Labour’s electoral strategy must be much broader than mere opposition to the worst excesses of austerity
Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party largely on the back of his promises to fight austerity. And given the groundswell of support that Corbyn has managed to gin up, the left could be forgiven for assuming that robust opposition to austerity can similarly serve as a silver bullet to return Labour to power.
Such a conclusion, however, would be wishful thinking: it will be the Conservatives, not Labour, who benefit from making the next election a referendum on austerity alone.
Many Corbynistas find it difficult to comprehend that austerity is actually popular among certain segments of the electorate. But this cognitive impairment does nothing to change the reality that, as Jon Cruddas’s inquiry into the 2015 election unearthed, a clear majority of the British public believes that “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority”. Indeed, only a paltry 16 per cent of respondents refused to endorse this sentiment.
Of even greater significance, Cruddas’s survey revealed that austerity is more popular among Conservative voters than it is unpopular among Labour voters: 84 per cent of those who voted Tory in 2015 agreed with the importance of deficit-reduction, while Labour’s voters were almost evenly split on the question – 32 per cent agreed that cutting the deficit was paramount against 34 per cent who expressed disagreement.
This means that anti-austerity politics cannot save the Labour party for a simple but important reason: whereas the Conservative party’s electoral coalition is firmly united in favour of austerity, Labour’s ranks are badly divided on the question.
In other words, austerity is a ‘wedge issue’ that rallies right-leaning voters to the Tory banner but divides those on the left. For Labour, to choose to fight on such uneven ground would be electoral suicide.
The Conservatives know this. It’s why George Osborne feels comfortable pressing ahead with his ‘Budget surplus law’, despite criticism from impartial experts and left-wing detractors alike; and why Iain Duncan Smith will never back away from massive cuts to public spending no matter how many thousands of protestors take to the streets.
All that matters to them is that the people they rely on for power – that is, their voters – are on the same page, which they almost invariably are (along with a sizable chunk of Labour’s supposed base).
It’s no use pointing to the examples of Syriza and Podemos for clues as to how the politics of being anti-austerity might bring about the government’s downfall. In recent years, not one of Europe’s anti-austerity parties has won enough votes to govern alone. Syriza has come the closest, twice benefiting from an electoral system that gifts an additional 50 seats to the party that gets the most votes. But even Syriza was forced to enlist a right-wing coalition partner in order to pull together a parliamentary majority.
Britain’s electoral system won’t make it so easy for Labour. First-past-the-post is a cruel and unforgiving system designed to reward parties that can reach out beyond their heartlands and punish those that cater narrowly to a sectional – or geographically concentrated – group of interests. Fractured parties are bound to fail, as are those with limited appeal; only broad-based, united parties can have a chance of gaining power. And for Labour, going up against the pointy end of a wedge issue like austerity will bring neither breadth nor unity.
The point is not that Labour should ditch its opposition to austerity altogether. Not only would such a strategy be unconscionable given the very real human costs of what has been packaged under the label of austerity, but it would also be impracticable given the party’s new leadership. A Corbyn-led Labour party will never out-Tory the Tories, and nor should it try to do so.
Even so, Labour’s overall electoral strategy must be much broader than mere opposition to the worst excesses of austerity. In fact, Labour must shift the terms of the debate away from the cynosure of austerity altogether if the party is to stand a chance in 2020. Because as tempting as it might be to harangue the governmen – not to mention the recalcitrant electorate – about the inhumanity of fiscal restraint, doing so will only enhance the Conservatives’ electoral fortunes and highlight Labour’s shortcomings in the eyes of the electorate.
Anti-austerity measures can be a part of that platform – and might well prove popular in some parts of the country, especially Scotland, a consideration that party strategists certainly ought not overlook – but the available evidence suggests that such positions should not be allowed to define the party in its entirety.
In her maiden speech to the House of Commons earlier this year, Mhairi Black invoked Tony Benn to say that “in politics there are weather-cocks and signposts”. Her point was that politicians (and her comments were pointedly directed at those sitting on the Labour benches) should be firm in their convictions instead of eager to follow the trends.
From this view, the new Labour leader should stand implacably against austerity – loudly, proudly, at all times and in all ways, whether or not anybody else is paying attention.
But Jeremy Corbyn won’t be able to beat a pathway to power by being a motionless, immobile signpost. To win in the country at large he needs to be imaginative, percipient and far-sighted. He needs to move – and he needs to move other people – such that Labour finds itself fighting on favourable ground.
This means being neither weather-cock nor signpost but weather-maker – the only kind of leader with a hope of reversing Labour’s fortunes.
Peter Harris is an assistant professor of political science at Colorado State University
18 Responses to “Comment: Why Jeremy Corbyn must look beyond the politics of austerity”
Darren Cahil
Straw man, I never mentioned bringing back the coal mines, (which is something I oppose), nor the three day week, although there is something to be said about work sharing, given that some people work too many hours.
Then we have the power cuts, a non sequitur, why when there is so much potential in alternative energy *globally*. Mr Wilson? What’s a dead man like him got to do with anything? And as to British rail, the railways are already nationalised, its just the services, but that would be a rational approach and one that some tories believe in private. I fail to see how state subsidised private rail services makes any sense unless!
Mike Stallard
Just that Mr Corbyn is a deja vu. His policies, such as they are do not scratch where we itch: they are well out of date.
Here is a list of stuff which he might like to lead on:
The EU. The Middle East. Immigration. The Debt (£1.5 trillion and that needs a hefty interest paying on it too.) The unwieldy welfare provision. The much improved schools (Lord Adonis) which are very slewed in favour of the females and the fact that a lot of graduates end up in terrible debt and on the dole without prospects.
Darren Cahil
‘Just that Mr Corbyn is a deja vu.’
What is a deja vu? Can anyone be a deju vu? Maybe I should try and be a deju vu. 😛
‘His policies, such as they are do not scratch where we itch’
Get an ointment.
‘they are well out of date.’
What like the monarchy, House of Lords or belonging to an organisation from the cold war era? 😉
‘The EU. The Middle East. Immigration.’
Well, that’s for Ukip, I don’t see why Labour should adopt Ukip’s policies on the EU, as if leaving the EU means we escape bureaucracy, yes, our bureaucracy is so much better than the EU’s!
The Middle East I concede is an issue, we should stop bombing that region. And on immigration, see previous point, a war torn region is hardly an attractive place to live, eg Syria or Afghanistan and truth be told, if you were in those countries and young you would want to leave too.
‘The Debt’
Nothing to do with global finance, banks and the deregulation of those services, of course not.
‘The unwieldy welfare provision.’
50% of which costs come from pensions alone and a large portion of that is in work benefits (as a result of low pay, tax credits necessary)* and state subsidies to landlords, you mean that unwieldy welfare provision?
* On that subject, I note *The Sun* and Boris Johnson are opposed to tax credit cuts.
Neil Wilson
It’s not a matter of argument. It’s a matter of accounting. The government deficit *is* the increase in excess savings of the private sector with the sign changed. Government is the counterparty within the system that *allows* that excess saving to come about.
Excess savings is the increase in people saving, less the increase in people borrowing. If private saving grows more than private borrowing the deficit goes up. If its the opposite the deficit goes down.
Here’s the pretty picture: http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2015/10/uk-sectoral-balances-q2-2015.html
So if you want the deficit to go down, you want people to save less and borrow more. The laws of accounting allow no other outcome.
Mike Stallard
One of the best things about being utterly rejected at the polls and one of the best things about Jeremy Corbyn is that this is a good time to have a good bit of research based thought.
By raising difficult and unmentionable subjects, the bones of the industrial Labour movement which has been such a large part of the 20th century can adapt to modern times.
Or die like the Liberals did almost exactly 100 years ago..