In November 1988, the Democrat presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis, led his party to its third consecutive defeat. In its aftermath, two academics, Elaine Kamarck and William Galston, published a short monograph, The Politics of Evasion, in which they accused their party of engaging in a decade-long ‘systematic denial of reality’ about the causes of its successive defeats and how it could regain the White House once again.
Since its defeat in 2010, Labour has engaged in its own systematic denial of reality, its thinking dominated by the politics of delusion. Underlying it is a simple belief: that every single political rule which the party learned in the 1990s, and which underlay its three consecutive general election victories, no longer applied. The rules of politics are, of course, not immutable. But the fundamental delusion peddled by the party’s leadership and its outriders for the past five years is that they could now defy all of these rules.
The result of indulging this myth was tragic – for Labour and the country – but entirely predictable. As it has done on each of the previous occasions when it lost office, Labour has emerged from the subsequent general election with a lower share of the vote. By contrast, the Conservatives became the first governing party in six decades to put on both seats and votes.
This piece does not offer Labour a road back, but it does seek to nail some of the deeply damaging delusions which have been allowed to run wild for the past five years.
The vanishing Tory threat
The most hubristic of the politics of delusion was the notion that the Conservatives were holed beneath the water line: that, having failed to secure a parliamentary majority in 23 years, the party was destined not to do so again.
In The Conservative Dilemma, shadow cabinet member Jon Trickett enunciated this thesis most clearly. Trickett was careful to claim that there was ‘no iron law of politics’ which said the Conservatives could not win, but, he suggested, the party faced an ‘existential threat’, its ‘electoral base is deeply fragmented’ and the ‘long decades of the hegemony of a certain form of Toryism have now come to an end’. Conveniently, this provided Labour with an opportunity: ‘To put an end to triangulation on to Tory territory and to establish its own independent identity based on our abiding values of community, justice and equality.’
Closely allied to this delusion was the notion that the Conservatives’ difficulties winning seats in the north of England and the country’s big cities was somehow more damaging to their prospects than Labour’s problems in the south were to it. The reality was rather different. In the early 1990s, thanks to the work of Giles Radice and others, Labour sought to address the ‘southern discomfort’ which afflicted it during the Tories’ 18 years in power. But the danger of southern discomfort was, if anything, greater two decades later; with over two million more people living in the south of England compared to when Radice penned his original pamphlet and a million more people compared to the 2001 election. Indeed, outside London, the south-east, east and south-west are the fastest-growing regions in the country.
Rather than the Tories’ lack of appeal consigning them to the opposition benches, it was Labour which was hit by a double-whammy last Thursday. In the north, the Tory vote proved resilient enough to limit Labour’s gains and prevent the party picking up seats such as Morecambe and Lunesdale, Carlisle, Weaver Vale and Warrington South that were at the top of its target list in the north-west and Pudsey, Keighley and Elmet and Rothwell which it had hoped to gain in Yorkshire. Indeed, across the north the Tories managed to offset their handful of losses with gains from Labour in Morley and Outwood and Bolton West and from the Liberal Democrats in Cheadle, Hazel Grove and Berwick-upon-Tweed. In the south outside London, Labour made a solitary gain from the Tories in Hove, while losing Southampton Itchen and Plymouth Moor View, and failing to pick up any of its other Conservative held targets seats.
If the Tories’ failure to win in the north would not stop them winning, we were told, Ukip’s attack on their right flank would peel off enough voters to scupper their chances. Just as a split on the left supposedly helped keep the Tories in power during the 1980s, so a split on the right would now benefit Labour. This, of course, ignored the mounting evidence through the last parliament that Ukip also posed a serious threat to Labour.
In reality, the results suggest that Ukip may have done as much damage to Labour as it did to the Tories, especially in the north of England and the Midlands. As Stephen Fisher wrote in an early analysis of the results:
Actually it seems that the Ukip rise hurt Labour more than the Tories. Where Ukip were up by less than seven points the Conservatives were up by 1.5 points on average; Labour up 6.9. Conversely, where Ukip was up by more than 14 points the Conservatives down 0.9 points and Labour were up only 1.6. So Labour were up 5.3 less where Ukip did well but the corresponding difference for the Conservatives was just 0.6. Another way of looking at this is that the Tories lost six seats to Labour where Ukip were up less than 7 points. But Labour was not taking any seats off the Conservatives where Ukip was up by more than 14 points.
Indeed, an examination of the results in the north and Midlands by Survation suggests that:
Those Labour 2010 voters that moved to Ukip from Labour instead of breaking from the Conservatives were the deciding factor in many northern and Midlands seats. By taking disproportionately from Labour in these places, Ukip directly contributed to a series of Conservative victories, holds, and also to Labour’s failures to gain seats.
Beyond constituencies such as Bolton West, Bury North, Telford, Derby North, Weaver Vale and Morley and Outwood cited by Survation are seats in southern England such as Plymouth Moor View, Thurrock and Brighton Kemptown; Gower and Vale of Clwyd in Wales; and Croydon Central in London, where a strong Labour campaign came within 165 votes of wresting a seat from the Tories.
There was a further irony in this wishful thinking about the Tories’ apparent poor prospects. Even after he had routed them on three occasions – twice with triple-figure majorities – Tony Blair constantly warned about the threat the Tories posed. As he put it in his first address to the Labour party conference as prime minister, four months after the Conservatives had been reduced to their lowest share of the vote since the Great Reform Act of 1832, ‘No cockiness about the Tories. They’re sleeping. Not dead.’
Had Labour reacted to an election in 2010 in which it had won two million fewer votes and nearly 50 fewer seats than the Tories with the kind of caution Blair displayed on each of the occasions on which he beat them, the party may have avoided at least some of the damage it sustained last Thursday.
Superfluous Tory switchers
If Labour was unduly sanguine about the Tories’ inability to win, it was also remarkably blasé about whether those who voted Conservative in 2010 supported it or not.
Even before Nick Clegg had sealed his fatal pact with David Cameron in 2010, the Fabian Society confidently predicted that this would be ‘an electoral gift’ for Labour: the perfidy of the Liberal Democrats would allow Labour to unite the centre-left vote with little need to attract the support of those swing voters who backed Labour under Blair but deserted it for the Tories in 2010. Two years later, the Fabians’ general secretary, Andrew Harrop, reiterated this line. Analysing ‘Ed’s converts’ – voters supporting the party who did not vote Labour in 2010 – he wrote that they were ‘distinctly left-leaning’: three-quarters were Liberal Democrats while only six per cent had been won from the ranks of those who voted Tory in 2010. Harrop concluded: ‘With the “uniting” of the left behind Labour it therefore becomes possible to imagine a Labour majority without a “new Labour” appeal to lots of those famous swing voters who choose between Labour and the Conservatives at each election … All Ed Miliband would need to do to win would be to keep the very modest number of former Tory supporters who have already switched to Labour.’
As the newly elected MP for Enfield North, Joan Ryan, warned three years ago, the so-called ‘35 per cent strategy’ – which aimed to push Labour over the top with the votes of disgruntled Liberal Democrats – was fatally flawed. She argued that Labour should not be looking at the number of Liberal Democrat voters in each constituency per se, but the Liberal Democrat switchers – those who had voted Labour in 1997 but backed Clegg in 2010. Her premise was that those who had not been willing to support Labour in 1997 to end 18 years of Tory government and, even faced with the prospect of Cameron in Downing Street, had still voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 were highly unlikely ever to support Labour. On that basis, even if Labour had been able to win back every single ex-Labour voter who supported the Liberal Democrats in 2010, it would still have managed to win only 38 of the 83 seats among its top 100 targets which were won by the Tories in 2010. Moreover, Ryan suggested, although there were a few Labour-Tory marginals – the likes of Hendon, Thurrock and Weaver Vale – which, in theory, might fall if Liberal Democrat ‘switchers’ could be brought back to Labour, such a strategy was ‘extremely risky’, relying as it did on a small pool of voters and a very high conversion rate.
The 35 per cent strategy may have helped deliver Labour 12 seats which were held by the Liberal Democrats until last week but, as is now painfully obvious, those seats left the party far short of being the largest party, let alone winning a majority. This has nothing to do with Labour’s implosion in Scotland: even if the party had held all of the 41 seats it was defending, it would still have failed to become the largest party, holding 272 seats – one more than Neil Kinnock won in 1992 – to the Tories’ 330.
In the ashes of Ed Miliband’s failed strategy lay the dozens of Labour-Tory marginals which the party failed to win back. While Labour pulled off some notable victories in London and made five gains overall in the north-west, it took only one seat from the Tories in southern England, lost eight seats to them overall (nearly cancelling out the 10 it gained), and is now facing even bigger Conservative majorities in the likes of Hendon, Harlow, Hastings and Rye, and Halesowen and Rowley Regis, where it hoped to elect Labour MPs only a week ago.
The shifting centre-ground
A constant refrain over the past five years has been the notion that, in the wake of the financial crisis, the political centre-ground has moved to the left. This was a highly expedient fiction: it allowed the party to avoid some tough choices by simply proclaiming they no longer existed. It is true that voters may be angry at bankers or concerned about inequality in a way that they were not during much of Labour’s time in government when the economy was booming.
But the notion that these sentiments signalled a wholesale leftward shift in public opinion was a false one. As the most recent British Social Attitudes survey suggests, the political centre-ground has tracked to the left since the 2010 general election. There is nothing unusual about this phenomenon: as the BSA explains, ‘The political centre invariably moves against the government of the day. Beginning in 1964, the average left-right position generally tracked rightwards until 1980, the year after Margaret Thatcher came to power. The public then gradually moved left-during the 1980s and remained there for the duration of the Major premiership. The mood shifted rightwards from 1997 under New Labour and then left under the coalition.’
But where had the centre-ground shifted to? The claim of the proponents of the shifting centre-ground delusion was that the leftward shift they had supposedly detected would allow Labour to break free of the alleged timidity of the New Labour years. That claim is somewhat undermined by the fact that the BSA placed the political centre at roughly the point it was located in 2006. Moreover, underneath this apparent shift lay some rather unsettling conclusions for a party which appeared to believe the country wanted a more leftwing policy agenda. Take, for instance, attitudes towards public spending, taxes and welfare revealed in this year’s BSA survey:
- After falling from 63 per cent in 2002 to 32 per cent in 2010, the proportion of the public who want to see higher taxes to pay for more spending on health, education and social benefits had only increased slightly to 37 per cent.
- Only 30 per cent wanted to see more government spending on welfare benefits – a proportion only marginally higher than the 27 per cent who backed that view in 2009 and just half the proportion (61 per cent) that did so in 1989.
- Nearly three-quarters of the public endorsed the government’s benefits cap, while only 44 per cent of Labour supporters believed that more should be spent on welfare, while 50 per cent believed the unemployed could find a job if they wanted one.
Leadership and economic competence
It is a near-inviolable law of politics that no party can win a general election if it is behind on both its ability to run the economy and leadership. Some appeared to believe, however, that this was a law Labour could break. They reminded us that Margaret Thatcher was less popular than Jim Callaghan when she won the 1979 election and that Labour lagged behind the Tories on the economy in both 1964 and 1997. All of these things were true.
However, as Peter Kellner of YouGov pointed out on a number of occasions: ‘I can find no example of a party losing an election when it is ahead on both leadership and economic competence.’ He also repeatedly attempted to debunk the comforting myths about 1979 and 1997. In 1997, for instance, Blair held a double-digit lead over John Major on who voters would prefer to see as prime minister and, while Labour was behind on running the economy, the party led on each of the top six issues (albeit narrowly on two of them). As Kellner wrote in June 2014: ‘Today, the economy is by far the bigger issue, and the Tories enjoy a bigger and more sustained lead than they did in 1997 – and now it is Cameron who enjoys a double-digit lead over Miliband.’
Labour was unable or unwilling to address the issue of its leader’s poor ratings – a year before the election, for instance, Miliband had, at -39 per cent, a lower net satisfaction rating than Nick Clegg and, in its final election poll Ipsos MORI found that, despite the supposed rise in his popularity during the campaign, he still trailed Cameron by 15 points as the most capable prime minister – and remained stubbornly behind on the economy. Its response was to attempt to change the subject, arguing that its leads on creating jobs and raising living standards outweighed its huge deficit on economic competence.
The delusion that it could sidestep its problems on economic competence and leadership spoke to a wider Labour problem. All parties naturally attempt to play to their strengths, but Labour appeared blind to the need to address its weaknesses, seeming to pin its hopes on a relentless focus on issues such as the NHS, the bedroom tax, zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage. Its promises during the campaign to ‘balance the books and cut the deficit every year’ were late and unconvincing having never been part of its core narrative. More importantly, its pledges on cutting spending were easy to dismiss given the lack of detail it had provided. By contrast, while Tory claims to be the ‘party of the workers’ may have appeared somewhat implausible, the barrage of announcements the party made during the campaign – on increasing NHS spending, providing more childcare and building more homes – at least suggested an effort to address issues it lagged behind Labour on and step outside its comfort zone.
Miliband’s defenders would no doubt argue that his repeated mantra of ‘we got it wrong on immigration’ showed a willingness to engage with his party’s supposed weaknesses. But, starting with the 2010 leadership election, the singling out of the issue of immigration, in fact, represented an attempt to avoid more difficult questions on, for instance, spending, welfare and public service reform. Indeed, beyond cack-handed gimmicks like its ‘controls on immigration’ mugs and some unpleasant rhetoric about ensuring public service workers speak English, the issue of immigration largely led Labour back into its comfort zone with a (entirely sensible) package of measures designed to tackle the exploitation of cheap labour.
Back to business?
New Labour won strong support from leading businessmen and women in each of its successful general election campaigns. 1997 saw the party winning its first significant business backing in a generation, and screened a party political broadcast featuring its prominent business endorsers, while in 2001 and 2005 it managed to organise letter to the Times and Financial Times signed by around 60 business leaders. But in 2010 Labour was unable to muster a response when a group of business leaders sent a letter to the Daily Telegraph backing the then Conservative opposition’s plans to stop rises in national insurance contributions.
While some argued that winning the backing of some of those who run the country’s leading companies and employ thousands of workers might help Labour to rebuild its shattered reputation for economic confidence, others suggested that not only had the post-financial crisis drop in public trust in business made such an approach redundant, that there was also something ‘old school’ and ‘out of date’ about it. Instead, the shadow business secretary, Chuka Umunna, suggested a new test: that Labour should be ‘in tune with and engaged with the majority of businesses in this country which are not big massive businesses’.
Labour’s attempt to proclaim itself the party of small business and entrepreneurs may have had more credibility had it been able to counter the Tories’ inevitable barrage of letters to the newspapers from captains of industry with endorsements from those running start-ups and SMEs. Instead, it responded to the Conservatives with a letter featuring only a handful of business people, an actor, feminist writer and theatre director.
…
The neck-and-neck opinion polls and Miliband’s competent performance during the election campaign made the shock of Labour’s defeat akin to 1992. But the catastrophe which befell the party last week is worse than that which it suffered at the hands of John Major – not simply in terms of votes and seats or the fact that in 1992 it, rather than the Tories, was – albeit too slowly – advancing. In 1992, the project of modernisation was already under way: it may not have gone far enough, but Labour’s leadership was already aware of, and had begun to tackle, the hard realities their party faced.
Over the past five years, however, a politics of delusion has been allowed to flourish and grow. The New Labour ‘playbook’ was joyfully ripped up and the rules which govern how parties win elections were declared obsolete. Those rules are not complicated: take the threat posed by your opponents seriously; attempt to win votes from the only other party which might realistically form a government; do not indulge in wishful thinking about where the centre-ground of British politics lies; tackle your weaknesses; and recognise that your claim to economic competence is strengthened in the mind of the voters if you can convince those running businesses both big and small to support your claim. Labour has paid a heavy price for believing it could twist, break and ignore all of these rules.
In the 1980s, the hard left proclaimed: ‘no compromise with the electorate.’ Since 2010, the cry of the adherents of the politics of delusion has been no less destructive: ‘no compromise with reality.’
———————————
Robert Philpot is a contributing editor to Progress
The concerns of middle England were not addressed. House prices going up is no substitute for zilch on your bank deposits. Ukip was the counter to fear of foreigners and, I suspect, it was the Greens that appealed to the intelligentsia.
It will be a shock when we all have to pay a full market rate for our health care (or not get any, which is already happening as budgets get squeezed). The privatisation started under New Labour.
Labour is still paying the price for its delusions in the Blair-Brown era. When governments obfuscate the true costs of what they provide, trouble will loom. If you off-load on to the private sector, the poor will miss out and inequality increases. People are barely starting to realise that that is bad for business.
People need hope for their futures, but can’t see any at the moment.
Middle England turned out and voted Labour – it was the working class that stayed at home or voted UKIP – counterbalancing the swing from the LibDems. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/it-was-working-class-not-middle-class-sunk-labour
The middle class voted Labour at about the same rate they did in 2010. Not exactly a great year to compare. More middle class people vote Conservative than Labour.
Possible, but I feel it was different middle class people, those who voted labour in 2010 were clinging to he self aspiring Blairite view that got us in power,as for the middle class who voted labour this time, more were public service workers who saw cuts under the Tories, police teachers, possibly NHS consultants, of recently retired and under 65
The reasons Labour lost are many and varied. Mr Philpott has completely ignored the now anti-democratic power of the right wing media, the impact of massive scare-mongering about the SNP and, most conveniently for him, the fact that it was following New Labour’s prescription in government that led to both the scale of the financial crisis in the UK, and the fact the rising inequality has drawn much of Labour’s natural constituency to consider alternatives to it – UKIP, Greens and the SNP (for different reasons, but starting from the belief that Labour couldn’t be trusted to deliver for them after 13 years of government).
I agree with much of the above, but we aren’t going to arrive at an honest assessment of what went wrong until the whole party steps back from the ‘too left’/’not left enough’ argument that is only going to hold us back.
My own view is that we did spend too long looking angry about injustice and not enough talking about prosperity for most; our leader didn’t start looking PM material until the last two months of the campaign; we didn’t have an adequate offer to the squeezed middle; we’ve lost the trust of many due to a Party leadership that doesn’t connect; neglect of Scotland and lack of recognition that we needed something different there.
The one big thing we now need is a revolution in the way the party operates at local level, and a genuinely open approach that brings people in and makes them feel we are bothered.
Where is the zeal to tackle climate change? Only the biggest issue we face. That would have resonated with the public if it had not been exiled to the small print.
I think that if Labour had focused on this, then they would have got votes from the Green party and lost seats to UKIP. They would have been even more destroyed.
It is not a major election issue. Telling people to stop using their cars sends out the wrong message.
The “right wing” media has been there for decades. The Mirror us actually the most partisan. Publications like the FT, Economist and Independent all supported the coalition government – none if these can be regarded as rigid, partisan publications.
The SNP issue was valid. Sturgeon raised thus and it was legitimate.
All very well, but can someone explain what happened in Derbyshire? One parliamentary seat was a marginal Tory gain from Labour. In all the other seats, the incumbent party increased their majorities, whether they be Tory or Labour. This behaviour doesn’t fit any explanation I have yet to see. The common factor was low turnout – one in three voters stayed at home…. I suggest these missing voters are more likely to be disadvantaged and more likely to vote Labour, if Labour could only give them something to vote for. Even with an allegedly, Milliband ‘left wing’ agenda they were not persuaded. I fear that if Labour moves to the right, via the ‘alleged’ centre, the party will wither on the vine. Our family is digging in for 10 more years of the Tories.
Derbyshire is interesting f. The marginal was a 3 way last time, with a Labour majority if one thousand, so an easy hold. Losing that was spectacularly bad. The other marginals strengthened. Places like Bolsover are very safe Labour.
The point is 12 years of Blair / Brown Government delivered little or nothing for working people; growing inequality – and a continuation of Tory privatisation (which boils down to paying, mainly lower paid, workers less). During this period Labour haemorrhaged millions of votes – but maintained power due to the three way split between parties. The trade unions were left ham-strung, and Labour opened the door on privatisation of the NHS and undermining Local Authority control and co-ordination of schools. Labour did not cause the crash of 2008 but were criminally negligent in allowing the banks free reign. However, for 5 years the Tories and LibDems have re-iterated that Labour crashed the economy, without any serious attempt at a response from any Shadow ministers. When the election came they were at last forced to confront these issues – but by then the Tory lie had become established truth. For a far better analysis of why we lost the election I suggest people read the article on The Socialist Network website.
“The point is 12 years of Blair / Brown Government delivered little or nothing for working people……….” In Labour’s NEC, Christine Shawcroft made the same allegation…………. and was then comprehensively demolished by Dennis Skinner
This is the same call made by people who also believe that we lost in 1983 ‘cos Labour wasn’t left-wing enough, and those who now argue that the minimum wage held earnings down.
Why didn’t you focus on the number of people/families who had been lifted out of poverty?
As a union officer and activist since 1983 I thought the election of a Labour Government in 1997 would make a real difference after years of Tory attacks and cuts. However, more of our workforce were outsourced under Labour than under the Tories – and it took Labour years to implement any safeguards for those workers – who all ended up on lower pay and worse terms and conditions. Labour tried to force us to outsource our council housing, and insisted on creating academies where staff didn’t have to be paid national terms and conditions. The proportion of the wealth created by the nation which goes to workers has been decreasing since the 70s. Some unions thought that trade union negotiation and action was a better solution than the minimum wage – but with trade unions ham-strung by legislation (retained by Labour) the minimum wage has become a fall back for more and more – even though it has decreased in real value under the Tories. Norms of employment such as paid holidays, enhancements for overtime & weekends, and pensions began to disappear – and had to be protected by legislation. As a Local Government officer and trade unionist I never thought the minimum wage was of much relevance to our organised work-force with national negotiations – but before Christmas some council staff actually received a pay increase because their national pay rate fell below the minimum wage. Meanwhile our Tory Council had attacked all our other terms and conditions making people work over-times, weekends and bank holidays for flat rate – and cutting redundancy pay. Labour offered more years of pay cuts in real terms – after staff had had a real terms cut of nearly 20% under 5 years of Tory rule. Our main definition of poverty is a relative calculation. Thus ironically, by cutting pay for the wider work-force the Tories supposedly reduced levels of poverty during the last 5 years. Of course this is nonsense in reality. Thousands of children are affected by benefit sanctions and issues like the Bedroom tax and the Council Tax Reduction Scheme. But Labour took nearly a year to say it would abolish the Bedroom tax, and says little or nothing about sanctions and other benefit cuts for the poorest.
20% real terms pay cut over the last 5 years?? Maybe 10%, inflation has been low.
RPI inflation: 2009 2.4% 2010 4.8% 2011 4.8% 2012 3.1% 2013 2.7%. During this period Local government staff had 3 years of pay freeze, a 1% increase and a year when no settlement was reached. The Government promised public sector workers earning less than £21k a £250 lump sum (unconsolidated) for each of the 2 years of pay freeze – to protect the low paid. 95% of Councils chose not to pay their staff that money. This doesn’t include changes to pension contributions, which on average began to increase by 3% of pay (from 6% to 9%) which benefits were cut.
“However, more of our workforce were outsourced under Labour than under
the Tories – and it took Labour years to implement any safeguards for
those workers – who all ended up on lower pay and worse terms and
conditions.”
There is such a thing called a ‘jobs market’. These people could have quit their jobs and got a better-paid one. If they didn’t, then they were being paid the market rate for the work.
“The proportion of the wealth created by the nation which goes to workers has been decreasing since the 70s.”
Irrelevant. The value of the wealth has increased. People live in better housing, own more cars, go on better holidays and have better standards of living.
” Labour offered more years of pay cuts in real terms – after staff had
had a real terms cut of nearly 20% under 5 years of Tory rule.”
“Our main definition of poverty is a relative calculation. ”
Defining poverty as a ratio means it is only eliminated by reducing everyone’s wages to the same. Poverty should be defined by absolutes. A ratio is a nonsense calculation.
“Thousands of children are affected by benefit sanctions and issues like the Bedroom tax…”
This is simply not true.
” But Labour took nearly a year to say it would abolish the Bedroom tax,
and says little or nothing about sanctions and other benefit cuts for
the poorest.”
Labour does not get votes by promising more welfare. It’s politics. get used to it.
State-sector workers were being paid more than their private-sector counterparts. The Tories redressed this imbalance.
The nature of public sector employment was generally that the high paid got less than the market rate (our job evaluation was fixed at the lower quartile of the Hay median) while the lower paid got better pay than the market rate. Job evaluation was a major factor in pulling up the rates of low paid women workers – who were actively discriminated against by the market. Thus care workers were paid less than bin men – on a basis that could not be objectively justified. Public sector pay for road workers, street sweepers, school kitchen assistants, cleaners and care workers pulled up the market rates for workers in similar private sector manual jobs. If we just want to rely on the market then we wouldn’t have a minimum wage? Those bidding for council contracts were for many years able to pay their staff, or transferred staff, less – especially because pensions were not covered by TUPE. Thus they could win contracts – not by private sector efficiency, but by just by cutting workers’ wages. In the early days council staff were forced to agree cuts to their pay and conditions in the hope of winning their jobs in the race-to-the-bottom competitive tendering.
Wealth and wellbeing is clearly comparative. Try telling a worker who gets paid half the pay of someone doing the same job that he should really be comparing himself with a Victorian worker doing the same job, not his colleague. Growing the pot – but increasing inequality may or may not be considered acceptable: http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra-rich-mans-letter-to-my-fellow-filthy-rich-americans-the-pitchforks-are-coming
Your arguments are Tory arguments. The notion that public sector jobs are wealth destroying – rather than part of the social wage – and the way we regulate society, suggest a Neocon libertarian Tory. So if we close all our hospitals that makes us wealthier? If we abolish the police that allows the wealthy to enjoy their riches? There is no wealth creation without the stability provided by the state and the public sector.
Even the Tories claim to protect the weak and vulnerable in our society – but you say we don’t get a Labour Government by promising to address the issues affecting this sector?
http://www.methodist.org.uk/news-and-events/news-releases/new-report-nearly-100000-children-affected-by-benefit-sanctions-in-201314 “A new report from a coalition of major UK Churches has revealed that around 100,000 children were affected by benefit sanctions in 2013/14. It also shows that in the same period a total of nearly 7 million weeks of sanctions were handed out to benefit claimants.”
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/housing-benefit-size-criteria-impacts-social-sector-tenants?gclid=CNPWqJaQycUCFYeWtAodMCkAtA
Promising Tory policies may be your politics. That was the whole point of my original comments. We elected a Labour Government under Blair who implemented Tory policies. The election of a Labour Government is not an end in itself – it is whether that Government improves conditions for the mass of ordinary people. That is the measure. The defeat of Brown doesn’t mean we can’t elect a Labour Government that offers socialist or social democratic policies. The argument is that Brown and Miliband were part and parcel of the Blair team, wedded to their policies, and have been rejected again because they have offered little or nothing to the majority of workers..
“People live in better housing, own more cars, go on better holidays and have better standards of living.”
Aye. And eat in better foodbanks.
Foodbanks are a good thing as they lead the way in the privatisation of the welfare state.
You deserve to be eating from one. Unfortunately, better people than you are forced to.
“In Labour’s NEC, Christine Shawcroft made the same
allegation…………. and was then comprehensively demolished by
Dennis Skinner”
Skinner’s rhetoric clearly did not carry well. No-one noticed. No-one cared. Miliband did not call on Skinner to lead the attack against this charge.
Nobody cares what was said in an NEC meeting apart from a Labour anorak. So Labour got the socialist anorak vote. Very effective.
People did not see Milliband being Prime Minister, that coupled with the rubbish whipped up about the SNP threat (and that Milliband fatally played to) were the major issues that allowed a hysterical Tory press to get leverage.
The problem is now a credible leader. Labour’s best potential leader is not in the Labour Party. Caroline Lucas is in the Greens!
Why was the SNP issue rubbish? Sturgeon raised the issue of forming a coalition with Labour.
Cameron was right about Labour/ SNP but possibly for the wrong reasons – and he didn’t put it in the wider context of a minority Labour Government with the other parties originally expected to do well, Greens and PC, to Labour’s left. In a crisis such parties would surely have played to Labour’s worst instincts – unilateralism, overspending and appeasement of extremists of various types.
That was one of the principal fears that led me to vote Conservative for the first time in my life. Philpott sets out most of my other reasons to which I would only add Miliband and Alexander’s appalling attitude to Israel when under attack last Summer.
Sturgeon did so because she wanted a Conservative government. They are easier for SNP supporters to hate.
Scotland was meant to be Labour country. They treated it like Labour councillors treated Rotherham.
You misunderstand Scottish politics. To argue that Sturgeon wanted a Tory government is ludicrous. Halfwitted Tory economics damage the Scottish economy just as much and in some cases more so. If the Scottish electorate even suspect the S.N.P are in cahoots with the tories, they are finished.
In terms of labour, they are still seen as the Tweedledee of Westminster. As Nicola put it, it’s not that there’s no difference, the problem is that there’s not enough of a difference.
“You misunderstand Scottish politics.”
I really don’t think so. Scotland has fallen to nationalism, a political sentiment that puts nation before reality in a form of the triumph of the will. It was Scottish nationalism that led to the Darien Scheme, and we all know what happened there.
“To argue that Sturgeon wanted a Tory government is ludicrous.”
The validated diplomatic communication confirms this.
“Halfwitted Tory economics damage the Scottish economy just as much and in some cases more so.”
It is not ‘Tory economics’, it is the halfwitted state of the Scottish economy. Apart from the oil,there is little else. And the state sector and state spending is far too large.
“If the Scottish electorate even suspect the S.N.P are in cahoots with the Tories, they are finished.”
This is an unlikely scenario. Cameron sees himself as the UK Prime Minister, not just its greatest component.
“In terms of labour, they are still seen as the Tweedledee of Westminster.”
This is just nationalist claptrap.
” As Nicola put it, it’s not that there’s no difference, the problem is that there’s not enough of a difference.”
More nationalist claptrap.
I’m not going to get into the ins and outs of Darien, your grasp of history is obviously far too slight. Suffice it to say it was an example of conflicting Mercantilism in 2 countries.
“The validated diplomatic communication confirms this.”
Are there no newspapers where you live? The French ambassador, the French consul general for Scotland both confirmed Sturgeon’s story. Carmichael is about to get his fat incompetent arse kicked out of parliament because of it. Grow up.
“Apart from the oil,there is little else.” Apart from shipbuilding, avionics, buses, textiles, food and drink, tourism, whisky, computer software, in particular the gaming industry, microelectronics, fishing, farming, banking and financial services. Oh and a highly rated education system.
“This is an unlikely scenario. Cameron sees himself as the UK Prime Minister, not just its greatest component.” What in God’s name are you wittering about?
“Claptrap” and “more claptrap” Thi doesn’t constitute an argument, it’s more a demonstration of your ignorance, although in your defence it’s on a par with the rest of your piece.
MUST DO BETTER
“I’m not going to get into the ins and outs of Darien, your grasp of
history is obviously far too slight. Suffice it to say it was an example
of conflicting Mercantilism in 2 countries.”
It’s always good to run away when you are losing an argument. Like right here. My boot is right up your sporran on this one.
“”The validated diplomatic communication confirms this.”
Are there no newspapers where you live? The French ambassador, the French consul general for Scotland both confirmed Sturgeon’s story. Carmichael is about to get his fat incompetent arse kicked out of parliament because of it. Grow up.”
The official inquiry states that the conversation as recorded accurately.
Boot really up the sporrran now.
“Apart from shipbuilding, avionics, buses, textiles, food and drink,
tourism, whisky, computer software, in particular the gaming industry,
microelectronics, fishing, farming, banking and financial services. Oh
and a highly rated education system.”
You are just making this up. The last Scottish shipyard went into administration last year. I do have to treat the rest of your factoids in the same way. The sporran is getting well booted.
There is no real point in arguing with your nationalist claptrap and there never has been. You make up this nonsense because you love your country to the point of irrationality. And that irrational behaviour has fostered hatred as it always does. This is why English nationalism has been suppressed for decades. However the roaring lion north of the border may wake up the three lions sitting on the south. Perhaps Cameron’s win is the first indication of this.
It is in Scotland’s interest to have England as a willing friend. So perhaps some good manners are needed. Not what you are writing here.
The “closed ” Scotish shipyard is building aircraft carriers and type 26 frigates even as we speak – I could take you there, it’s about 2 miles from my door.
Re Ferrero Rocher gate, Carmichael has now admitted it’s a lie
On the Scottish economy, you should check your facts before you get into a discussion.
You are, however right on one thing. There is no point in arguing, since you know nothing.
Didn`t the SNP rely on Conservative MSP’s in 2007-2011? They came to a deal then.
The Scottish Parliament was designed specifically to make majority government almost impossible, and every government from its set up until 2007 was a coalition; more specifically, Lab/LibDem combinations. The first one party government was the S.N.P. one in 2007. Since it was a minority, it was never likely that it would achieve its whole programme; therefore it had to rely on votes from other parties on various issues and at various times. This, unfortunately from my point of view, entailed losing parts of the programme.
The S.N.P. made overtures about a coalition to the Lib/Dems, but were rebuffed on the grounds that this could lead to a referendum – comprehensible from their point of view. There was no chance of a coalition with labour due mainly to tribalism. At that time I was slightly disappointed by that.
The minority government was accounted a success by the electorate, to the extent that the S.N.P. won the supposedly near – impossible majority in 2011.
There was never any deal with the Tories. Apart from anything else, that would sound the death knell for the S.N.P, or indeed any other party in Scotland.
But Labour’s share of the vote went up this election?
Yes by 1.5% compared to 2010 which itself was a very bad result.
And mainly one would imagine, its share of the Lib Dem carcass. Surely Labour expected that to be greater and it will be interesting to know whether that share is more or less than the Tories got.
If more people vote Labour in Rotherham, they still only elect 1 MP. Voting share is irrelevant in a constituency-based voting system.
With the collapse of libdems it was inevitable ,labours vote went up in 1979 ,despite losing, yet winning on less than in 1974
I found Robert Philpot’ article interesting and informative. There is much I agree with and some I disagree with and there is an important omission from the article. First, Mr Philpot writes about business support. He contrasts the support achieved by Tony Blair in his three successful elections compared to no or little support for Ed Miliband.
However, today is fundamentally different form 1997 – 2005. Big business is not trusted by the voters. Much of big business is seen as overpaid corporate executives, excessive profits and salaries and poor wages paid to the workers with little or no job security. Labour cannot just sit down with big business and pretend that the corporate world does not need to change. That would be dishonest and dangerous for the Party. I’ll just give one example where we should question. The CEO of BT, from Switzerland, advises us in the Uk how we should vote. If you are a BT customer or you read about them you learn their service is poor and expensive. Any Labour leadership should challenge men like him to run his company more effectively before advising UK voters how we should vote. I think we should be champions of small business and be wary of over closeness or endorsement from big business unless they get closer to our values.
The omission from the Philpot piece is Europe. Our new Leader needs to re-shape our Europe policy. The common view is we lost this election because our economic policy was not credible. But our Europe policy (no referendum) was also not credible in 2015 Britain. The two main pro-Europe parties in England and Wales, Labour and Liberal Democrat could not even muster 40% of the popular vote. Europe needs to change and we need to articulate that change. It won’t be enough just to do a “Blair” and try to win centrist Tory and Lib Dem voters. We also need to get our UKIP votes back as we may not come back in Scotland. Our new Leader is going to have to be far more clever than ex-PM Blair and build a much wider consensus.
While you are right that in respect of individual dealings with business – poor after sales service, etc – people’s contacts with business is sometimes negative, I think people understand the importance of business to the economy and at election times this trumps such concerns.
Dear Mightymark
I understand what you are saying but I did not find voters in Harrow East at peace with the greed and abuse of power by lobbying by big business and I do not believe that’s where we got it wrong on business. It’s what Andrew Marr wrote about in this weeks New Statesman. Self-employed tradespeople went up to Andrew Marr and told him “Labour hate us”. we will not win back the lost UKIP voters, and we need to, by being cosy with big business as we were under Blair and Brown. We need to be pro small and medium business and only support big business if they are prepared to do more to assist with the economy and the environment.
It isn’t about “cosiness” though. It is about appreciating that what ever you say about SMEs (and I don’t for a moment doubt their importance) millions of people work for large private corporations which are often internationally footloose. Also that those companies pay directly and indirectly (e.g. by employing people who then pay income tax) billions in taxation which fund our public services. You don’t have to like them still less get “cosy with them in order to see their importance and so why alienating them unnecessarily is daft.
Anyway, nice to hear about my old stamping ground of Harrow East!
It is very difficult to progress when most of the candidates for the leadership are much the same. In 2010 the only outstanding candidate was David Miliband and he went and shot himself in the foot by allowing Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott to contest the leadership by lending them nominees. Then he failed to beat his brother in Union support, having only achieved a 49% share of the vote for members and MP’s. Result we get a leader who spent three years deciding what to do and was barely out of the slips before the election. In the forthcoming election we need a leader who will win all three colleges, not just one, as in 2010. However, from the nominees I see no sign of change in our prospects. We are entering the Iain Duncan Smith stage of our recovery. It is difficult to imagine who will be the Michael Howard usurper, as he was sixth in the 1997 vote and it cannot be Diane Abbott (just no one is that stupid). However we may get a winning candidate after 2020. Time for Labour to prepare for a long fight. Most of the Labour Cabinet of 1997 had not been MP’s when Labour lost in 1979.
“All parties naturally attempt to play to their strengths, but Labour
appeared blind to the need to address its weaknesses, seeming to pin its
hopes on a relentless focus on issues such as the NHS, the bedroom tax,
zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage.”
So Labour was getting the votes of NHS workers, social housing residents, casual workers and the low-paid.
Labour had nothing to say to people who were not in their favoured groups. They were therefore outvoted by people that Labour did not stand for.
Yet another howl from the unquiet grave that is Blairism. Your electoral success of that period was predicated on the notion that “new” labour accepted the whole neoliberal settlement and the horrors it eventually visited on the traditional labour vote, because that vote had nowhere else to go. The economics held together for a while due to cheap money. Any semi competent economics standard grade student could have told you that it couldn’t last, and it didn’t.
Meanwhile, Blair/Brown’s endless triangulation allowed the nutters of UKIP to present themselves as the anti elite party in England, and that’s where the disaffected vote went. In Scotland, fortunately in my opinion, we had a somewhat mildly left of centre alternative in the S.N,P.
A (long) period of reflective silence from Nosferatu Mandelson et al, and the resolve from the rest of you to ignore them after that would be greatly to your benefit.