by Kevin Meagher
Of course, it would be pretty difficult to pen a piece entitled: ’10 reasons it’s not as bad as it seems for Labour,’ but as the dust settles on last Thursday’s calamitous result, there is cause for optimism – cautious optimism – that the task of rebuilding Labour’s position is not as hopeless as many assume.
- Policy isn’t a mess
First off, the party’s positioning in terms of its policy offer is actually pretty good. The manifesto was not “the longest suicide note in history” as 1983’s version was famously described. Sure, there’s work to do in dialling-down some of the rhetoric that has made it so easy to characterise the party as anti-business, but Jon Cruddas, Miliband’s policy supremo, must have had an eye on the long term because there is a lot here to salvage (apart from that wretched headstone).
By way of illustration, there was no real moment during the campaign where a Labour policy unravelled under scrutiny, or different shadow ministers found themselves saying different things. That’s what commonly used to happen in the 1980s.
And for those pointing out that, electorally, Labour is now 100 seats behind the Tories, just as it was in 1987, consider that, back then, the party was committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament. Ed Miliband was promising to renew Trident. There is no massive internecine struggle in prospect in order to get policy in the right place.
- SNP and UKIP insurgencies will fade
Nicola Sturgeon and the unresigned Nigel Farage, now have it all to prove. Both parties haven’t so much evolved as exploded out of the test tube.
Both have benefitted from charismatic leaders exploiting their (relative) outsiderness and a (temporary) decline in the fortunes of the mainstream parties.
Both parties lack clear philosophical moorings and are essentially purist in outlook (‘if only we could be free of Britain/the EU…’) while their rank and file memberships contain a fair number of crackpots.
Take UKIP. Disgruntled voters in the north of England left behind by technological, industrial and cultural change are not obvious bedfellows for the southern English neo-Thatcherites who control the party. As UKIP moves forward, these differences will become unbridgeable.
As they will for Nicola Sturgeon. Her party is all about Scottish independence, yet she has already ruled out a second referendum. But that’s exactly what her most vociferous supporters desperately want. Divorce: and the sooner the better.
It’s classic purity versus pragmatism. For Sturgeon, the grime of governing, of making difficult decisions, of upsetting vested interests of one kind or another, will eventually stick to her. Not to mention the difficulty she faces dealing with the collapse of the Scottish oil industry. Will the purists in her party, who enjoy campaigning in poetry, stick around while she governs in prose?
It’s also worth bearing in mind that British politics is extremely resilient and has a good track record in absorbing new political movements. After all, the last real, game-changing insurgency was the emergence of the Labour party out of the ashes of the old Liberal party. That’s the bar.
- A growing economy will help Labour’s renewal
This seems counter-intuitive. Won’t a growing economy and an easing of austerity help the Tories?
But as the economy starts to pick up and, crudely, the poor are not suffering as much, Labour can focus on broadening its appeal.
Just as it has before. In both 1964 and 1997, Labour beat Conservative incumbents presiding over growing economies with a strong counter-offer around national renewal and modernisation, fusing social classes in a genuine One Nation appeal.
But during times of hardship, the party is honour-bound to speak up for those in need (Labour is a democratic socialist party after all). While it seeks to improve the human condition of all, it wants to improve the lot of the poor, marginalised and downtrodden most of all.
So as Labour inches its way out of this slough of despond its worth remembering that, bad though last Thursday’s result undoubtedly was, there is realistic hope that the journey back to contention is not quite as arduous as it may have been. Hopefully.
Kevin Meagher is associate editor of Uncut
Tags: general election 2015, Kevin Meagher, Labour defeat, Nicola Sturgeon, Nigel Farage, SNP, UKIP
What polices? There was just vague statements of unmeasurable intent.
Essentially the campaign came down to ‘trust me ‘ and because there was no acceptance of the overspending before the crash no-one thought Ed had learned from past mistakes so giving him a resounding ‘No Thanks ‘.
In denial, much?
Sorry but this attitude is surely destined o ensure another five or more years in Opposition.
What do the Public think? You know,, the voters. The people whom you must convince to vote for you. And far more important, the people you need to vote for you and did not.
Expressed simply, voters think Labour are the Party of:
Public servant
the unions
the poor
those on benefits
and immigrants.
Labour are NOT the Party of:
Business – you treat them not as job providers but as 19th century mill owners
Tax payers – you think they should pay more and more
Those who want to better themselves – your MPs openly despise “white van man”
The EU doubters – you vilify them as racists or narrow nationlists
Anyone who disagrees with you on immigration – automatically labelled as racist or “bigots”.
White working class.- see Diane Abbott’s many pronouncements on the issue.
The English – so busy trying to defend Scotland as a power base, you refuse to give to England the autonomy you granted to Scotland.
And yiu think the journay back i not going to be arduous?
Utter denial..
Policies I do not remember to many of them, and of course what happens if the recovery really starts now.
In 2020 the country has picked up wages are on the rise and things are looking better across the EU, and labour says vote for us we are newer labour, bet that works.
I think you need to reappraise your points.
1. Policy without conviction is rhetoric
2. The SNP is a mature political force that has governed for longer than most of the labour front bench have been in the talking shop that is thier idea of opposition. Those foolish enough to see the SNP and UKIP as comparable will not find the right approach to beat either of them.
3. A party that relies on thier opponents to improve the condition of thier supposed target electorate are simply chancers.
Try developing a mature political sense and a collection of policies that represent the aspirations of the people of the country not the self interest of the individual. It used to be called the difference between Labour and Tory!!!
Madasafish and CJK, so well said. This party is unelectable.
Scotland turned into 59 marginals after the referendum.
Saying No was one thing but Better Together, Project Fear and lining up with the far right was political suicide.
And labour then wonders when safe seat after safe seat disappears.
You need to go back to the days of Ramsey McDonald and the 1931 National Government to see anything like this in Scotland.
Back then the poorest parts of Glasgow voted ILP.
It leaves you wondering what going on in the heads of labour party members.
Does anybody in the labour party get any of this.
Always look on the bright side of life …. Always look on the bright side of life …..
We’ll be back don’t know where, don’t know when, but I’m sure we’ll be back some sunny day ….
… only if we become independent of the Unions
… only if we get PR/AV
… only if we get State Funding
Basically Labour is only speaking to and for, 10% of the population.
We need to speak and for 90% of the population.
OK lets just take one of your points ( I cant be bothered to respond to the others which lack any self awareness of the last few days and trot our the usual rhetoric “UKIP crackpots” etc.)
Point 1.
The Non-Dom “policy” unraveled after scrutiny within….um…..1 hour approx as the Ed Balls video emerged. Did you miss that one Kevin ?
I didnt see any real policy just vague statements of intent. As Charles Clark pointed out on the BBC, take the One Nation slogan. Clark asks what did it mean and what did a one nation health system look like ? What did a one nation education system look like…and so on. Clark actually gave a brilliant summary of Labour inept performance and Milibands lack of leadership and went up in my estimation.
I was surprised the BBC actually allowed him to speak critically of the Labour party for twenty minutes. I thought realising his negative comment they would have gone to some other speaker praising Labour or a dead donkey story in Belgium.
“Hello, I wish to register a complaint.”
I wish to complain about this party I voted for a few days ago…………….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
In 1987 Labour was thought unelectable, but ten years later we achieved the biggest majority in our history. So in theory we could await the pendulum to swing our way. But lets not wait.
We need a thorough reexamination of what we are for. This should have happened in 2010/11 but for obvious reasons did not. This new policy review must involve all party members and affiliated organisations, not just the shadow cabinet and PLP. And we shouldn’t elect a new leader until the review is over, say in a year. Harriet Harman is more than able to lead the Party during this time,
Simon F, the pendulum didn’t swing Labour’s way. Mr Blair beguiled the Labour party into getting into the pendulum’s swing.
Swat – only if we get State Funding
Get that idea out of your head. Any government that brought it in would lose the subsequent election in a stunning defeat. Any opposition that offered it in the run-up to an election wouldn’t win. The idea is more unpopular than just about anything I can think of – including taking the first born of every family and slaughtering them.
Most people would prefer political parties to exist solely of member subscriptions and not even allowed to receive donations.
OP: In both 1964 and 1997, Labour beat Conservative incumbents presiding over growing economies with a strong counter-offer around national renewal and modernisation, fusing social classes in a genuine One Nation appeal.
But during times of hardship, the party is honour-bound to speak up for those in need (Labour is a democratic socialist party after all). While it seeks to improve the human condition of all, it wants to improve the lot of the poor, marginalised and downtrodden most of all.
Simon Fowler: We need a thorough reexamination of what we are for. This should have happened in 2010/11 but for obvious reasons did not. This new policy review must involve all party members and affiliated organisations, not just the shadow cabinet and PLP. And we shouldn’t elect a new leader until the review is over, say in a year. Harriet Harman is more than able to lead the Party during this time
Simon is right, I believe. In Ms Harman you have a very able leader, and a lengthy examination of Labour’s purpose in the modern world will allow the next generation of leaders to come to the fore.
I am inclined to think that our society has progressed beyond the need for the Labour party as it originally started out.
This is a time for Labour to go back to its roots, not in trying to do the same things as in the olden days, but in seeking out the equivalent needs of our own society.
We need to define ‘our own society’ more widely – not just the people already in this land but also the many would-be immigrants: the people desperate to leave their war-torn or poverty-stricken homelands and settle in a peaceful & prosperous land. The EU has already lined up the next wave for us and there will be other waves after that. There always will be more to come.
Where will they all find homes? healthcare? jobs? We can’t leave them out of the equation when we are trying to find answers to our own problems.
The public purse won’t be able to fund them, the public won’t tolerate borrowing to fund them.
Therefore we have got to become a nation that generates wealth, not just for ourselves but for all the unfortunate people that, from time to time, need to seek shelter among us.
Simon fowler, there was a mixture of its time for a change in 1997 and The Tories who’d previously had massive mid term unpopularities ,followed by getting them back ready for the election
But mrs Thatcher,despite leading by consent, having a sea change to the post war consensus ,to democratize the unions, was a very divisive PM, and Cameron is leading more by consent of the middle ground, it could be 14 years from now, there’s not a time for a change view, the Toires could be in,indefinatley
So the gnats will be bemused and confused by the business of governing? And why not? They only have 8 years of experience and they’re so crap at it that they have attracted the vote of 50% of the electors.
Kevin, here’s the sad truth. Labour MPs from Scotland have been so crap for so long that they’ve managed to throw away any hope of a Labour recovery there for a generation. Look at the majorities. We might like to think that all those seats have now become marginals, but virtually all of them are now safe SNP seats with majorities of 8/10/12,000.
Western Isles looks like an exception with a majority of only 4,000, but there’s only about 15000 voters.