I’ve written an article for the latest edition of Fabian Review on how Labour needs to rethink its ‘middle Britain’ electoral strategy in light of the changes over the last 15 years in demography, geography, values, and politics.
I argue that “There is scant academic evidence that the focus on ‘Mondeo Man’ worked in electoral terms” and that the “most damning critique of the Middle Britain strategy is that it created no organisation able to support its aim and, instead, haemorrhaged support.” I go on to say:
“Building a new movement will not be easy. But the task will be harder still if the party doesn’t think hard about what has changed since 1992. While the mixed record suggests it would be wrong to continue without questioning the Middle Britain strategy, it would be equally foolish to hark back to a romantic notion of class-consciousness. Changing demography, geography, values, and political reality should all have a bearing on Labour’s next strategy.”
Ed Wallis has some kind words to say about it on Next Left as does Alex Smith on Labour List. The purpose of the essay was not to describe a new strategy but to set out the questions that the Labour party should ask itself in thinking about this election and those to come.
I’d be very interested to hear your views.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
21 Responses to “Labour needs a new electoral strategy”
Will Straw
I've written for Fabian Review about why Labour should think again about the 'middle Britain' strategy http://bit.ly/4GhFcQ
Mark
If you want ideas look at France where many of the supporters of the Parti Socialiste are bourgeois professionals. They are quite far from the clichés of leftist workers, the unemployed and state employees.
Back in Britain, as far as I’m concerned you can forget “Mondeo Man”, the problem is “Gordon Man”. I’m there with collective action, regulated markets and social responsibility. But I can’t get behind Gordon Brown. Whether it’s his odd persona, the disastrous legacy from his time as Chancellor, his frequent bad judgement or his relentless political calculations, Brown is Labour’s biggest liability. No sophisticated analysis is required, “anyone-but-Brown” is a vote winner. I’m sure Cameron knows this too.
Silent Hunter
How about an election strategy that doesn’t simply seek to re-elect the Labour Party for 5 more years.
How about something that actually tackles the ABJECT SLEAZE & CORRUPTION that have flourished under “this” Labour Government?
How about some TRUTH for a change?
How about a Government that isn’t always looking over your shoulder, or seeking to run your life for you and your family, one that doesn’t beat the crap out of you using their private army, The Met, when you dare to protest in public?
That would be a bloody start eh? Will.
Or how about a simple apology to all those voters who in 1997 thought that they had elected a government that actually cared about the people of this country; instead of just electing a bunch of self-serving crooks whose only interest was to feather their own nests.
There you go Will . . . How does the TRUTH sound to you as an Election Manifesto for Labour?
robvance
RT @wdjstraw: I've written for Fabian Review about why Labour should think again about the 'middle Britain' strategy http://bit.ly/4GhFcQ
Anne O'Nimmus
Give us manifesto ideas that at least suggests that “new blood” is breaking in, even (& sometimes especially) if those ideas cancel out some from the past 12 years. Over policing, over recording our lives/whereabouts/activities/etc does not sit well with any part of the electorate.
Tell us Labour will put the interests of the electorate above the demands of the City or international corporations. That when our taxes are being spent, contractors can’t hide behind “commercial in confidence” because WE are stakeholders (especially as the vast majority of us don’t have the means to avoid/evade tax!).
Just a bunch of little things like that. I’d feel more positive.