Comment: Labour didn’t lose the election because of Scotland

Miliband ditched New Labour but, beyond a basket of populist gimmicks he struggled to find anything with which to replace it

 

Labour leader Ed Miliband didn’t ultimately confound expectations; instead he appears to have confirmed the worst fears of his harshest critics. The psephology of the past four weeks, predicting neck and neck polls and a hung parliament, turned out to be wildly inaccurate; in the secrecy of the polling booth, pencil in hand, millions of so-called ‘shy Tories’ braced themselves and put a cross next to a Conservative candidate.

Pundits have been waiting for weeks for the Tory surge in the polls, the surge which supposedly comes with incumbency and familiarity. And it did come, but not until the day of the election once the entire Westminster village had already bet the house on a hung parliament and prepared for weeks of arduous coalition negotiations.

The Conservatives have thumped Labour and David Cameron will return to office with a mandate to push through policies far more extreme than anything seen in the past five years. That’s not to say we weren’t warned. According to a recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, George Osborne’s austerity programme for the next parliament will see Britain endure a tighter tax and spending squeeze than any other major economy. £12 billion in welfare cuts will hit the most vulnerable members of society.

Such has been the electoral massacre of Liberal Democrat MPs that the party’s involvement in future coalitions of any sort are in doubt. Vince Cable was deposed by the voters of west London, former leader Charles Kennedy is gone, as are Danny Alexander, David Laws and Simon Hughes. Nick Clegg clung on – just – though the scale of his party’s collapse means he will almost certainly step down in the coming days.

The nearest historical precedent for Labour’s dismal performance is 1992, when Conservative Prime Minister John Major thrashed Neil Kinnock despite Labour holding a narrow poll lead right up until the election. Much like then, the apparent closeness of the race in the lead up to the vote appears to have played into Tory hands, alerting hostile sections of the electorate to the fact that Labour could actually win.

Kinnock, though, never had to deal with a thriving Scottish National Party. Whereas Scotland was once solid Labour territory, today the party looks set to be wiped out. Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy is gone, and this election’s Portillo moment came when Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary and Election Coordinator Douglas Alexander lost his seat to a fresh-faced 20 year-old from the Scottish National Party.

And yet it would be a mistake to claim the election was lost in Scotland. Labour has performed disastrously right across the UK due to a lacklustre campaign that was big on financial bean counting but devoid of vision. Miliband ditched New Labour but, beyond a basket of populist gimmicks he struggled to find anything with which to replace it. He paid lip service to inequality but convinced few people that he had the mettle to challenge it. He zigzagged on immigration in an attempt to please everyone and predictably pleased no-one. As for foreign policy – well, did anybody even know?

Faced with a resurgent Conservative party that will now believe it has carte blanche to hack away at what’s left of the welfare state, the General Election isn’t just a calamity for the Labour party; it’s a disaster for the country. Think more food banks, bourgeoning inequality and a further deterioration of the NHS. Nick Clegg may have been the left-wing bogeyman of the last five years, but we may look back on the recent coalition as a period of civility and restraint when compared to what’s about to follow.

James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter

101 Responses to “Comment: Labour didn’t lose the election because of Scotland”

  1. Robert

    But why did they introduce it. Jesus people why are you even in the labour or Tory parties.

    The winter fuel allowance was brought in because pension rises were so bloody low, for the poorest

  2. Kryten2k35

    Labour lost because 75% of the British media (Murdoch Media) rallied against them and spread lies, fear and misinformation against them and swayed the electorate. The number of people saying Labour spent too much, mishandled the economy before and can’t be trusted is insane. There’s even this Arizona guy below me saying that exact thing.

    This flies in the face of the actual facts. Darling’s budgets were promoting growth. Osborne destroyed it. Austerity isn’t working as it’s cutting the legs off the economy and we have to drag ourselves forwards using our hands. Spending increased under Labour, but debt-to-GDP remained manageable.

    These are the facts the media refused to report because it had more interest in ensuring Labour didn’t get into Government, because they didn’t align with them ideologically.

    And Labour lost it in Scotland because they allied themselves with the Tories on the referendum, not because of Blair, or the war. Blair is gone. And Scotland DID cost Labour a victory. Those 40+ seats going to Labour would’ve been a huge help, and would’ve robbed the of Murdoch rhetoric about an SNP-Labour coalition scaremongering, which also turned voters away from Labour, or Liberal Democrats.

    Not that I could blame Scotland for voting SNP. SNP in Westminster had the potential to be fantastic for the whole UK.

  3. Keith M

    As far as I am concerned Blair was the true son of Thatcher and I do not know why the Progress lot are in the Labour Party.

  4. Leon Wolfeson

    * Zero rises in benefits under the Tories are lower that what Labour gave.
    * With the recovery, the demand for food banks was already falling. Before the Tories.

    ATOS was indeed Labour, of course, but the Tories have repeatedly revised the rules to make them harsher.

  5. Leon Wolfeson

    “The Reds, The Reds”

    Remind me why I care about right-wingers like Abbott again?

    The *problem* with schools is that neither Labour or the Tories allow educators anywhere near educational policy. Gove did a massive amount of damage to learning, however, with his introducing a “memorisation-only” and even more test-based program.

    I lecture at Universities, and we’re increasingly having to teach basic skills in the first year. Things like teamwork, for flip sake – kids are just being taught how to take tests. Sooner or later, if this keeps up, we’ll need to move to four year degrees or University standards will suffer from losing actual Undergrad-level (i.e. 4-6) work time.

Comments are closed.