There is currently a feverish atmosphere in the Labour party. As matters stand it is unclear who will win the leadership contest, and fierce arguments have broken out concerning how the parliamentary party should oppose the Tories. However, although this is a difficult moment for Labour, current debates may serve as the storm before the patient calm that may be needed for them to regain power.
In the first weeks after 7 May, internal discussions were dominated by concerns about policy positioning. Had Ed Miliband’s Labour moved too far to the left? Or had, as some argued and still argue, it failed to disentangle itself sufficiently from the legacy of the Blair-Brown years? However, much data suggests that the biggest difficulty for Labour was not policies, but trust – Miliband was not trusted as a leader, and Labour was not trusted to manage the economy. How can this gap be bridged?
It is common for the party to see to learn lessons from the extended past leaderships of figures such as Harold Wilson, Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair. However, in some respects the often-forgotten leadership of John Smith may provide more useful insights for the way ahead.
Smith was elected Labour leader following another dark moment in the party’s history – a fourth consecutive general election defeat in 1992. As in 2015, many feared that the party had been rendered irrelevant by historical change. Yet Labour revived under Smith’s relatively laid-back leadership style, aided by the Tories bungling during the exchange rate mechanism crash. Smith was able to project an image of unspectacular competence that took advantage of Tory failure and division. When he passed-away unexpectedly in 1994, the Sun newspaper commented – ‘Britain’s next prime minister died yesterday’.
What might the new Labour leader learn from the Smith period? In terms of media-management, probably very little as Smith’s approach was rather too low key for modern campaigning. However, one of the few ways an opposition leader can earn a positive reputation is through their management of the party and relations with external groups. Smith pushed through a major reform of Labour’s relationship with the trade unions, introducing one member one vote for the leadership election. The new leader could use their early period to address the relationship of the party to localities and regions. This could involve actively lowering expectations of what a national party can do when practical change is often driven by grassroots activity in communities. Being seen to cede power from London may do more to gain trust during the new leader’s early years than prematurely issuing self-denying ordinances about tax, spending or balanced budgets.
Smith was also an effective leader of the opposition. His style was never flamboyant, but always commanding, sharp and able to exploit Conservative division. A lesson from the Smith period is that a Labour opposition leader need not necessarily have extraordinary charisma, or make spectacular policy changes in order to gain political traction. The new leader can hope to accumulate public confidence iteratively, taking advantage of the Conservatives’ small majority to create a sense of dwindling authority as the parliament progresses. Opposition can be most effective when it challenges the governing party on its ‘own’ territory. For instance the new leader may be able to challenge the Tories’ reputation as a pro-business party through a focus on the market uncertainties produced by their splits on the European Union. Such efforts may pay double dividends in 2018-20 when David Cameron steps down to be replaced by an untested new prime minister. By that point the new Labour leader will be an established public figure with a record of impact, while the new Conservative leader may have little time to assert authority. Patience and humility could go some way to earning Labour what Smith liked to describe as ‘a chance to serve’.
———————————
Stuart McAnulla is a lecturer in British politics at the University of Leeds
———————————