While Labour ought to hold Copeland and Stoke, there was very little appetite for Labour’s current direction in either seat, writes Progress deputy editor Conor Pope
‘Well, now I’ve got that off my chest.’ With that, she smiled and closed the door.
This was Friday afternoon in the small Cumbrian town of Cleator Moor, where Labour’s campaign centre for the Copeland byelection is based, and was part one of the Progress byelection weekend.
The bright, cold morning had given way to endless rain, although the fact it was ‘hossing it down’ (as one voter put it) failed to deter some of the determinedly chatty residents from unloading their thoughts on the state of the Labour party. We were in a strong Labour area – white working class, mainly – and they had plenty to share.
One elderly lady began by telling me that she was, ‘of course’, voting Labour, before going into a lengthy explanation of the party’s troubles, which centred largely on the unsuitability of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. It was she who confessed to me that she was glad to get it all off her chest.
That is when it struck me: while the mood was less than enthusiastic, the returns were, not, on the whole, terrible. Many wanted to let us know that the party’s direction was not ideal – whether on Sellafield, the position in last year’s European Union referendum, or (often) the leadership in general – but, having had the opportunity to vent, would vote Labour, as Copeland has done for 80 years now.
It is not easy to see how much the Conservative campaign has kicked into gear. There are no garden signs or posters up anywhere, and the one Tory I saw was leafleting alone, in the rain, wearing a cowboy hat. Byelections can do strange things to people.
If Corbyn is the problem in Copeland, he is not the solution in Stoke-on-Trent Central, where I was out campaigning with another Progress team on Saturday.
The seat had the lowest turnout in 2015, with less than half of constituents casting a ballot. Judging by reactions on the doorstep, on 23 February we could be in for a police and crime commissioner election-type turnout. For an area that saw 65 per cent of people vote in the European Union referendum, that is not just disappointing, but a real problem for Labour.
The Tories have written off Stoke, and the United Kingdom Independence party still seems unable to run an effective byelection campaign. That should be more than enough to save us. It will, however, be despite Corbyn’s grandplan.
For while the level of disinterest should not be enough to cost Labour the seat, it represents a huge personal failure on the part of the Labour leader. Not only did he make clear that his vision for victory in 2020 depend on mobilising non-voters during his initial leadership campaign two years ago, but his recent new year relaunch as a leftwing Trumpian populist cemented his commitment to reaching out to mobilising the disenfranchised. Stoke-on-Trent Central is not just an example where the effects of this electoral strategy should be clear; it has the potential to be the strategy’s greatest success. There was, from what I could see, absolutely no evidence it has had any effect whatsoever. Corbyn’s new strategy is bold: populism without the popularity.
–––––––––––––––
Conor Pope is deputy editor at Progress. He tweets at @conorpope
–––––––––––––––
Conor, might be better to wait and see what happens rather than base your analysis on speaking to an old lady. Otherwise we may think you are mildly disappointed that Labour will win the by elections and so there will be no moves against Corbyn.
Elizabeth, there is nowhere in the article from Conor that says he will be disappointed if Labour wins the by-elections or, vice-versa, happy if Labour loses, so no need to think of something which isn’t the case at all.
Progress wouldn’t be out in both seats right now if it wanted Labour to lose. It’s even teamed up with Momentum to make sure both seats stay red!
I can add another old lady in Stoke I spoke to on the campaign trail yesterday. She’s disabled, has been waiting 18 months for a knee operation and has become disenfranchised with politics and politicians.
But why survey old ladies? Why not survey the whole of the country, which multiple organisations have been doing for 16 months now.
Leadership is a key issue for many Labour voters in places like Stoke and Copeland, who are wanting the party to show some backbone on issues THEY care about (not issues we think they [should] care about). Labour certainly doesn’t have strong leadership right now, and in by-elections that could cause an SNP-style wipeout of Labour in the north, “wait and see” in your words is just far too dangerous.
Conor -how is the LibDem vote holding up there? I imagine the Remain vote will go to them now that JC has sided with the Tories on A50. One assumes the hard-core Leavers & nativists will go to UKIP. or not bother to vote. What are the odds of Labour being squeezed out and ending up in 3rd place?
We have a socialist candidate in Stoke but a Tory-lite one in Copeland. My guess would be that we’ll win in Stoke but lose in Copeland.
Liam
I did not say he wanted Labour to lose. I was commenting on the tenor of his article. Perhaps if Labour Party members on the right of the party had not spent their time undermining Corbyn in so many ways then voters would have a better view of him.
And the SNP successes in Scotland was against a Progress led Labour Party under Jim Murphy. They did not want a continuation of rightist policies.
Anyway this old lady will continue to support the Labour Party and predicts a Labour win in both constituancys.
An insightful article.
The party is not projecting a clear vision to those who have historically constituted our core vote. The fact that UKIP is not competently running a ground operation should allow noone the false sense of security that we haven’t left a political vacuum in Copeland and Stoke (irrespective of the potentially differing issues of polarisation in each constituency). The reality is that if we do not develop substantial and clear reasons for people to vote Labour sooner or later they will vote for a party which offers a believable narrative.
Populism without popularity describes Labour’s strategy well. I’m a Labour member and I have no idea what the strategy involves or means. And to say it is populism but not Trump doesn’t fill me with confidence. So in Labour terms -what is it? Do we need it? Do we want it? In addition to get over a new strategy and inspire the voters needs a modicum of charisma. Corbyn gets a bad press but he doesn’t have the temperament or skills to get savvy and counteract.
What about an article on ‘Progress without progression’ – how a once dominant clique cannot come to terms with loss and clings to discredited leaders, ideology and practices.