Labour does not really care about the plight of the middle class
In early 1996 I tried to become Labour’s parliamentary candidate for north Dorset. I was unsuccessful and I have never tried for a seat since; I have absolutely no intention of standing for one again. However, I do remember my speech at the hustings. It was pretty good even if I do say so myself. I painted a picture of the poverty that was all too common in rural areas, often hidden or masked by the countryside itself. I told the meeting of an old woman that I had met while nursing. She was poor for sure, was barely able to walk and was very isolated. Going in to dress her leg ulcers we were often her only visitor that day – other than the rats she shared her home with. I contrasted that with the life and wealth of her landlord who owned most of the homes in the area, and asked how this could possibly be fair or right in Britain in 1996.
I was angry as I spoke because it was this sort of injustice that had brought me into active politics: removing the plight and improving the life chances of those who are poor and who are vulnerable, and redistributing a bit of the country’s wealth to pay for this. It was my politics. It is in Labour’s political DNA and it is what moves and motivates us.
But if I changed my mind and decided to try my hand at winning a parliamentary seat again, I think that I should make a different sort of speech. I am sure that I would still angrily mention poverty and the wasted lives and opportunities that it causes. But I know that I should also be angry about the fact that there are many people on modest incomes who used to be able to afford two weeks away in the sun with the kids each year that now cannot; who used to change the car every three years but who are now eking out every last mile from the car that they have; who no longer eat out as a family occasionally and who are worried about their credit cards four months after Christmas. The same people who work hard, but who are finding that their taxes, bills, and weekly shop are all going up; those who do not claim any benefits but who worry about the quality of the local school and so use a tutor for their kids instead of having the extension built. I know that I should mention this to the members gathered to select their candidate. But I suspect that I would not.
My picture of the struggling middle classes would be likely to be met by derision. ‘These people aren’t struggling! They should try living on welfare payments – then they’d know what real struggles were.’ The plight of the ‘squeezed middle’ just does not rock our political boat in the same way that the plight of the poor or the selfish excesses of the rich does. Barack Obama, however, has no such qualms or queasiness. His re-election campaign was focused on middle class concerns, and his inauguration and State of the Union speech set out how the focus of his second term was to be improving the lot of the middle class. As he said to Congress in February: ‘Our generation’s task, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth – a rising, thriving middle class. Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills to get those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?’ And he went on: ‘It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country. The idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love. It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few. That it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation of ours.’
But Labour has a blind spot when it comes to the middle class. Not intellectually; I suspect that the leadership understand that the middle class are an important constituency that Labour needs to appeal to. They know that they cannot win an election without them. But emotionally they do not actually care about the middle class. They might say that we do but when they do it sounds inauthentic, because it is. What they actually care about is helping the poor and squeezing the very wealthy. The reintroduction of the 10p tax rate, opposition to the ‘bedroom tax’ or the reduction in the higher rate of tax, or support for taxing bankers’ bonuses. It is all about the rich and the poor. There is not much room for those in the middle.
But this matters because those in the middle are noticing our relative indifference. Focus groups are beginning to reflect that voters sense that political parties are returning to form: that the Tories are not as compassionate as they said and are still basically the party of the rich and powerful. And that Labour is once again the party of the poor and the party that hates the rich. It is almost as if New Labour and hugging hoodies and huskies never happened. Many voters look back and see that time as being characterised by spin, and there is a real cynicism that Labour in particular ever really meant it when it said that it had changed. This must worry the leadership. It certainly should.
It is right that we have moved on from New Labour. Whatever I may think, for voters it is tainted. Which is why ‘One Nation Labour’ offers the potential to be the underpinning of an electoral appeal and an approach in government that once again allows us to build the sort of coalition of voters needed to win. But at the moment, for voters, Labour is not the One Nation party at all; it is polarised as the party of the poor and the party that rejects the rich. There are millions in the middle who simply do not figure. And the speeches, the briefings and the tone of the frontbench reinforce this view. Simply talking about the abstract concept of the ‘squeezed middle’ is not enough; voters can smell the lack of passion.
The plight of the middle class may not excite us in the same way that the ruined life chances caused by intergenerational poverty do. But the fact that our lack of passion is showing should. And we badly need to find a way of demonstrating that our ‘thinktank’ understanding of the ‘squeezed middle’ translates to a commitment to act on their behalf.
If it was true that the New Labour project was only complete when the party learned to love Peter Mandelson, then maybe One Nation Labour will only be complete when it learns to love the true engine of Britain’s economic growth – a rising, thriving middle class.
—————————————————————————————
Peter Watt is a contributing editor to Progress and a former general secretary of the Labour party
—————————————————————————————
“Barack Obama, however, has no such qualms or queasiness. His re-election campaign was focused on middle class concerns, and his inauguration and State of the Union speech set out how the focus of his second term was to be improving the lot of the middle class.”
Isn’t it the case, however, that in American discourse, the phrase ‘middle class’ has a different meaning to how it is used in Britain and much of the rest of Europe? Its meaning is much broader than the one we attach to it in Britain, and it encompasses much of what we would see as the ‘working class’. I thought this was commonly known.
Few identify as ‘working class’ in America, contrasting with the way in which it is used as a badge of honour by some in Britain, and so ‘middle class’ is a term used by politicians in an effort to align themselves with the vast majority of the population who view themselves as middle class.
An excellent article, Peter. Well said.
Or, maybe you should go back to the Tory Party where you and your Progress mob belong. If this current lot on the front bench aren’t pandering enough to the middle classes for you, you’ll never be happy. And without you and your Thatcher-lite cohorts, our party will be a better one.
And what do you propose should be done about it then? All we ever get from Progress is attack after attack on the left wing of the party with no substance.
Why should Labour help you get a new car every three years and a holiday every year, when there are people who literally have to go to foodbanks to survive?
Lauren – I hear what you say and as a trustee of a local charity which runs a food bank, I agree with you.
But, and it’s a big but, at the same time if we don’t recognise the first world problems that the middle classes face, we won’t capture their vote and will be destined to spend a second term in opposition (a prospect which sends a shudder down the spine).
Yes of course we should care about the poor in society, but we need to care about the middle classes too if we are to win our rightful victory at the 2015 election. I would turn your question on it’s head, rather than Why should Labour….. etc, Why shouldn’t Labour…. helping the middle classes and helping the poor are in my mind not mutually exclusive.
As a great believer in equality, I believe we should be trying to break down the barriers of class. It’s an outdated and draconian social division that should not have a place in today’s society, so I see no reason whatsoever for the Labour Party to even be class specific in the slightest. Ideally, I’d like to see a political system where people are not so fixated on class. People who would have traditionally defined themselves as working class, and therefore traditional Labour voters are unfortunately being seduced by parties like UKIP and it’s generally because they don’t feel Labour look out for them anymore, and broadly I agree with them. So I’d argue that class should have no place in politics at all, especially given that we are supposed to be the party of fairness.
Interesting article, but your idea of middle class is odd. The people you describe would be in the gap between working and middle, haven’t you heard there are supposed to be 7 social classes these days?
These people certainly need help, as well as the people worse off. But describing them as middle class might just be counter productive as many might not like the association, and the middle class can look after themselves.
Good article Peter. One Nation is a message with some significant power. But it needs to be coupled with an ambitious story about our country – how we can return to prosperity, and for our children, through working together. The importance of all of us benefiting, and contributing, should not be missed. Labour is about enterprise and ambition for us all including those who want to replace their Mondeo.