I am bemused by a post by Jon Cruddas on Labour List this morning. In it he says Labour post election analysis has shown that:
The first hard truth is that the Tories didn't win despite austerity, they won because of it. Voters did not reject Labour because they saw it as austerity lite. Voters rejected Labour because they perceived the Party as anti-austerity lite. 58% agree that, ‘we must live within our means so cutting the deficit is the top priority'. Just 16% disagree. Almost all Tories and a majority of Lib Dems and Ukip voters agree.
From this he concludes:
The electorate voted for fiscal responsibility.
And then adds:
But as the [questions] on wealth distribution reveal, the electorate also holds radical opinions on the economy. 60 per cent agree with the statement, ‘the economic system in this country unfairly favours powerful interests'. This rises to 73%t amongst UKIP voters and 78% amongst Labour voters.
Before concluding:
Labour did not recognise the way the electorate is both economically radical and fiscally conservative. Labour's failure to understand the electorate works both ways.
I have to say that this is bordering on nonsense for three reasons.
First it says that public opinion cannot be swayed. That's obviously untrue.
Second, it ignores the fact that Labour sold an austerity agenda, but not as convincingly as the Tories and so were bound to be seen as less effective in doing so.
And third, it ignores the fact that, as Paul Krugman has noted:
There is no fiscal crisis, except in the imagination of Britain's Very Serious People; the policies had large costs; the economic upturn when the UK fiscal tightening was put on hold does not justify the previous costs. More than that, the whole austerian ideology is based on fantasy economics, while it's actually the anti-austerians who are basing their views on the best evidence from modern macroeconomic theory and evidence.
And that, as Paul Krugman has again noted:
What's been going on within Labour reminds me of what went on within the Democratic Party under Reagan and again for a while under Bush: many leading figures in the party fell into what Josh Marshall used to call the “cringe”, basically accepting the right's worldview but trying to win office by being a bit milder.
Or, to put it another way; of course this was the outcome of the polling: Labour's own failure resulting from adopting austerity and then failing to sell it convincingly made that inevitable. The electorate were presented with only one option, which was austerity, which they were told was the only option available, and when they came to assess who was credible to deliver it opted for the party who clearly believed in it, however wrong headed that might be.
The error was then in offering austerity in the first place. There is no other explanation for the finding. The SNP result in Scotland shows what might have happened if an anti-austerity programme had been offered instead.
And the consequence is that any party who wants change has to offer an alternative to austerity. Nothing else is plausible. But I am sure that is not what the intended interpretation is.
And, with apologies, I know I have ignored the Green option.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
To what extent to you think your analysis that the SNP won Scotland due to their anti-austerity narrative is mitigated by the fact that they were a nationalist party? When one saw the behaviour and size of the crowds at elections rallies and when one notes the landslide the SNP achieved, do you not think that the result was more as a result of a ‘change’ narrative (of course of which anti-austerity played a part but was surely comprised more of ‘a better deal for Scotland’) rather than simply an anti-austerity one?
Have you listened to Mairie Black MP (I hope I have the name right from memory)?
Yes, I’ve listened to Mhairi Black’s various interviews and I don’t think I can recall her pinning her party’s success on being anti-austerity alone. I’m also not sure why you’re responding to my comment by deferring to a 20-year old newly elected MP’s opinion.
So, to what extent do you think the anti-austerity narrative won the SNP the election; do you think that the more prominent vote-winner was their ‘better deal for Scotland’ nationalism?
Who can tell?
From what I heard and saw in Scotland a failed Labour narrative on austerity left the gate wide open for the SNP when nationalism should have spelled failure for them after 9/14
How do you think nationalism should have failed for them in the election when 45% of people (who voted) voted for it in the referendum and there was great outcry at Cameron’s supposedly spiteful EVEL combined with wide criticism that DevoMax would never become realised? Your analysis is incredibly naive.
Like others you are now very obviously here to waste my time
I have better things to do
Assume you will be deleted from now on
I am sympathetic to much of what you say here Richard (and with Paul Krugman’s comments, too).
But I sometimes wonder, and this occurred to me in the wake of the horrible aftermath of the last General Election, if the depressing truth is that most English people are just conservative by nature.
I know one shouldn’t make sweeping generalisations, and I know that this ignores the radical tradition of English history from the Levellers, Chartists, Quakers, Suffragettes & Trade Unions, etc etc.
But maybe most English are just conservative by nature, or even worse, just don’t care enough.
God, I sound depressing, I know.
You may be right
I live in hope that you are not
“But maybe most English are just conservative by nature, or even worse, just don’t care enough”
They only know what they’re told.
They’re told that austerity is the only path to success.
They know Labour is the party of “spend-Spend”, they know Labour is the party that crashed the global economy because they have been told that (and nobody told then any different), and they know that “Brown sold our gold at basement prices to his mates in the states” (which is, word-for-word, exactly what I got told a few nights ago)
They also know, because they are told, frequently, by people who only have large mansions, that “we cannot run our household budget like this” (which ignores the fact that many households do run their budget on large debt)(mortgage).
Mind you, many people (including me) don’t get macro.
Kept in ignorance and fed bull****
A sad indictment of the ENGLISH electorate
I disagree with this analysis, as it completely ignores the significant number of people who did not vote in the last general election, probably (as Richard has highlighted) because there appeared to be no difference between the two main parties. Less than 25% of the electorate voted for the Conservatives, and Labour actually increased their share of the vote by about 0.8% if I recall correctly – FPTP was the Tories saving grace! That, and the fictional fear of the SNP dictating policies, not helped by Miliband failing to address that fear (and in fact adding to it by stating he would rather lose than win with the SNP support, a spectacularly poor decision on reflection), the Tories fear campaign (that worked so well in the IndyRef) and Alex Salmond constantly undermining Nicola Sturgeon’s appeals to work with Labour against the toxic Austerity agenda!
If they are, then they will only ever elect the Tories.
Certainly not supposed Labour people pretending to be Tories.
And of course if they will elect the Tories, then it is important that Labour is very left presenting a rational well argued alternative – which will stop the Tories going ever further right.
In fact it may be better for the country if Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, et al to crossed the floor and started pulling the Tories to the left.
All of which points to the best political position being somewhere around the Corbyn position – arguing away for a more tolerant society.
“The SNP result in Scotland shows what might have happened if an anti-austerity programme had been offered instead.”
Anyone who attributes the result in Scotland to the SNP offering an “anti-austerity programme” is delusional.
There are a host of factors explaining the result in Scotland, the most obvious being the referendum result last September.
Paul Mason and I would not agree with you
But if that makes me delusional I can accept the fact
I’d rather be delusional that not see reality
Dennis Thomson is right that there are elements of identity politics in Scotland that make it unique. Nonetheless, Scotland shows what is possible when a whole population, with a common cultural and social background to England/Wales is presented with a clear anti-austerity set of policies.
I’m sure Dennis could make similar objections that other anti-austerity electoral successes were ‘special cases’. Eg. Greek voters + Syria, Podema + Spain and the whole of the UK in the early postwar period.
However, to claim that all counter examples are due to special factors is implausible. Richard’s conclusion is clearly fair and not at all delusional.
I have been interested to see so many anti Corbyn articles appearing in the Tory press and from various Labour sources, not to mention otherwise normally sensible people writing in the Guardian. The man on the BBC news yesterday evening could not stop himself scoffing at Mr. Corbyn despite getting a straight answer. It seems that Corbyn has really rattled the accepted order of things. The Tory reaction is obvious and understandable, from their point of view, but why are the Labour party so scared? What it suggests to me is that the two parties are simply part of the same exclusive establishment and that the differences between them are rather like drinking your latte with either skimmed or semi-skimmed milk.
Its not the Labour party which is scared, Its the Blairite MPs who are frightened, and afraid, they know Corbyn won’t follow Neoliberalism ideas.
.
Why have you ignored the green option?
Surely they are crucial to your analysis?
Regards, Dave
I have noted it at the bottom
Quite. Which is why I asked the question.
Namely – where does the Green Party fit into your analysis?
Cheers, Dave
Read the blog
Note I am a member of the Green New Deal
And that People’s Quantitative Easing began life as Green QE
Richard, I’ve read your blog for a couple of years, you’re pretty clear on these matters and being non-aligned is important for you.
“Green QE” was [is] more about sustainability, climate change. Green’s use that term loosely.
“People’s QE” – self explanatory and powerful. Corbyn spoke in our area recently — a powerful message.
A little off topic. Now that “People’s QE” is getting traction let’s hope folk wake up to save the “People’s NHS”, a term we discussed on this blog a while ago. I have been looking into the USA “Charge Master” prices for treatments e.g. an arterial stent at $117k! The public are sleep walking towards a disaster for the People’s NHS. During street canvassing for 38 Degrees and the Greens, I often heard “It [NHS] will always be there”. I took this to mean, for those less politically aware and also the poor in society believe the state will provide [free] and therefore they do not need to engage, politics having clearly disengaged/sidelined them. Those on the other end of the money scale will have their desire of privatised health care. Those stuck in the fat middle watch out. I think the SNP powerfully woke Scotland to such outcomes from “London rule” and a totally failed Labour narrative on austerity lite.
The Green Party needs to merge with Labour to operate effectively within the UK constitution.
No!
We need electoral reform
Electoral reform – it took me 12 years to move.
You’re right on point one – the pubic can be swayed. However what is also true is that people listen to the messages of the people that they trust, and the data has shown for some time that, when it comes to the economy, people trust the Tories over Labour. Which is one reason why the Tories managed to sway public opinion more than Labour did re what happened circa 2008-10.
Given that, if Labour takes a diametrically opposite position, do you think that people who trusted the Tories last time round are more or less likely to switch that trust to Labour, and listen to what they propose? And if so why?
All Crudass appears to be doing is paying tribute to the “Coca Cola” effect – I.e. “It’s the real thing “, whereby the electorate presumed that the Tories would be the right sort of bastards to take the ” hard decisions “, without at all noticing that the whole narrative had been skewed by the propaganda poured out by the Tories on the importance of reducing the deficit.
Had Labour tried (which it didn’t, alas) to point out that the Tory deficit strategy was the equivalent of sawing off the branch on which you are sitting – and from the wrong side – I’m sure the electorate would have responded accordingly.
But accepting the Tory guff as “gospel”, when guff it was, and most assuredly IS, the public were left with a choice between efficient implementers of the guff (the Tories), and inefficient implementers of the guff (Labour), and made the rational choice of the Tories.
But the Tory narrative is really no different from the old medical nonsense of “curing” by bleeding/blood letting. They aregued for more, Labour for less, when the whole treatment was worthless, and a variety of voodoo medicine, when rest, good food and skilled nursing were called for.
Labour MUST seek to re-educate first itself (essential – consider Chris “the chump” Leslie’s recent ramblings) and then the public, which, in the case of medicine, was only gradually weaned off the name nonsense of bleeding.
Apologies for typos, caused by using mobile.
1) “It’s Leslie’s” should say “It’s the real thing”
2) “Kent” came in from nowhere – the ludicrous predictive the xt, and should be deleted.
3) “argued” should be “argued”
I can’t help thinking that people are over analysing Labour’s defeat. The main thing voters look for is confident and credible leadership and Labour were not offering that. There is a voter tendency for a conservative approach to politics, but following the the referendum campaign in Scotland there was more of a mood for risk when faced with Labour not offering credibility. Personalities are a big factor and it should not be underestimated.
Agreed
Hence the Corbyn effect
And the Sturgeon effect
Oh, and the Clegg and Miliband effects
Personally; I think they were outflanked on almost every argument by the conservative war machine.
Labour insisted on shooting itself in the foot, many times, over the entire election campaign.
Effectively, they lost before the fight got started. The electorate were told, by a very well [money] lubricated conservative electoral machine, and a captured press, that labour caused the financial crash. Something that labour never contradicted.
That, coupled to their insistence of being the poor relative of the conservative party instead of an effective opposing party, meant that their chance of winning the election was much lower than it should have been. That the conservative party have only a 16-seat working majority is a puzzle to me!
Another of Krugman’s repeated statements is that an economy growing for the six months prior to an election favours the incumbents (irrespective of the underlying cause of eased austerity), so all this post-election talk of the electorate favouring certain policies is mainly nonsense.