As predictable headlines follow Ed Miliband committing to speak at the TUC rally on March 26th, Rob Marchant takes a more detached look at how the relationships between Party, movement and workplace demographics interact.
As predictable headlines follow Ed Miliband committing to speak at the TUC rally on March 26th, Rob Marchant takes a more detached look at how the relationships between Party, movement and workplace demographics interact
Let’s not be daft – no-one sensible is saying that Labour is “in the pocket of the unions”; however, it is not a particularly wild claim that Labour’s two historic constituencies among the employed have been public sector workers – largely unionised – and the unionised private sector. New Labour’s genius for electoral success was, of course, its ability to fashion a broader church than Labour had ever before managed. “Post-New” Labour, however, is a different animal.
While Labour has been busy getting back those it lost to the left during those years, such as leftist Liberals, it seems not to have spent so much effort in re-establishing contact with those it lost to the right. One school of thought, of course, says that these people are negligible in number. But that seems unconvincing: the centre ground in politics is perennially important.
In any event, my contention is that much of Labour’s lost vote was taken from that other large demographic, private-sector workers from non-unionised workplaces – who nevertheless believed in public services; and that, although they are people who Labour really needs to keep, the party is disengaging from them in important ways.
Firstly, in Labour’s public utterances of late it has been quick to emphasise the limitations of the free market. Reasonable, but some will hear this as “we don’t like business any more”. When a party spends most of its 100-year history at loggerheads with business, it’s easy to see New Labour’s warmth towards it as a mere 10-year aberration. Unfair too, as Ed Miliband is hardly anti-business but, in Opposition, it’s often the noises that count, rather than the policies.
A small retrenchment can be perceived as a large one.
Next and surely counter-intuitively, during the period of New Labour government, unions ended up with more clout in the party than at the beginning. For example, union funding went from a low of 33% in 2002 to 82% in Q3 2010. Now, although some Tory conspiracy theorists might be surprised to learn that unions do not go around buying policy positions, it would also be hopelessly naïve to suggest that unions, with a generation of leaders seemingly more punchy than their predecessors, might not have more influence on the tone of Labour politics – and we must bear in mind that people outside the unionised sector may not relate to that tone.
Finally, Labour appears slightly obsessive on the issue of high pay, when the aspiration to “do well” is one of the things which attract people to the private sector. Whilst legitimate concerns exist about excessive pay distorting good management practice, the focus on high pay comes across as a populist response to public anger about the City – a very specific case – with a wink to Labour’s traditional supporters. But the message to private sector workers, most of whom don’t work in the City, is that their reasonable aspirations to wealth are disdained by Labour.
That said, does this all matter? Are non-unionised, private sector workers really the key to electoral success? Well, think about the following: the public sector has kept steady at just under 30% of total employment for most of the last three decades – but the proportion of unionised workers has dropped by roughly half since its peak in the late 70s. It is acknowledged by the TUC that the bulk of these losses have taken place in the private sector, deindustrialisation being one obvious cause.
So, a big part of the unionised private sector has gone: also the increasing “grey vote” as a proportion of the electorate lessens the impact of all working people at the ballot box. So, in the old days, Labour could practically win an election simply with the support of its two traditional demographics; in 2015, simply, it cannot. This is not to undervalue them as the core of the party’s support, but they’re simply not enough.
In short, little by little Labour seems to be disengaging from those private sector workers that it won over, although perhaps unwittingly. This disengagement matters, because Labour’s old constituency is no longer enough and it has picked off those who will support the party to the left already.
A couple of good opinion polls do not a summer make; Labour cannot just leave those to the right for David Cameron.
Rob Marchant is a management and communications consultant, blogger and eco-entrepreneur; he previously worked as a Labour party senior manager through the 2001 and 2005 general elections. Rob blogs at The Centre Left and his twitter handle is @Rob_Marchant.
54 Responses to “Labour must speak not only for organised labour”
Dave Citizen
On inequality – old arguements about incentives for attracting the best talent, profits raising all boats, unequal versus equal, no longer cut it for me. Research such as that within ‘The Spirit Level’ confirms what for many is a common sense expectation: more equal societies are better for their populations than less equal equivalents. This doesn’t mean we have to do away with incentives to work. It’s about striking a healthy balance and hopefully moving up the income inequality table (UN 2006) from fourth from bottom next to the likes of Singapore and the USA, perhaps to mid table with France and Canada or even aiming high and joining Japan, Sweden or Finland (voted most competive economy in 2005 by the World Economic Forum).
David Mullen
Rob
Denial of the right to organise in itself is a form of bullying as It is a right enshrined by the Universal declaration of human rights. Examples of this were recognition ballots at BSkyB (lost) and National Maritime Museum (Won) where management used some very heavy handed tactics to try and manipulate the result of the ballot.
What have Emloyers got to fear from having a construtive relationship with unions?
And in any case the most successful companies tend to have full union recognition.
News From Nowhere
@Rob
Collecting tax that was previously unpaid is a wage cut for those who weren’t previously paying it. Your faith in Labour’s desire for fair taxation is very misplaced given the party’s policies towards and relationship with financial services and (until the 50p tax rate) the super rich.
The figures just don’t back you up. Labour lost most support in lower and middle income brackets. Support amongst ABs held up. And those lower down the scale didn’t go to the Tories, they just gave up on Labour.
Rob Marchant
@Dave: Not against more equal income by bringing up those on starvation wages, which is what Labour has always tried to do. But, by contrast, bringing down those at the top is a policy which has not been used by any party as a long-term strategy since the mid-70s.
@David Agreed, that’s why we insisted on right to organise. I believe that most successful companies often allow recognition but then make their employees’ conditions so good that there is never any conflict.
@NWN For the third time, you are moving the debate to a different area – income demographics – which is not what the article is about. I don’t have an opinion on the ABC demographics, and this debate is about voting intention, an entirely different subject.
james doran
Erm, Rob – the “james” above is not me, the @oranjd james who you are used to debating. You’ll know it’s not me because I don’t use terms like “the right” or “right-wing” to describe politics.
In response to your argument in the article, I have not seen any evidence that private sector workers, any more than public sector workers, think that by Labour being critical of bonuses in financial services is thus opposing their ability to earn and own.
There was an interesting survey conducted on behalf of Lord Ashcroft (http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/25092010_what_future_for_labour.pdf), which aimed to show how out of touch our party’s activists are from the electorate. The survey has some interesting results on high pay, taxation and remuneration which showed the instincts of the party’s base and the views of swing voters were often closely aligned – even in the context of polling which was intended to show how out of touch party activists are with swing voters…
“Bankers are largely responsible for the current situation, so it is not fair that ordinary people should have to bear the brunt of measures to reduce the deficit” both Swing voters and Labour people gave this +78%
“People on higher incomes should have to pay significantly more tax to minimise the cuts necessary in the public sector” Swing voters +55%, Labour ppl +67%
On the policy of “Starting the 50% top rate of Income Tax at £100,000 a year, instead of £150,000 as is currently the case” – Swing voters +54%, Lab ppl +61%
“Increasing the minimum wage to more than £7 an hour” Swing Voters +69%, Lab ppl +77%
Ed’s policy of “Introducing a new High Pay Commission to restrict high salaries in the private sector” Swing voters +62%, Lab ppl +70%
On David Milibands advocacy of a “new Mansion Tax on homes worth over £2 million” Swing voters +72%, Lab ppl +78%
Another David Miliband policy – “Private company boards should have to include representatives of their workforce to ensure that workers have a voice in the key decisions affecting them” Swing voters +72%, Lab ppl +79%
“Britain should aspire to be more like Scandinavia and less like America” Swing voters +65%, Lab ppl +67%
On the following, swing voters were asked if the policy would make them more likely to vote Labour if the party adopted it:
Reflecting concerns about youth unemployment – “Commit to a massive expansion of apprenticeship schemes to provide new opportunities for young people” Swing voters +62%, Lab ppl +80%
“Develop policies to reform and improve public services built around the principle of giving consumers more choice and power” Swing voters +59%, Lab mov’t +70%