by David Talbot
In the end, Ed Miliband was just a better-dressed Michael Foot. An apocalyptic result in 2010 was turned into a near-existential one five years later. The coming post mortem must be detailed and clinical. A complete overhaul of the party, of its policies, ethos, outlook and thereby electoral appeal is now a necessity. There can be no nostalgia, ingratitude, mistrust, and even downright bitterness, which, sadly, has already been witnessed, of the electorate and the verdict it delivered last Thursday. The Labour party is, as my Uncut colleague Atul Hatwal has already noted, the sole signatory of its own downfall. Only it can pick itself up and offer itself to the nation anew come 2020.
The scale of the defeat must now be fully absorbed, understood and then acted upon. It is obvious to note given the scale of the defeat, but this was a process almost entirely lacking in the leadership election of 2010. The wrong conclusion was reached. The party had chosen to be comforted rather than challenged, and we witnessed its sorry aftermath on Friday morning. The electoral landscape as it now currently is, with Labour 99 seats behind the Conservatives, means that being out of office for twenty years is a very real possibility. The importance of whom the party chooses next as its leader is now central and vital to its fortunes.
Leadership contenders will be positioning themselves in the coming weeks, with Andy Burnham an early front-runner. But for the very reason that he is the epitome of a Labour figure who would rather pander to the party’s base then reach out to the nation, he must not succeed. Merely repeating “the NHS” is not – as we have just painfully witnessed – a successful election strategy. Burnham was at the heart of this. Candle-lit vigils, people’s marches, nonagenarians deployed at party conference – Burnham descended into the politics of demagoguery over the NHS. All wistful, nostalgia nonsense that fired up our base but was ultimately ignored by the electorate.
On a policy level, his plans for the NHS under a Labour government, and accusations of what a Conservative government would do to it, do not stand up to scrutiny. His repeated flagship campaign promise of repealing the Health and Social Care Act made for great performance, but in practice he had actually only committed to repealing Part 3 within the Act on competition. Competition that had started under Labour. Burnham can rightly be accused of attacking for political gain the very things he had championed in power. His tortuous pre-election interview on Newsnight exposed a mindset which simply could not fathom challenge to his NHS credentials. In his desire to sound suitably left-wing, and therefore please his trade union supporters, he had created a policy position which was utterly self-discrediting.
Some within the Labour party now want a serious debate about our future. Not over whether predistribution was ever a viable policy platform, but what it will take to win and why. The easy route was taken in 2010, with Miliband and his acolytes deliberately and quite ruthlessly choosing to rubbish the record of the 13 years of a Labour government. No more. The party faces a fight to even retain relevance. Labour had no answers, in its comfort zone, to the questions the nation wanted answered last week. It had taken a conscious decision to depart from the concerns of the voters. It cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
David Talbot is a political consultant
Tags: Andy Burnham, David Talbot, general election 2015, Labour defeat, Labour leadership election
Firstly, Miliband did not rubbish everything which had been done under Blair & Brown. But he rightly identified Iraq as the moment when many across the country lost faith in politicians as a whole. Don’t forget Blair only got 35% of vote on 61% turnout in 2005. And the Tories got more votes in England.
Secondly, Burnham may not be the answer as you say. But then enlighten us with who is. I have been disappointed with Yvette Cooper. I always tipped her as a future PM, but she was too anonymous for last five years and the thought of her against Boris or May in 2020… Also the press will make out her husband is pulling the strings.
Chuka? He fits the stereotype of a smooth professional politician. Ditto Tristram Hunt.
So who do you think should be leader?
Look, there are 2 questions I want to ask Andy
1. Are those eyelashes false?
2. When are you going to bring forward detailed plans for a seamless merger of the Health and Social Care Services? As you promised
I voted for you in the 2010 Leaderships, but now ILL PROBABLY BE VOTING FOR Chuka, as he seems to be more tuned into modern Britain today and what is required for Britain to make its way in a Global Market and that is Business and Enterprise, otherwise who going to create the wealth to build those elusive 2m homes and provide the welfare benefits. Or are the Unions going to fund it all?
David mi,I and die t understand how unpopular we were, Ed did, not because of Iraq, not because we took the unskilled working class for granted, not because we gave up on the Skilled working class Mrs T loved, but because of professional politics, now Ed M, was a much as pad and part of the Westminster bubble as his brother,
Ed view was to go back to being Old labour, as New labour (rightly) had,had its day
Andy Burnham, understood in 2010 we were unpopular, and unlike Ed M wasn’t going to suggest we go back to being old Labour,(somehow he’s managed to make us forget he was A Blairite.
It’s interesting that both myself Swatantra and a lot of Essex voters from seats that use to be labour up to 8 years ago backed Andy.
They blogger Iain Dale and Rod Liddle saying he was the win the Tories should have been the most afraid of winning.
Not that being a Ex spad is wrong, but the whole liberal islington coffee drinking elite, is too far associated with it now,
Having spoke to Chuka yesterday,he’s convinced we can win next time, sadlY I’m not, at the best with deals with the Libdems,cutting Scotland off, and possibly an economic down turn, resulting in,the cuts the stories make if something bad happened, rising Crime., a collapsing NHS ,we make get in on a dodgy 1-0 away 35% , that’s why Dan Jarvis looking at the sights it’ll take 10 years minimum to get back to power has ruled himself out, Chuka should listen to David lammy’s excellent analysis, of the sort of Voters we need to win back,and realize that the person to do that is not,him he should wait 5 years, he’ll only be 47 in 2025′ and have a go in the future,
Yvette clearly wants it, but apart from the baggage of her past,and her husband, she’s too nice, but keen.
Still trying to. Get Cruddas to run,
Liz Kendall with Flint as deputy seems the best option, and I know that’s not aging much
David mi,I and die t understand how unpopular we were, Ed did, not because of Iraq, not because we took the unskilled working class for granted, not because we gave up on the Skilled working class Mrs T loved, but because of professional politics, now Ed M, was a much as pad and part of the Westminster bubble as his brother,
Ed view was to go back to being Old labour, as New labour (rightly) had,had its day
Andy Burnham, understood in 2010 we were unpopular, and unlike Ed M wasn’t going to suggest we go back to being old Labour,(somehow he’s managed to make us forget he was A Blairite.
It’s interesting that both myself Swatantra and a lot of Essex voters from seats that use to be labour up to 8 years ago backed Andy.
They blogger Iain Dale and Rod Liddle saying he was the win the Tories should have been the most afraid of winning.
Not that being a Ex spad is wrong, but the whole liberal islington coffee drinking elite, is too far associated with it now,
Having spoke to Chuka yesterday,he’s convinced we can win next time, sadlY I’m not, at the best with deals with the Libdems,cutting Scotland off, and possibly an economic down turn, resulting in,the cuts the stories make if something bad happened, rising Crime., a collapsing NHS ,we make get in on a dodgy 1-0 away 35% , that’s why Dan Jarvis looking at the sights it’ll take 10 years minimum to get back to power has ruled himself out, Chuka should listen to David lammy’s excellent analysis, of the sort of Voters we need to win back,and realize that the person to do that is not,him he should wait 5 years, he’ll only be 47 in 2025′ and have a go in the future,
Yvette clearly wants it, but apart from the baggage of her past,and her husband, she’s too nice, but keen.
Still trying to. Get Cruddas to run,
Liz Kendall as leader,with Flint as deputy seems the best option, and I know that’s not saying much
The problem is this: Socialism was the justified movement of the downtrodden poor organised into Trades Unions against the exploitation of the capitalists. In a way the Socialist movement was like Robin Hood and his Merry men and the Capitalists were the Sheriff of Nottingham. It was the parliamentary representation of the working class against the exploitative class.
Quite right too.
We must however, ask ourselves this question: was Mark not right when he said “Class divisions have disappeared”?
Here is a list of present supporters of the Labour Party in UK:
1. Some people in the North East where industry dies out in the 1970s and 1980s.
2. Immigrant people in London and ethnic minorities. Muslims, especially, are sincere supporters of the Labour Party in urban areas. These people quite often NOT ALWAYS correspond to Marx’s description of the proletariat: they have absolutely nothing.
3. Since Mrs Thatcher, the Unions have largely represented Schools and Universities and sundry other such organisations like the NHS. The people who receive their wages from the state. With the end of industrial UK, the Unions have changed their membership.
4. The London elite and the Labour Party Machinery. PPE Oxford. A career in politics to the exclusion of everything else. Groupthink about certain subjects: Europe, Climate Change, the NHS, Welfare. But they are an elite, not representative of the people who live near me who are fixated on immigration and its effects on their state educated children’s job search.(Lots of dyslexia and ritalin there).
I mean this in a friendly way. There is nothing I should like to see more than a rejuvenated Labour Party, freed of its demons and its head in the sand complacency. I would also like to say that the Tory Party is much the same: it does not talk my language.
“Some within the Labour party now want a serious debate about our future. Not over whether predistribution was ever a viable policy platform, but what it will take to win and why.”
Some? If it’s only some, you have no chance. And frankly reading LabourList and the Guardian most of the commentators are in denial.
I’ll recount an anecdote from Monday. Mrs Madasafish had a discussion at our local Methodist church. A longstanding Labour supporter could not believe that over 20,000 voted for the Conservatives and helped increase the majority from 6,000 in 2010 to over 10,000 in our Staffordshire Moorlands consitituency.. It used to be a solid Labour mining town.
The fact that the mines closed over 30 years ago, and its all light industry and commuting, lots of new housing estates and young couples with kids, mortgages and cars seems to have passed him by.
The Labour message form local Trudie McGuiness was – and i quote in order on her leaflet:
“Fairness
A fairer economy.
Living Wage for all
NHS free at point of need.
Protect from privatisation”
A total irrelevance. Most (66%) of the electorate earn more than the Living Wage – as she admitted!
No-one has committed to charge for the NHS.
Who cares about privatisation apart from NHS staff..
Her message was targetted specifically – at NHS staff and the poor. who account for less than half the electorate.
That’s the reason why she lost. Core vote stuff.
It’s hardly rocket science. If you need to win more votes , aim to convince the voters who back your opponents to switch to you.
She did not even try.
This is Politics Lesson 1..
Madasafish, read the shy blairites article on labour list, there’s more to the Labour Party, than the guardian
Burnham’s got an another problem. He has a northern accent. Look at the map. Where do the people live who you need to swing?
Burnham, the answer, hahaha, all any opposition would have to do is show a video about his tenure in charge of the NHS. All you would have to do is bring up Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust and the deaths that happened. Also, there is his opportunism is jumping on the Hillsbrough tragedy after he was booed and heckled at the annual service of commeration at Anfield. His face was a picture of why are you booing me. His invite, it was admitted later was an error by the organisers and b, the present re-opening of the inquest was ordered by the last government after the Hillborough Inquirey led by Bishop James Jones. Straw when Home Secretary refused to re-open it.
If Burnham is the answer, then what is the question?
I like Dan Jarvis – in a pole undertaken by, I think, the Daily Mirror, he came out head and shoulders above the others – perhaps we can persuade him to reconsider. I think David Lammey would stand a good chance of London Mayor
The whole NHS gambit is completely misconceived. The Tories rely on the elderly. The elderly rely on (and use) the NHS, so the Tories are never going to do more than tinker with the NHS to improve productivity. They may or may not get that right but they know that wholesale privatisation would be political suicide. Which makes Burnham’s position look implausible.
Andy Burnham will be a disaster.
Sorry to say but the internet has changed how to campaign, swing voters like me can easily fact check soundbites.
I heard a soundbite on the news about how the coalition are privatising the NHS and so I googled it.
What did I find, the Newsnight interview which de-bunked everything he said and showed how Labour privatsied 3 times as much (BBC so no way of blaming Murdoch or bias). From then on, all I heard from Labour about the NHS made me think LIES.
Then of course you have the Mid-Staffs scandel (which some may argue: why he was not sacked as the shadow health, and also, why it was not invesigated for corporate manslaughter).
And the main problem with the mid-staffs will not be from the Tory’s, it will be the families that are interviewed.
How could Labour respond affectively without looking as if they are attacking grieving families?
The issue with the NHS is Labour see it as Festung National Health to which they retreat when all other fronts are lost, as they just about did on this election; a sacred cow beyond reproach – don’t mention Mid Staffs.
The thing is “the electorate are not stupid” [2020 Labour moto] despite what a lot of Labour below the line posters currently seem to think.
Everybody and his dog knows that with an increasingly aged and obese population and the increased cost of complex medical procedures the NHS as we know it is in deep trouble.
Even the standard Labour response of hosing it with money will not stop it eventually cracking, and I would refer readers to the recent OECD Health Rankings to see where we actually stand – it’s not pretty reading.
Can Labour be the critical friend, insist on the radical reforms, that would save the NHS in something like a recognisable form – no, because it’s in hock to it as a symbol of all that is good. As the man said “If it’s so good, why do you have to keep saving it?”
The counterintuitive conclusion for many people is that, because they will be prepared, indeed psychologically and politically able, to take unpopular decisions on its future the NHS [which does matter to people] is probably safer with the Tories.
Where is Festung National Health then, what has Labour left to sell that hasn’t already been rejected?
Unless Labour in 2020 is unrecognisable from what it is today, it’s probably finished as a major political force.
Whilst not being an Andy Burnham acolyte, myself, I deeply regret the sneering tone adopted by David Talbot, a political consultant!!!, in this article. The extent to which Labour’s election strategy might have been effective ,if it were not for the S.N.P scare run by Cameron and his chums in the media, isn’t really known at this point. The data simply isn’t in yet!
One thing is clear, there is nothing left-wing about drawing attention to zero -hour contracts, food banks, the minimum wage, house building etc. Certainly, the focus should have been broadened out, but the risible suggestions of Mandelson and co should be laughed out of court.
As for the next leader, there are some immediate advantages. They won’t have to contend with the ‘they crashed the economy’ argument at the next election, neither will they have to carry any of the Blair/Brown baggage , if the Party does the sensible thing and skips a generation. Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham, were part of the problem, so they cannot be part of the solution.
In all honesty, no one knows what this country will look like in five years time, with the U.K and the E.U likely to look radically different. The new leader, though, as well as being principled (sadly plenty of our leaders in the past haven’t even ticked this box) needs also to be someone who can command the t.v studio as well as they command the Commons. Two or three of the new generation of contenders seem comfortable in their own skin, it’s for them now to map out a vision of a social democratic future that can win hearts and minds across the country.
swat – 2. When are you going to bring forward detailed plans for a seamless merger of the Health and Social Care Services? As you promised
He can’t. No Westminster politician can. NHS Wales, NHS Scotland, NHS Northern Ireland and NHS Manchester are devolved and make their own decisions that are none of Westminsters business.