The very worst feeling in the world, as I was growing up at least, was when I heard my father utter the words ‘I’m not angry, I’m just really disappointed.’
I had a great dad who loved me very much and, I can testify to this now I have children of my own, could not stay upset with me for too long.
Looking back it was easy to win my dad’s forgiveness. I had to say sorry and mean it, dads are great at spotting fake apologies, but most important of all in order to build up trust once more I had to learn from my mistakes.
I accept my imagery is a little bit hackneyed but it does illustrate an important point.
We lost the 2010 election because the electorate, just like my dad used to be, were cross with us. The nation had put their trust in our party to responsibly and safely look after the economy and no matter what we say about worldwide meltdowns or subprime mortgages – we messed up.
As bad as losing in 2010 was, it was nowhere near as galling or as irresponsible as why we lost in 2015, because that one really is down to us.
We did not say sorry and mean it and we sure as hell did not learn from our mistakes.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of Margaret Thatcher in her time in office was to create a perception amongst the general public that running the economy was the same as running a household budget.
That Micawberesque view of living within your means creating happiness, no matter what learned economists may say to the contrary, rings true to voters.
Messrs David Cameron and George Osborne have used the same arguments to great effect for the past five years and today, at last, we have statistics to prove that the anecdotal evidence of countless conversations Labour’s activists had on the doorstep in the run-up to 7 May was the real reason we lost so badly.
Jon Cruddas is a man respected by the vast majority in our party. He was the man tasked by Ed Miliband to conduct our policy review in the run-up to the general election, and he is the man tasked with finding out just why we did so badly a few short months ago.
The simple hard truth is that the public did not trust us on the economy, we had not accepted that austerity was needed, and we certainly had not learned the lessons they perceived we needed to regain their trust.
Cruddas’ research shows that 58 per cent of voters believed that cutting the deficit was the top priority.
We know that we will not win another election without attracting votes from other parties but whilst 84 per cent of Tory voters, 63 per cent of Ukip supporters and 58 per cent of Liberal Democrats think that austerity is the issue most pressing to government, pockets of Labour continue to pursue a misplaced ideal citing Syriza as admirable role models.
For heaven’s sake, according to Cruddas’ research, even 32 per cent of Labour voters think that reducing the deficit is number one priority right now. In the event of an anti-austerity agenda how can we seriously believe we would hold on to even those votes?
Anyone who went out knocking doors for Labour a few months ago really does not need Cruddas’ research to tell us why we lost. The evidence was there in the conversations that we had time and time again. What his research does do is provide evidence to the deluded who think otherwise.
It is time to build trust with the voters once more. It will take time but, just like with my father the first step is showing that we have learned from our mistakes.
I fear as a party we have some way to go before we have truly learned that lesson.
———————————–
Leon Spence is a county councillor and Labour lead for children and young people at Leicestershire county council. He tweets @CllrLeonSpence
———————————–
Arnie Graff went round the country and reported that CLP ward meetings were turgid and boring. With the recent entryism they are going to be even more so. Labour faces an abyss.
If people only hear one side of the story – that austerity works – and don’t hear how and why a household is not like a nation’s economy, they will believe it. It is not the local ward meetings which are the problem, it was the national Leadership who didn’t even try to win. I am not a natural Jeremy Corbyn supporter but at least he sounds like he may put up a real fight rather than surrendering to those who seem to have not heard of Keynes.
A very good article.
This euphoria to elect a new messiah has come about because we spent years not debating the issues properly, not getting to a real understanding of how our economy works, and not coming up with workable alternatives to the offerings of the Tories and the far left.
As Tony Blair said about the next leader: “The single most important thing to do is to say: I am going to do root and branch thinking about: what the ideas are for the future and what the party’s organization should be for that future”.
http://archive.progressonline.org.uk/event/in-conversation-with-tony-blair/
We can’t go back to nonsense dreaming. Our dreams should be about realistic, shared, objectives based on what constitutes mutual benefit to all in society using the principles of cooperation.
For what it is worth – since the “third way” agenda and thoughts, whether agree or not, there has not been any great lead or approach from Labour on new ways to solve things – tax credits is a failed project which supported low pay/decreasing/stagnant pay levels from majr sectors of the economy which are not organised or unionised – yes it did tackle child poverty but with the preception this applied to the work shy/unwilling to work – rather than to all – the decimation of universaility has not really been challenged – yes rich people get child benefit/fuel allowance – but the way to tackle this was never means tests which decrease further buy-in from ALL into the minimum level guarantee – way to tackle it was to suggest providing options for those to optout or divert these payments to charity for instance. Universality for a minimum and retain NI as a reward system for those who payin by work – my parents were working and could only afford two kids – bunk beds – they did not expect others to subsidise more children – as my mum would say neither the pope or govt would pay for more children – unfortunately we are now in a position where the govt does pay for more children.. difficult to address but must be about good old tried and tested rights and responsibilities
While it’s true that living within your means is no guarantee of happiness, living beyond your means is a guarantee of unhappiness at some point. Although it’s a crass oversimplification to compare the running of a household budget to that of an entire economy, no sensible person would even contemplate spending money that can’t be repaid quickly, whether they’re acting as an individual, as part of a family, as part of a corporation or as part of the government .
People reject this comparison to running a household budget but your point is correct about spending money that can’t be repaid. Companies can borrow to re-tool when they can show improved prospects, and countries can borrow for improved infrastructure that makes the economy more efficient, provided it pays for itself in the long run. That’s not quite the same as the simple household budget argument that gets rejected.
It seems that Jeremy Corbyn can make any number of commitments and not worry about the economic consequences whilst the other three cannot do so because they do have to live with the consequences at election time, and at budget time if they get elected. On the other hand, if Jeremy Corbyn were elected to government then the country can expect long term decline.