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”
Jennifer Hornsby
And something we learnt from the breakdown of voters in 2015..
It helps Corbyn’s case to note that the UK electorate (like everyone else) is aging, and that Corbyn will attract young voters who haven’t previously turned out. Consider these 2015 figures:
Age Cons Lead % of voters who
overLabour turned out
18-24 -2 44%
25-34 4 55%
35-44 4 66%
45-54 6 69%
55-64 10 73%
65+ 13 76%
David Davies
It DID lose my vote because it is the `same. but slower’ party of tory posh boys and girls.
Ian
“1) Labour did not lose because it was considered ‘Tory-lite’”
Yes it did, largely.
“2) The idea of a grand anti-austerity alliance with the Scottish National Party is a fantasy.”
No it isn’t. Labour just don’t want to try it, largely because it’s infested with neoliberals like this author.
“3) There is still hope”
Agreed, but not in the way you think. Certainly Burnham, Kendall and Cooper don’t offer any hope for most.
How do you write this with a straight face? Do you feel no shame when you write self-serving, spurious, disingenuous arse like this?
Do none of you at LFF actually believe in what the genuine Labour party stands for? I mean genuine as opposed to the right wing arriviste Blairites et al?
RoyB
This is a very poorly designed piece of “research” which should shame Jon Cruddas. The question of austerity as the road to deficit reduction is not put, so it is not possible to support the view that the electorate is pro-austerity. It is quite possible that the electorate wants to see the deficit reduced but by growth not austerity. The question as put is simply worthless.
RB2
Very interesting.
Not of course the article or the research, the conclusions
of which are obvious to any non-tribal or wilfully blind observer*, but the
response in these comments.
Have you guys seen the episode of Father Ted where Ted is
using a small plastic cow to explain to Father Dougal the difference between ‘small’
and ‘far away’? Well someone needs to explain the difference between ‘the way
it is’ and ‘the way I want it to be’ to the Labour party. Otherwise it will be
finished as a political force; I think that this would be a shame, though many
don’t.
*Witness the stunning finding that ’Labour did
not lose because it was considered Tory-lite’ – no of course it f#ck1ng didn’t,
it lost because it was considered Labour. Sorry people, this idea makes no
sense.