One of the trends from the last five years of politics is that a truism gets established amongst the cognoscenti, which then spreads to the next level of those interested enough in politics to pay attention to at least some of its subtleties – and then the truism gets demolished by reality. “Corbyn could never become Labour leader”. “Leave could never win the EU referendum”. “Trump could never win the presidency”. “Theresa May will end up with a massive majority after the 2017 general election”. I could go on, but you get the point. Each time one of these truisms gets torn down, another one that stands on equally loose ground takes its place.
The latest big lie is “Labour cannot win a general election on its own”. This theory rests on the idea that there are places in the country that Labour supposedly has no chance of winning, no matter what. Scotland is impossible to get back, apparently. The south of England, forget it. Need the Lib Dems there. Or something. The best Labour can hope for is some Lab-Lib-SNP+others monster rainbow government. The evidence for all this rests on very shaky ground and isn’t difficult to demolish.
Let’s start with Scotland. The SNP have been dominant in Scotland over three Westminster general elections. The first was in the immediate aftermath of the divisive independence referendum. The next two were fought with Labour having in place the worst leader of the opposition since the formation of the Union. I’m not saying Labour getting back Scotland would be easy. I’m simply saying that the “it’s impossible” thesis has really not been tested to death. It’s like if you were a medieval army and you’d tried to attack a walled city three times, once with a bloke at the helm who was scared of a bacon sandwich and the next two times with a leader who told half the army to fight in the wrong place and then got lost on the way to the target himself, it would be foolish not to consider whether you might take the city with a decent general.
Then there is the idea that Labour can’t win in the south of England. I’ve said this many times before, but here it goes again: Labour have won in the south of England previously, and fairly substantially at that. Not all that long ago, either. Add to this the Tories having been in power for over a decade, the Remainers revenge feeling that lingers still, the fact that the Lib Dems appear set to commit electoral suicide by running to the left of Labour, and most importantly, that Labour now have a good leader means that I think there are way more seats in play for them than most assume at the moment, provided they run a good campaign.
To be clear, I am not now predicting Labour will win the next general election. I just think this assumption that they definitely can’t is lazy. We have witnessed seismic shifts in voting patterns over the past decade; unpredictable results have become the new normal. Just because these have usually gone against Labour more times than not during this period does not mean that they will continue to do so in perpetuity. In sacking Long-Bailey the way he did yesterday, Starmer has shown how serious he is about making Labour properly electable again. I think the Tories are taking him too lightly at present, as are the Lib Dems and the SNP. Everyone has got so used to Labour being a bit crap they have forgot what a well-led Labour Party is more than capable of achieving.
I’ll close with this. I think it is imperative for the Labour Party to aim for a majority and create a narrative around its possibility. So long as this story about Labour needing to form a government with the SNP and seven other parties persists, the harder it will be for Labour to get anywhere close to Number 10. People need to feel like Labour will win outright for them to get enough seats to form any sort of government. If it seems like they would be happy to form a government with the SNP and the Lib Dems, everyone involved but the SNP suffers. Another modern truism is that the Tories need a majority to rule while Labour has other options. I think this is another truism that needs to fall.
********************************************************************
I have a new book out now. It’s called “Politics is Murder” and follows the tale of a woman named Charlotte working at a failing think tank who has got ahead in her career in a novel way – she is a serial killer. One day, the police turn up at her door and tell her she is a suspect in a murder – only thing is, it is one she had nothing to do with. The plot takes in Conservative Party conference, a plot against the Foreign Secretary and some gangsters while Charlotte tries to find out who is trying to frame her for a murder she didn’t commit.
It’s available here:
I agree that if I were Sir Keir Starmer I would be trying to get people to believe a majority is possible, then I agree it could become possible. I agree in Scotland it’s not impossible for Labour to win but there would need to be a backlash against the SNP; I don’t think it will happen as the SNP have successfully managed to make the Tories the bogie-man and keep blaming Westminster for Scotland not having the power to do this or that. It’s nonsense of course but has worked for them thus far. I think having a Conservative govt in Westminster helps the SNP. As for the South of England I think it’s extremely unlikely Labour will win many seats outside of London or places like Slough. One of the unsung stories of the 2019 GE was the big uptick in the Lib Dem vote share, including moving into 2nd in 91 seats from just a handful. Overall it was a bad election for the Lib Dems but not a disastrous one and much better than 2015 or 2017. It will be very tough for Labour to win those seats now. And as for the Lib Dems I can’t see them moving to the left of Labour; I think you’ve over-interpreted a comment by Layla that she wants to be more “radical” than Labour (not more to the left). Interestingly, even Tim Farron has now joined a backlash against the suggestion that the party moves to the left. The challenge for the Lib Dems is to be able to punch both left and right and not have any toxic side to them (as they did in 2019 with Revoke and “I’m a candidate for PM”).
What toxified the Lib Dems in 2019 was C&C: Coalition & Corbyn. Jo’s voting record as a former Coalition Minister was used against her by Labour, while soft Tories were put off voting Lib Dem by fear of Lib Dems helping Corbyn into No 10. Corbyn will no longer be an issue, and however radical the Lib Dems become they will not be similar to the Corbynistas and will not be perceived as such — the politics and political culture of the Hard Left are fundamentally different from Lib Dems in multiple ways. As I noted in a comment to another post here, you would never catch Layla sharing an antisemitic trope. And if Layla becomes leader, Coalition won’t be much of an issue either, because she wasn’t involved in it.
Alex, I don’t disagree with you about C&C (as you say) toxifying the Lib Dems in 2019 for the reasons you give. However I believe we could have done more about both but IMO make tactical mistakes on each. On Corbyn we should have been more forthright about opposing him. As PPC I made a personal pledge not to facilitate putting Corbyn into no10 in any way, shape or form. This was more than just a tactical decision (the message went down well locally and we returned to a good 2nd place) but, personally, I’m as scared of the extreme left as most voters; I think he would have been an absolute disaster for the country. I wish as a party we had been more forthright about opposing Corbyn (but just him, not Labour), I think it would have allayed soft Conservative fears and also soft Labour too as we would have made an unapologetic pledge for the centre ground. On the coalition our problem has been we’ve been so apologetic that voters have forgotten we’re a centre-based party – we’ve portrayed ourselves as essentially a nicer version of Labour, so voters can’t understand how we could even contemplate a coalition with the Conservatives. And we’ve allowed – sometimes even encouraged – our opponents narrative on the coalition years to take hold. in this context, it’s understandable that many voters feel we betrayed our values in entering coalition. If we were less apologetic about our belief in economic prudence (versus Labour’s economic profligacy) they would understand us better. Rather than the weak “we made mistakes in coalition and we’re sorry” we should have been saying “We didn’t enjoy taking the tough decisions that were required to protect the economy in coalition but we were absolutely right to take tough decisions. Yes we made mistakes – all governments do – but we’re not apologising for our role in taking the country back from the brink in 2010 – the slowest economy in the G7 to the fastest in 2015 and with 1 million fewer unemployed”. Something like that.
Frankly any discussion of the Coalition is an unwelcome distraction for the Lib Dems. Time spent discussing it is time not spent campaigning on our current policies. This is why, whatever one thinks of it, the best thing is for it to wither on the vine, and this will be best achieved by electing a leader unconnected with it. With a post-Coalition leader, attacks on us based on our role in the Coalition would be flogging a dead horse.
The biggest mistake our leadership made in the Coalition was conducting it as a love-in, when it should have been conducted as a business arrangement. And we should have been more open about what could actually be achieved by Lib Dems in a coalition where we made up only 1/6 of the MPs. Instead our leadership made it look as if everything the Coalition did was what the Lib Dems wanted all along. A post-Coalition leader would be able to point this out, with the clear implication that they would handle things differently if the opportunity arose again. From a former Coalition minister, who presumably went along with how the leadership handled Coalition at the time, it would sound hypocritical..
Nick: I think you are playing with the word ‘impossible’. Of course, there is much that is not impossible, but the real question is what is plausible. True if SNP are on its Knees in 2024 and Lib Dems have fallen apart in places such as Cheltenham, Winchester , Bath and Eastleigh, a claim of outright victory could be plausible, however as you make clear you are “not now predicting Labour will win the next general election”.
We shall see if Layla Moran gets to be leader, my guess is that unless she makes a serious and dramatic intervention on the political scene, she will not. One danger for the Lib Dems is that, while being ignored and not subject to scrutiny they will fixate on a policy that cannot be defended in detail, such as universal basic income; another danger of course is simply, to be ignored.
In general though a plausible, intelligently run Labour party could help gain Dems gain up to 20 seats. There are many reasons for this, but a major factor is that Starmer’s criticism of Johnson will have bite in a way that was incapable for Corbyn, sufficient to affect middling Tory voters in the aforementioned constituencies, inducing them to either stay at home or vote lib Dem.
Lib Dems collapsing in our target seats make a Labour outright majority less probable, not more. As 2015 shows, when our support collapses in our strongholds, it’s mainly to the benefit of the Tories. And as 1997 shows, Labour needs us to perform well in areas Labour find it difficult to win if it wants to get into government.
I will give you the main reason why Starmer will win the next election
BORIS
His incompetence his lack of imagination to govern
Events overpower him where he only reacts too late plus he has no ability to lead as his personality defects lead him to be indecisive
He has no grasp of any brief relying on bluster and waving his arms manically trying to wing it
Starmer is like a cold calculating machine constantly delivering blows to the head
He is the equal of Wilson and Blair
The reason the PM needs Cummings is because there is nothing there
A void that the day tripper has masterly filled by being his one trick pony
BREXIT
BORIS
While your speculation is indeed not impossible (that seeming to be the bar we’re trying to pas nowadays), weren’t you last year predicting with dead certainty that the general election would end in another hung parliament, but this time with Labour as largest party and easily able to form a ‘Remain Coalition’ government to pass a second referendum bill? How did that work out for you?
You don’t exactly, based on past performance, seem to have your finger on the pulse of the public mood, is what I’m saying.
Good memory
I gave Corbyn too much slack as a political leader
Judge me on this years predictions
At the start of the year Starmer labour leader
Biden new President
And that was when Trump looked a dead cert for re election
My prediction is 1964 all over again starmer wins election
Overturns 80 seat majority gets in by a whisker
Corbyn very similar to Boris for inadequacies
I suggested a few weeks ago that Starmer would benefit from taking on the extreme left earlier rather than later. I’ll take it as a portent that the RLB sacking is the opening shot. He has nothing but advantage in taking them out early. Nothing but problems will emerge if he leaves them intact to fester for long.
“the fact that the Lib Dems appear set to commit electoral suicide by running to the left of Labour”
Laughs in 2001 and 2005
Nick Tyrone fundamentally misunderstands the role of the Lib Dems vis-à-vis Labour and the symbiotic relationship between the two parties. If Labour wins an overall majority in 2024, it will be because Lib Dems did well in our own heartlands, as in 1997 If Lib Dem support collapses, it will be to the benefit of the Conservatives, as in 2015. It is very unlikely that Labour would ever win seats like Cheltenham, Winchester, Bath and Eastleigh. The Lib Dems can reach voters in the south of England that Labour can’t.
Yes, but that 1997 result was because of tactical voting. A reasonable approximation for the Lib Dems is that we win about 1 seat per 1% of our support. Winning 46 seats on 17% of the vote was way out of line with results before 1997 and after 2005.
You don’t need any formal relationship between the Lib Dems and Labour, what you need is an understanding both at leadership level and at activist level that you don’t campaign aggressively in seats that the other party can take off the Tories. So in effect Labour get a free run in all their ‘Red Wall’ seats while they leave seats in the South to the Lib Dems where they are already second. The non-party political websites will tell the voters how they can most effectively use their vote tactically.
I suspect that when the manifestos for the 2024 General Election come to be written there will striking similarities between policies from the Labour and Lib Dems, not because of any collusion, but because there is a clear left-of-centre approach based on infrastructure spending and a Green New Deal to revive the economy. Indeed short of an overall majority, Labour would probably prefer a C&S deal with the Lib Dems to any arrangement with the SNP.
I agree 100% with that; my point is that this tactical voting and informal alliance is Starmer’s best (perhaps only) route to winning an overall majority. This is contrary to Nick’s assumption that Labour would benefit from a Lib Dem wipeout in our areas of strength. Most of our losses in 2015 were to the Tories. All our current held seats in England are Tory-facing, and if they fall, it will be to the Tories.. Likewise, a Lib Dem collapse in seats we hope to win from the Tories will simply turn those into safe Tory seats.
For someone who self-identifies as a “liberal”, and I beiieve has been a Lib Dem member in the past, NIck seems to harbour a lot of misunderstandings of the party’s culture and politics. (Another is his belief that radical Lib Dems are similar to Corbynistas, when actually they have very little in common and have a completely different approach to politics.)