The Ed Miliband experiment has definitively failed. The 35% strategy was a wash out; the idea that the country had moved leftwards in big enough numbers to secure a parliamentary majority under the current voting system, proven wrong. The more I think about Thursday’s result, the more it brings into view what the country actually wants.
Large portions of English voters do not like the Tories but vote for them if they feel scared of a Labour government. How Labour won in 1997 was to dispel that fear. So England got to vote for Labour, which in their heart of hearts they like doing, because in Blair they felt safe enough to do so. Their taxes wouldn’t go up, the economy would grow. This won Labour three elections in a row.
But then came the economic crash of 2008 and fear of Labour returned massively. This is why Ed Miliband refusing to admit that Labour had misspent on Question Time was so damaging; whatever the truth of the situation, a lot of voters felt that Labour was a safe pair of hands for a about a decade before the economy collapsed. They might possibly be willing to listen to Labour again on the economy – but the party has to come up with some sort of narrative beyond “it was all the bankers fault, nothing to do with us”. People aren’t buying it, and Thursday showed us that definitiely.
And I want to be clear here: what people seem to want is a right of centre Labour Party – the Lib Dems tried to offer essentially the same thing as I’m describing, but since the party couldn’t win a majority, no one listened. It isn’t difficult to figure out psychologically, really: people want a party leading the country to be both economically sound and have their hearts in the right place. That they’ll vote for that in huge numbers, as Blair’s monumental majorities attest to. But if they can’t have both, they’ll settle for the economic competence bit. They’ll vote Tory.
Having said all of that, it is hard to imagine Labour moving in any sort of centrist direction under new leadership even though the misconception that Labour can win under an avowedly left wing candidate has been proven wrong again and again and again. Clement Atlee is probably the only positive example, and that was right after the most traumatic episode of the 20th century had just ended and Labour were the only party offering a health service. Every time Labour have ever won since ’45, it’s been with a centrist leader. But it’s the spirit of ’45 the Labour members always evoke, what they aspire to be again. Which is why they’ll probably go for someone like Andy Burnham – and lose the next election just as badly as they lost 2015.
It may take what it took in 1994 for Labour to elect another centrist capable of winning a general election: decades of Tory rule before capitulation to reality. Let’s hope they come to their senses sooner, or some sort of rearrangement of the left becomes possible.
I agree in regard to your point about selecting a new leader who appeals to voters from a right of centre audience. I just hope they do not select another policy wonk or career politician or someone who was deemed a ‘rising star’ because they were a special adviser to a Blairite or Brownite bigwig. Now is the time for Labour to select a leader who fits your profile but also has a ‘person of the people’ aura about them. A politician who is regarded as an excellent representative or advocate for their constituency. Labour need to be bold and go for Dan Jarvis. Umunna would be good but stories like these won’t help his cause http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304227/Internet-secrets-jetrosexual-Chuka-Umunna-party-loving-MP-hailed-Labours-Obama.html Cooper would be good but she could be perceived as another career politician.
Well rounded analysis! That now infamous note left by Liam Byrne cost Labour votes 5 years after it was penned. In reality, it was largely due to fiscal drag of un-funded wars, but yes overspending all the same.
Do we become more Social Liberal or more fiscally conservative? I think we are a social liberal party anyway but we need (and needed) to be uncompromising and unmoving in our beliefs in fairness and protecting the weak and vulnerable – but we should talk of hope and removing barriers to individual independence. Any credible would-be government that has to raise what it spends has to be somewhat fiscally conservative too. The alternative is to “have no money left” to mitigate a recession cycle or crisis, and so everyone suffers but especially the poorest. But we should not just talk of balanced budgets but also of enterprise and wealth creation and again removing the barriers to the widest socio-economic participation.
I have always admired how D66 neatly sum up their social liberalism in a practical and focused way (best translation I can find):
“Reward performance and share the wealth . People are not equal, or equivalent. People are different and we want the government leaves room for those differences. We strive for economic independence for many people as possible and find that people who deserve a reward for this outstanding performance. We want a dynamic, open society where everyone gets the space to its own decisions and everyone has their own way to develop. We find it natural to share the prosperity. We want as many people participate in social and economic process, because we are all better.”
Pretty much agree with your analysis. When you talk to ordinary people, particularly micro-business owners (with fewer than 10 employees) and self employed, they want economic growth, political stability, tax predictability, and social justice. But not necessarily in that order: when people feel secure they tend to become more passionate about justice, when insecure they tend to focus on economic issues.
Ironically, this is broadly what the LibDem leadership team offered in The Orange Book (Reclaiming Liberalism) in 2004. The LibDems have also consistently argued for voting reform (sadly they failed to get behind the AV referendum because the offer wasn’t perfect – when they should instead have seen it as a step in the right direction). Robin Cook also tried to persuade Blair of the merits of AV following the Jenkin’s led royal commission (1997/2001). If the so called progressive left had seen any electoral reform (however minor) as progressive, they might now be forming a broad church coalition.
Unfortunately, if the hysterical hyperbole of comments on the Guardian (from columnists and readers alike) is anything to go by, the Left seems to be reverting to the factional squabbling and failed policies of the 80s. Rather than accepting that their ideas might be wrong, might need some modification, might be too extreme for the majority, the hard left berate the electorate for being fools and cowards and in some cases (particularly on social media) call for insurrection.
The (small but violent) protests in London yesterday were indicative of this puerile, anti-democratic mentality that will lose the left its public support (peaceful demonstrators don’t go to a protest armed with bottles, bricks and smoke bombs). The paranoid claims on social media of mass censorship were also ridiculously easy to disprove with a simple internet search but that didn’t stop the unreasoning conspiracy theorists from spreading the rumours. All the major news agencies mentioned the protest but quite rightly only gave it the sort of coverage commensurate with a tiny march by a couple of hundred angry students. It’s worth noting that the number involved was less than a 10th of those gathered on Horse Guards parade to peacefully celebrate VE day.
If the sensible left really want to reclaim the mantle of government, they have to unite round a new centre left party, with one member one vote constituencies, open primaries, and a sensible approach to economic management. They could call this new party the New Liberal Party.
@HuwSayer
It seems odd that there’s even a discussion. Last time Labour won without Tony Blair? 1974.
Labour need to move towards the centre picking up their core values. Re naming the party as ‘Modern Labour’ and moving away from the Blairite’s and the associated issues with them. They need a leader which appeals to all forms of the voters, as well as corporate. Who has strong compassion, determination to deliver the promises for the voters. This time the Tory not be able to blame anyone else for what goes wrong this time in parliament which will be of their own doing only and no letters will help them. They need a new marketing approach to appealing to the voter and getting the message in the correct manner as the policies they had were not bad but just not marketed correctly to the population which frigtended them away from voting labour.
Scotland doesn’t want a slightly right-of-centre Labour Party. So how does Labour appeal to Middle England and socialist Scotland? I would argue it can’t.
But there is a potential solution: the party could federalise. Scottish Labour could be a near autonomous party with close relations with the English party. That way, Scottish Labour can argue to being the party keeps Labour ‘honest’ while promoting a distinct message for its demographic.