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”
mightymark
Enough already with the “austerity” thing. Its has become a slogan and obscures more than it enlightens. We should concentrate on different views on the deficit and whether, and how, to deal with it. You can do what Corbyn does – ignore it and eventually pay the price Greece is now paying (i.e. even more cuts). You can also use the excuse of the deficit to pursue the ideological goal of cutting the state – step forward Mr Osborne.
OR you can accept that the deficit needs to be dealt with and spending put on a sustainable footing. It isn’t a “happy medium ” or “Goldilocks option”. Its just responsible politics and what the electorate expects.
RB2
absolutely right on the point re slogans. British politics has a tendency to get obsessed with single words or phrases and repeat them until they lose any meaning they once possessed. (remember ‘double whammy’?)
People shouldn’t talk about ‘austerity’, but should identify specific spending policies or levels of public spending they support or oppose.
Another good word to lose would be ‘neoliberalism’, which just sounds like a first year undergraduate trying to be clever.
mightymark
The last point is interesting.There is an interesting essay to be written as to exactly when (where?) “neo-liberalism” used as an insult by the left (and first year undergraduates who should know better!) replaced “neo-conservatism”
jacko
But that is how you think, isn’t it?
David Morton
Whilst interesting no doubt, the research methodology does seem to be very poor. And does the evidence really allow the conclusion to be drawn that the public accepts the necessity for ‘austerity’? They want the deficit to be brought down, but that’s not the same thing is it.