Labour did not lose the election because it was considered 'Tory-lite'
1) Labour did not lose because it was considered ‘Tory-lite’
On austerity, Labour did not lose because it was ‘Tory-lite’, rather it lost because the voting public believed a Labour government would not live within the country’s means. This is invariably a hard pill to swallow, but there it is. As John Cruddas, chair of the report, writes on Labour List today: “58 per cent agree that, ‘we must live within our means so cutting the deficit is the top priority’. Just 16 per cent disagree. Almost all Tories and a majority of Lib Dems and Ukip voters agree.
“Amongst working class C2DE voters 54 per cent agree and 15 per cent disagree. Labour voters are evenly divided; 32 per cent agree compared to 34 per cent who disagree.”
The anti-austerity thesis is, I think, a persuasive one; the problem is that the Labour party lost that argument in the previous parliament. Simply shouting the same thing louder this time around will not, I suspect, produce a different result. Why would it?
2) The idea of a grand anti-austerity alliance with the Scottish National Party is a fantasy
As Cruddas puts it, “The idea of an anti-austerity alliance with the SNP is unacceptable to a majority of English and Welsh voters.” According to the research, a majority (60 per cent) agreed that they ‘would be very concerned if the SNP were ever in government’. This compared to 15 per cent who disagreed. A majority of Conservative, Lib Dem and Ukip voters agreed where almost half (40 per cent) of Labour voters also thought so.
And anyway, the argument that Scotland sits significantly to the left of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is not a convincing one. UKIP policies to cut overseas aid, reduce immigration and barrel down on benefits claimants are backed by a majority of Scots, according to a massive survey commissioned last year by Dundee University. Meanwhile according to the recent British Social Attitudes Survey, a third (36.4 percent) of voters in England and Wales wanted tax and spending to rise, compared with 43.8 per cent of Scots – a 7 percent difference, but hardly a yawning chasm.
3) There is still hope
Don’t despair, for there is a good deal of encouragement to take from the inquiry. There was strong majority support for the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor (43 per cent to 22 per cent), and a majority (60 per cent) agreed that ‘the economic system in this country unfairly favours powerful interests’. Among Labour voters this figure rose to 73 per cent and amongst UKIP voters to 78 per cent.
In sum, then, there is ample scope for radicalism from Labour; but only if the party first wins back trust on the economy. Voters are largely with the left in viewing the current state of Britain as unfair and unequal; however but in order to see inequities tackled they want to see some evidence that Labour can run a tight ship economically. That doesn’t sound like a particularly unreasonable demand.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
47 Responses to “3 things we learned from the inquiry into why Labour lost”
CHRIS215
Well said Jennifer. What is required is some Leadership capable of engineering and maintaining a dialogue with ordinary citizens. Love him or hate him, Corbyn is Leading.
stevep
Winning elections is only half the battle. If you have won on a right wing ticket and aspire to deliver left-of-centre policies, you have deceived the electorate. They will remember, as New Labour found out.
The Labour movement is generally broad and inclusive. Left-wing views are important to keep a balance, lest we drift further to the right in search of an illusory formula for election victory.
Don`t forget, Karl Marx was voted the greatest thinker of the last millennium.
JAMES MCGIBBON
Most people will vote for what is in their economic interest. The Scots voted SNP thinking they can be shielded but that aint going to happen. Labour would still have made cuts more slowly but with the same end result. Corbyn and the SNP if in power would still make the cuts just like the Greeks. Corbyn and the SNP are not and have no intention of ditching capitalism so they can say what they want from the sidelines. Anyone who embraces capitalism has to balance the books. When the faceless international lenders lend they want it paid back with interest. So really it does not matter if the Tories are in unless you want to smash capitalism and start over.
Gerry
The presentation of this feedback is selective. The lead questions are not the ones answered. On the Tory-lite issue, apart from being a dubious concept, the statistics are focused upon ‘living within our means’ [whatever that is, whose means?]. We can all agree with that ‘kitchen economics’ concept and still avoid being a ‘tory clone’. No serious response would suggest anyone can live beyond their means. More gibberish from credulous ‘westminster types’. Dishonesty in analysis will firmly nail you into your coffin.
AlanGiles
Cruddas knows how to ask questions to elicit the answer he wants.
I am afraid I have never been as convinced of his great intellect as he seems to be.