Until the left gets over who people are and begins to engage with what they are saying it won’t deserve power
Labour has been smashed. The exit poll was definitely a surprise on Thursday night, but as an outcome of the last five years the popular vote difference of 36.9 per cent to 30.4 per cent looks about right.
Ed Miliband is of course right to go. I should declare an interest: he was fifth of five on my ballot paper in 2010, I’ve written that he looked un-prime ministerial throughout the intervening period, and he clearly wasn’t up to it. Indeed, for all the charges of arrogance and hubris levelled at serial winner Tony Blair, what now for an Ed Miliband who the electorate consistently (the polls on this at least seem to have been right) said was unelectable and who has proven a drag on his party’s vote?
This is harsh, but barring the two elections in the 1980s Labour has not done as bad as 232 seats in eighty years. While Ed Miliband has clearly taken an incredible level of unjust personal abuse from elements of the press during the long campaign, it would have been better if he had saved himself and his party this fate. Others with influence should have pressed this more firmly.
However, while it’s become a bit of a truism to say ‘the fault lies beyond the leadership,’ indeed it does. It also lies beyond the parliamentary Labour party.
I’m aware of the irony of using a blog piece to slam the commentariat but there is a big point that needs to be made here. As I wrote on this site pre-election in March, so much of the modern left combines pretty cringeworthy networking and engaging in ‘valuable conversations’ with the same fifteen members of the twitterati rather than actually taking a hard line on something substantial and sticking to your guns.’
This is true in the sense that shadow ministers too often retreated behind the comfort blanket of a positive write up from the Guardian and New Statesman, but actually the journalists peddling this stuff bear some of the blame too. The ‘opinion formers’ tweeting ‘notable intervention from X on Y’ after some nothing speech from Miliband or Balls need to think hard on what contribution they wish to make to our polity.
As I said last July, ‘you don’t win General Elections through Comment is Free.’ Left wing twitter has turned into LinkedIn.
The logical outcome of this myopic group-think is that saying the right form of nothing beats sticking your neck out on something. There are so many examples here, but three recent ones will do.
Firstly, Labour are pro-all women shortlists, women on banknotes, and increased female representation on FTSE 100 boards. Fine. But, for a party committed to helping the low paid, when it came to supporting the one in four women paid below the living wage Labour’s answer was in essence ‘we’ll see what we can do.’ Sorry, what?
The details of delivering a statutory living wage by 2020 would have been techy, demanded tactical/economic trade-offs elsewhere, been step by step over the parliament, and are not the type of thing you can fit on to a Whistles t-shirt. But if your wage is appreciably less than £10 an hour what does it matter if Jane Austen is on that tenner? In a sense, good for Nicola Sturgeon for undermining the politics of the pink van too.
Secondly, the size of the state has been a big talking point, with Osborne seeming to be about to take levels of government spending back to the 1930s (albeit rowing back from this at the budget). There is of course some symbolism here, but the corollary is that it just makes Labour look like they venerate the state above and beyond any assessment of its actual effectiveness. If a 35 per cent state could deliver increased prosperity and seemed to be working then that would surely be a good thing. What matters, as New Labour understood, is what works.
I’ve raised these questions before but what, ultimately, will Labour be about in the coming years? For a party historically of (income) tax and spend, what do you do when – due to an aging population – said receipts look set to dwindle? What happens to the state? Are Labour capable of conceding elements of Whitehall can be moribund? I’m not so sure.
And thirdly, in short, nobody cares where David Cameron went to school. Or Boris Johnson. Or George Osborne. Sure, it might raise the occasional groan, but nobody is going to vote based on that. Indeed, to keep banging on about it just looks odd. Attlee, Blair and Macmillan are just some in the long list of British political figures who went to public school. These were all broadly successful.
But to Labour’s identity politics view of the world, the fact that these men didn’t march out of the school gates at the age of eleven and refuse to return almost matters more than their actions in office. Until the left gets over who people are and begins to engage with what they are saying it won’t deserve power, much less win it.
As a slight ray of sunshine behind the clouds, there’s some good stuff in Chuka Umunna’s Guardian article. Unlike the usual powderpuff pieces we saw from many a Labour figure pre-May, it’s actually pretty challenging and to the point. Labour, he notes, ‘had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle’ and ‘as the party that believes in government’s ability to make people’s lives better, we should have been the ones championing…a pragmatic “what works” approach to get things done.’ Good.
Labour will need such thinking because this is a pretty cataclysmic moment. When the Tories win two elections they tend to go on and win three (1951-59) or four (1979-97). The next few months demand a coherent pro-business and pro-worker vision to emerge. It will require someone to win the leadership, ruthlessly impose that vision upon the party and then talk outwards to the electorate rather than win the backslaps of the commentariat.
If that means challenging existing shibboleths and sees the odd snarking from the far-left, bring it on. If it doesn’t, Boris might as well put the champagne on ice for 2020.
Richard Carr is a lecturer at the Labour History Research Unit, Anglia Ruskin University, and a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward. He wrote the book One Nation Britain last year.
155 Responses to “Comment: The myopic group-think of the left helped bring down Labour”
toneekay
I don’t buy the narrative that a Labour-orchestrated economic revival was nipped in the bud in 2010 by an incoming austerity-minded Tory administration. First the double-dip pattern of growth between 2008 and 2012 also occurred in Europe and the USA, suggesting that the modest revival of growth in the UK from late 2009 had little to do with the policy specifics of the incumbent government.
Secondly Labour was committed to austerity in the event of reelection in 2010. Structural debt had ballooned in response to the financial crisis – it was already higher than those of most other European countries due to Labour’s earlier fiscal policies. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling were well aware of what was needed. They merely aimed to delay austerity measures just long enough to win another mandate.
Thirdly, the 1%-2% growth that did occur in the latter days of Labour was costly. Sterling fell 30% against the dollar over 2008/9. In other words, if the UK’s GDP is measured on a purchasing power basis with the dollar, the marginal increase in GDP in sterling terms corresponds to a fall in the high twenties in dollar terms. This isn’t an academic point. In the latter stages of the Labour administration inflation was around 3%-4%, mainly associated with the decline of sterling. With money wages stalling, falling or disappearing, this compounded the decline in living standards.
The falling pound wasn’t all bad news. For those with large internationally diversified investment portfolios (the rich), a weak sterling offered a hedge against falling overseas returns. Declining dollar and other currency denominated cash flows didn’t look quite so bad when converted to pounds. So Labour was offering declining living standards for the many and a hedge against losses for the few. Is it any surprise that they lost?
oblivia
The logic of austerity is appealing because it makes the economy seem like a shop or a household. Money in, money out. But this is fundamentally wrong. In fact, to help shops and households, the government needs to do the opposite to what they’re doing—spend when they’re not spending and conserve when they are. This is very very basic economics.
Interest rates are really low right now and shops and households are not spending a lot. The sane response is for the government to borrow cheap money and do stuff that needs doing anyway—fixing infrastructure, upgrading schools, hospitals, etc.
Waiting for the economy to be booming before doing this doesn’t make any sense. Interest rates will be higher and overall spending in the economy will also already be high. Adding a government spending program at the same time would be expensive and may overheat the economy or at least crowd out private investment.
It’s also worth pointing out that “borrowing” is really just a technical term when we refer to a sovereign nation with its own currency. A shop can’t just print more money to pay its bills, but the government can. Our money supply is no longer constrained by how much gold we can plunder from poor countries, but many people, including some economists, have yet to understand what this means. We have the tools to create much more stable growth.
Mike Stallard
The Fens are in the North of Watford – where civilisation stops. Everyone knows that!
Mike Stallard
I sat through 25 minutes of this clever stuff. I have family in Australia. I was there for two months this year. Their debt – as he admits – is nothing like ours. Tony Abbott is running a traditional economy.
The danger is that the government issues bits of paper – as many as it likes – true. In that way it is like a person issuing IOUs – they will work until the credit runs out. On tick in the shop perhaps is a good analogy. But the credit can run out and the bits of paper turn into just that – ask anyone you know in Zimbabwe, and Germany or and anyone from the Eastern bloc.
Hence the sarcasm – this is very dangerous stuff.
ray vison
Labour hardly challenged the Tories the whole time. There were no references to Eton or Bullingdon, nothing to refute the claim that Labour caused the financial crisis, nothing to say how appalling and dangerous the NHS has become, nothing to say our schools are so bad that literacy is lower than in 1914. etc etc. No aggression, no attack – that was left to the Tories.