It's important to be brutally honest about Labour's lacklustre campaign
There’s little point in mincing words: yesterday’s result was a disaster for the Labour party. It’s more important than ever, then, to be brutally honest about Labour’s lacklustre campaign.
1) Labour still hasn’t regained public trust on the economy
This isn’t really about whether Labour actually did spend too much in government; the point is that it was perceived to have done so, and perception is largely what matters during an election campaign. Labour singularly failed to convince the country it could be trusted on the economy and in that respect it lost the election in the last six months of 2010 when it was embroiled in a leadership contest while the Conservatives were talking about spendthrift Labour.
So why, in this context, did Ed Miliband say during the leaders’ debates that he didn’t believe Labour did spend too much in government? True or not, that ship had sailed and the argument had already been lost. Public opinion on spendthrift Labour was obstinate and we ought to have moved on.
2) And yet, paradoxically, there is little evidence Labour lost as a result of a supposed shift to the left
If you spend any time listening to the echo chambers of the Daily Mail and the Sun, ‘Red Ed’ took the Labour party sharply to the left with promises of a mansion tax and an energy price freeze. In reality his manifesto was a fairly tepid brand of social democracy with a few very slight market interventions.
He certainly wasn’t advocating mass nationalisation and a supertax on the rich by any means. And let’s not forget: most of the policies damned as wildly left-wing by the tabloids were popular – remember how accusations of ‘Marxism’ over the energy price freeze backfired spectacularly for the Tories?
3) ….but Labour didn’t understand aspiration
This may seem like a contradiction after my previous point, but it shouldn’t. It should be possible on the one hand to talk to those on the periphery of society – the low paid on zero hours contracts etc – whilst simultaneously understanding that most people don’t want to be where they are now in five or 10 years’ time. They want to ‘get on’.
The writer John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took off in the United States because the poor saw themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. One needn’t take it to that extreme to see the point: a good number of people hope that, in the future, they too will be doing well. And there’s really nothing wrong with that. The Labour party should absolutely look out for those at the bottom of society; but it must also understand that social class isn’t something most people see as fixed.
4) In Scotland Labour collapsed partly as a result of sharing platforms with the Tories
Because Labour stood on the No platform with the Conservatives during the independence referendum campaign, the toxicity attached to the Tories in Scotland transferred to Labour. The other obvious point to make is that the Yes campaign solidified almost half of the electorate (and lots of people who had never previously voted) in the SNP camp.
This ought to have been foreseeable. That isn’t to say Labour should have campaigned for a Yes vote; merely that things might have turned out a little better had they not joined a cross-party campaign with the hated Conservatives.
5) Presentationally the campaign was a mess
It’s fashionable to say that personality doesn’t matter – policy is what’s important – but it clearly does. One can of course understand the logic: you can’t help who you are, so it seems callous to dismiss someone based on a lack of charisma or, in Ed Miliband’s case, ‘weirdness’. But to deploy a cliché, no one ever said that life was fair; people aren’t emotional robots and they do vote according to which politician they best connect with. What we’re talking about here is the x-factor, and because it’s so elusive – few people have it and fewer know how to get it – we think it superfluous to have grown up political discussions about it. Play the ball not the man, as commentators like to say.
This is not to pin it all on Ed. Labour’s messaging was woeful at times. There were lots of piecemeal policy offerings but little in the way of an overall vision. Labour was against things but for very little. This relates to a much bigger question of what social democracy actually wants to be in the twenty-first century. Blairism was a response to the collapse of post-war social democracy and the fall of the Berlin Wall; but how should Labour seek to reshape society in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash?
Labour should try to reshape society; it’s no use, as the Tories are doing, ignoring the lessons of the crash and storing up problems for the future. Labour really did ought to tackle rampant inequality and entrenched privilege. But beyond the failed statist approach of the previous century, we’re a long way off working out how to do it.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
167 Responses to “Five ways Labour got it badly wrong”
DRbilderburg
Cameron has finished off the party that propped them up the LDS And he won’t have lost any sleep over it
Jim Murphy is not even a Socialist in most peoples eyes, mine included Neither he or Douglas Alexander are all that popular at Labour grass root level, and i have a lot of respect for them and value their opinions. I returned as a Labour voter this time, had either Murphy or Alexander been standing in my constituency i simply would not have voted
As iv’e said progress should start manouvering away from Labour, and form their own party, you could probably pick up a good few former LDS, or even merge with them I genuinely think you would do well in the more affluent areas
Leon Wolfeson
Of course he won’t – the Orange Bookers came to the Tories and handed them the victory. He’s got the supporters from the LibDems who supported him, and got rid of the rest!
I also point out that Labour have never had more than a socialist wing – but they were in the past Social Democrats. Murphy is one example of their abandonment of that for liberalness capitalism.
As you say, you couldn’t vote for them, and neither could the non-Tribal left, on their policies, even if you could locally for your own MP – I point out that it’s Labour who have abandoned the left, not the other way around.
(*I* am not willing to overlook a good local MP for a party’s policies – if you can fine, but evidently your view is not that widespread)
Labour bet the house with their rightwards moves – they bet that the Orange Bookers shifting to them, and it failed. Miserably – and in hindsight, it’s obvious what happened. I’m rather surprised the polls didn’t see it, but oh well.
“You” Me? I’m a left winger. I’m not pro-Progress. And I’m not a liberal, I’m a mutualist.
Mark Ralph-Bowman
Re. the economy, it’s OK as an argument if you start at the point of the election. Since 2010, however, there has been plenty of convincing argument from economists both in the UK and abroad that the whole deficit/austerity continuum was bonkers [more or less what Wren Lewis calls it]. I have been emailing the Labour Party on a regular basis asking why the blue blistering blazes are they not challenging the Tory narrative. But they didn’t. By the time they did, it was too little and too late. There has been plenty of evidence for several years about Osborne’s profligate borrowing. Nothing made of it.
Leon Wolfeson
For a reason, sadly.
That reason was the Labour party is neoliberal, today. And they had a clear choice – fight austerity, or follow their neoliberal instincts. They obviously chose the latter.
(Even America avoided the austerity trap, ffs)
Mark Ralph-Bowman
Re “America avoided” – the fact that Neoliberalism Central avoided austerity suggests that it’s nowt to do with neoliberalism – it’s to do with a modicum of understanding of economics and the courage of your convictions! Owen Jones quotes Osborne saying that austerity is all about spin and politics.