a good many of the people doing the canvassing were young professionals. Whereas a good deal of the people we were knocking up as our core voters were unlikely to have been young or engaged in professional careers. We just didn’t look or sound like the people we were calling on. The other disconnect is that I doubt that we have many supporters or members who are spending their working lives negotiating their way through a private market economy. Most people in such sometimes skilled but more usually semi-skilled insecure self employment simply don’t have the time to commit to electioneering (not without losing pay or contracts). We have to find other ways of engaging with the working population as it actually is. We probably need more sophisticated profiling of our supporters and we should start to address them as individuals and begin to have a more intimate relationship with them. Marketing companies do this all the time suggesting what they think we might like. There is something we could learn from this when addressing our members/supporters.
I think Jeremy makes a very interesting point about the appearance of Labour on the door step that’s pretty much true. However, I think it’s probably also true of the knocking up face of the Tories in the 80 key seats they targeted on election day. So Bilal’s point about the bright young scout stands. In fact, I think he possibly underplays it. I was Bilal’s agent and I run a very small business. The young scout was clever. The supporters of Len McCluskey who think that a private sector candidate plus private sector agent equals betrayal of socialist principles are, frankly, a big part of our problem. In 2016 the self-employed plus staff in micro businesses will outnumber public sector employees. Labour had nothing to say to this huge and growing sector of the working population. David Cameron did. In 2014 he wrote to every business in the country about the employer’s national insurance allowance, effectively a £2,000 tax break. To Marks & Spencer it meant nothing. To very small businesses, it was a big deal. Labour might have attacked Cameron’s letter as an abuse of public funds for party political purposes or it might have made its support for the measure clear. Instead it droned on about the opposing corporation tax cuts for very, very big businesses. As a piece of political positioning all that did was to expose how completely out of touch with changes in the real economy our leaders had become. We cannot have leaders like that again. And we need more candidates like Bilal with life stories that reflect the way our country is changing.
This is precisely why no one believes Labour on a single thing anymore. A City of London solicitor in corporate finance law, to every reasonable voter, even any casual observer, is not the blooming flower of “aspiration”. The City of London is the rotting core of the rigged game, with all due respect, sir. That voter would not believe you if you turned up at the front door with a giant sweepstakes check telling him he’d won a million pounds. He’d ask you what’s the catch.
One cannot aspire to anything in a rigged game. Until Labour shows it understands how rigged the game is, in this instance, that the City of London itself is the crown jewel of the rigged game, again all due respect, you will not be heard. Here’s something to apire to – Labour needs to take policy steps to deal with the rigged game, as Labour once did as recently as Clement Attlee who ran on a manifesto to abolish the Corporation. Until Labour regains that minimum credibility, a City corporate finance solicitor standing for Labour will reasonably be seen to be doing so for the crass purpose of ever closer access to power. Any voter can sniff that a mile down the mews. Stop treating them for a bunch of fools.
UKIP did as well as it did for being anti-intellectual and anti-aspirational.
I wonder if a lot of the voting public see Labour now as being a party of sharp elbowed careerists? Certainly, there is little incentive at grass roots level unless you want to climb the greasy pole.
Let’s start renewal by democratising the party and getting ordinary members to create policy once more. Let Labour shed its corporatism, no longer just promoting people from a narrow background of political research and law, but embracing the diversity of the Britsh public.
Problem is, can a leopard change its spots?
Mr Mahmoud has obviously limited knowledge of the history of the uk before the Wilson Labour Government . That is before the opportunities that Labour won for all including the then new immigrants .
Many today in poor areas outside London have no chance of a good education or success .
The British are not a naturally greedy and selfish people and this is why the SNP did so well .UKIP did well because it accepted that the lower paid workers had suffered greatly by the continued immigration . Many recent immigrants and Pakistani! voters voted Ukip in the local elections because the effect of further immigration on jobs and services are obvious to them .
My six children have done very well in life being brought up by a Socialist Father under mainly a Labour government . In fact each equal or better than Bilal and from a harder background .However their careers do not involve greed . One fancied the financial sector of the city but because of his ingrained honesty and lack of greed left after 3 days ,as I had warned .
Labour has never ever denied aspiration and never will . But I hope it always controls greed and does it better next time than it did last .If you want to know the effects of excessive greed look at some of the South American Dictatorships or even Pakistan ,but I suppose they are aspirational ,at least for the rich .