There are times when it is apparent why the Tories win elections and Labour do not. The Tories want to win. It's not always clear that Labour does.
Take the aftermath of the recent elections. It is true that Labour lost Hartlepool, which given that the Brexit and UKIP votes were always going to swing largely to the Tories was wholly predictable. But it won in Cambridgeshire, the West of England, across Home Counties councils, and even in Chipping Norton. The wins in Manchester and Liverpool were pretty impressive too. And yet Labour cast itself - from the Leader onwards - as the loser of the election. They immediately passed the narrative to the Tories.
They have form in doing so. They did, after all, never challenge the Tory claim that Labour crashed the economy in 2008, which was never true. And they perpetually trash their own past leaders in ways the Tories never do despite having such howlers as Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith in their midst.
Over the weekend Starmer has announced that Labour is now in a policy void for some time to come by abandoning its past manifesto, leaving it with nothing to say. And Andy Burnham made a less than subtle leadership bid, which he has failed to win twice before and is not even an MP.
In the meantime, the Tories have tens of thousands of excess deaths to account for; a Prime Minister who is very obviously a liar and corrupt; corruption scandals galore; and ministers in office who have still not accounted for how the Brexit campaign was run. And that's just for starters. But, in the Tory way, they keep telling lie after lie in support of the one aim, which is Tory power based on belief in a leader that lasts until precisely the moment when they are deposed. In contrast Labour has belief in, well, what?
It could, of course be argued that the difference between the two parties is all about principles. It might be said that Labour tries to have them, and the Tories do not. And it could be argued that having prime ministers as diverse as Cameron, May and Johnson is evidence of that on the Tory side. But that would also not be true. Since the days of Thatcher the Tories have had principles, albeit better described as dogma. A loathing of the state, the welfare state and those who rely on it, liberal views and a belief in the nation whilst loathing the state have been powerful unifying forces in the modern Conservative Party that distinguishes it quit radically from that which existed during the 1945 - 75 era, when power alone motivated it, and any opinion that suited that objective was tolerated. Hartlepool voted on principle. So too, I suspect, did Cambridgeshire and the others noted. And both knew what the Tories were offering.
But does anyone really know what Labour is offering? It's not socialist. It's hard to tell what its social democracy means. And if it is for something you cannot be sure for how long that might last. And its economic are confusing, old fashioned, and poorly communicated. It didn't take Starmer abandoning the manifesto for Labour to not have anything to talk about. Apart from the cut through of the Corbyn manifesto - which was his success, but which was too complicated to communicate - Labour has not anything to talk about for far too long.
Unsurprisingly, people looking for a message are not convinced.
They are, in some parts of the country, convinced that they do not want the sleaze and corruption that in fairness I think Thatcher would never have tolerated. But even then they are not sure what Labour is offering. And it shows. And being against something is never enough.
Starmer does not need a new manifesto. He needs to say what Labour is for. And Labour needs to agree about that issue. Then and only then might it work. That's what has worked for the Tories, more than anything else.
So what is Labour about?
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:
Every Labour Party member knew exactly what the main aim was. It was printed on the inside cover of the party card. Clause IV of the party constitution, “… to secure for the worker the fruits ……” That’s what it stood for. Those who got rid of Clause IV are still running the party, frightened to take the neoliberal on in debate, despite mounting evidence of the big lies, and destined to go the way of the Liberal party as an irrelevance to the voters. See Scotland
You need to complete the sentence. The version of clause IV from 1918 started “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible”
And then it continued “upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
Are you still advocating for full nationalisation of all means of production, distribution and exchange, GerryC, and government control of every industry and service?
And its replacement? “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”
Common endeavour, community, the many not the few , solidarity tolerance and respect.
I don’t see much to argue with there. The politicians just need to communicate it better and turn it into concrete proposals .
I tend to agree
Clause IV debate now looks way out of date
When enumerating Tory principles it’s important to include that they love the flag, are proud of the Empire, are both English and British exceptionalists and prize having international clout. Those things drive a lot of votes. Corbyn’s internationalism was used against him – he so clearly cares about Palestine, Bolivia, while disapproving of the way Britain has tended to behave internationally and that created a real wedge between him and voters who did not take kindly to criticism of our country. And Labour will always have a lot of internationalists no matter how often its leader mumbles about “patriotism”.
One particularly interesting demographic is the armed forces. I suspect most of them are suspicious of Labour, the military plotted a coup against Wilson and may well have done so against Corbyn. At the minimum they used his face as target practice.
I have a feeling patriotism is a trap for Labour. If they talk about it they remind people that it matters and only the Tories can be trusted with it. If they don’t talk about it they obviously don’t care.
Labour needs to find a way to neutralise or over-shadow this issue but when they don’t I think that’s at least part of the reason the UK usually votes Tory.
I thought I did mention it?
You did in passing. You said this:
” a belief in the nation whilst loathing the state ”
I wanted to expand on this because I think many on the left, particularly the younger people I engage on social media have no idea what a belief in the nation means.
It’s quite important to understand as it’s a major driver of why people vote Tory.
Fair enough!
I am glad you got my code though
Whatever anyone thought (or still thinks) of Corbyn he did inspire many people to feel as though they ought to have a choice – the lack of political plurality during the New Labour years was enervating, and a right for party members to have some influence in the direction and policies of the party. Under Starmer and the so-called ‘centrists’ now running the show (over-represented in the PLP), their attitude simply appears to be to reverse and remove all traces of such differentiating, expansive and inclusive drives. The hope that many party members (and no small number of voters) felt is being very publicly demolished despite this action requiring further self-destructive effort. On a personal level it feels like being strapped into the passenger seat of a car with an intoxicated narcissist at the wheel, convinced that no matter what we hit that they will emerge from the wreckage unscathed. I think that is the point of my rather rambling account: the tone of the current leadership, when it can actually be bothered to expresses itself, appears to be entirely negative and above all, regressive.
Whether this is intentional or not I honestly couldn’t say, as mendacity in Westminster politics seems to be achieving record levels on an almost daily basis. Discussing the current direction of the Labour Party, or lack of it I can’t but help recall Phillip Gould’s words from a few years back when he suggested that the only way for the Labour Party to oust the Tories from power was to merge with the Lib-Dems. Such a merger would guarantee to drown-out all progressive voices. Perhaps by re-animating the likes of Blair and Mandelson Labour’s mostly neoliberal MPs hope to permanently deny any thoughts of possible alternatives to their apparent desire for endless monotone, technocratic rule. For what little it is worth, my opinion is that Labour is now about denying change.
Labour has just over 200 seats. To form a govt. with a majority of one he needs a out 322. Blair did make that sort of leap in 1997 but it seems very unlikely today. One reason is that the Labour websites seem to be full of comments accusing Starmer of not opposing ;being a Tory, abstaining too much, etc. and of ‘centrist’ peollein the party deliberately sabotaging Corbyn whom, they confidently assert, would have won otherwise. They can’t all be trolls. Rather than have some of what they want, they would rather have the Conservatives in power for longer than compromise. The policies Starmer said he would support during the leadership campaign are not Tory. I am wondering, as a non party member, how far this dissent goes and if they will fall apart. I would find it hard to forgive a faction gifting Johnson and his cronies more time in office.
I see an increasing number calling for a progressive alliance. I was a bit involved in the 1980s with the Liberals and SDP trying to write a common manifesto. That was just two parties.
Far better to have a set of common objectives. 1 Green new deal paid for by people’s QE and green bonds (at some point they need to get behind MMT but possible better for it to come from a non party source and be taken on board?) 2 proper funding of the NHS and care system 3 devolution (it could appeal to the SNP who ant be sure about the referendum) proportional representation and a reformed Lords/Senate 4 real action on tax havens 5 commit to expanded social housing building programme
Most of those are already in the policies of the Lib Dems, Labour, Greens, Plaid Cymru, SNP, SDLP and Alliance in Northern Ireland.
They would have to be prepared to stand down for each other.
By 2024 the effects of Brexit will be apparent and the corruption investigations, I hope, likewise.
It does mean Labour would never rule by themselves again but, more importantly, it would stop future Conservative governments ruling with minority support.
I have not mentioned rejoining the EU. My expectation is that events would support re-entering the single market and events would unfold from there as the generations change.
I would just comment that the Corbyn Surge of 2017 is an example of where Labour can show promise.
I will not go into the shenanigans that undermined Labour’s election campaign, but simply say that the divide between careerist MPs and idealist members is now becoming unbridgeable.
Most of Blair’s cabinet had seats in derelict former industrial areas. Remember that Peter Mandelson was MP for Hartlepool. What did they do for those areas?
There is the answer to Labour’s current travails. The overall demographic direction favours a positive radical party in the future – the Tory vote is currently going to the polls in greater numbers – but is dying off, and New New Labour is not learning the lessons.
This week Keith dumped all the pledges he made when he was elected. As of now there is no manifesto and no policies. The zoom thing they did last night was attended by about 50 people each of whom paid £5 a pop. It was like listening to a word salad. He is a complete wet lettuce.
Given that what defines a party is the tone set at the top by its leader, Labour stands for Authoritarian liberalism/Liberal authoritarianism.
The problem is that liberals & socialists spot the authoritarianism and don’t like it. And authoritarian spot the liberalism and don’t like it.
A greater appetite by the London based leadership to offer an alternative would do no harm.
I think many of us on here could come up with better slogans and coherent arguments than Labour and Starmer. They can be about aspiration to do well, coupled with a safety net for when in need. They can be about cooperation rather than fighting pointless battles (oops, crossed a Rubicon or something there – sums up Labour..). They can be about making things better, not worse.
Had Starmer the courage of his conviction, he would have whipped to vote against the Brexit non-deal and taken the flak. He would have gained respect from many and if that involved upsetting the so called red-wall then that was a price worth paying. Better to stand for something than standing for anything.
Starmer can still rescue it – alas, I cannot see anything that gives me hope.
In the City of Salford (pop 250,000) which is part of Greater Manchester we have again elected a Labour Socialist Mayor with a increased majority while also returning all Labour held seats and taking two local council seats from the Tories. This is through a brand of municipal socialism which has many progressive policies such as bringing services back ‘in-house’, building council houses and working towards tackling the climate emergency by secure investment and development in green spaces and green infrastructure across the city. The city is also investing in green skills and green economic sectors to strengthen the city’s future economic resilience. Now if only Starmer would look to the success of Greater Manchester and despite the constraints use it as a example of what can be achieved.
I have noticed
Indeed! Labour seems pretty moribund at the top, but there are signs of healthy new growth at the roots, as even a few journalists are beginning to realise e.g.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-socialism-localism-collectivism-b1848151.html
Although Labour has some good constituency MPs, many of the current crop (including the Shadow Cabinet) seem to be lacking in ideals, principles and vision and have little grasp of history. By that I don’t mean being wedded to outdated notions, or language (“comrades”, for instance) but lacking historical perspective, the most important element of which is probably the realisation that practically all the important improvements in the lives of the majority of the British people were gained by struggle (not by trying to appeal to focus groups) and were resisted as hard and as long as possible by the Conservative party.
But to have any chance of coming to power again Labour seriously needs to rethink its media strategy (does it have one)? At present the playing field is a very uneven one. “In 1945 the Labour Party received the support of the Daily Herald, News Chronicle and The Daily Mirror. For the first time, the party enjoyed virtual parity of readership with the Tories in terms of national daily newspapers”. Of course there were other reasons that Labour won in ’45, but don’t tell me that didn’t make a big difference!
Blair was on GMTV the other morning dribbling on about the direction Labour should go and, to no-one’s surprise, he blamed Corbyn for recent Labour failings, and then went on to urge Keith to move to the ‘centre’ ground. Of course, we know where the centre ground was/is under Blair, it is Thatcherism. Neoliberalism. Privatisation and financialism. Speculation and war. Saudi’s destroy the WTC so we made Iraq pay. Logical? Cow-towing to Murdoch and the US Imperialist machine. But the Tories do it much better so what’s the point of Labour? The corruption in the Conservative Party finds it’s echo in Labour. For every Gove or Raab, there was an equal and opposite in Labour. Mann. Austin. Hodge. The list is endless. For every principled Tory there is an equally principled Labour MP. Angela Rayner had principles she kept telling us, and if you don’t like them or if it becomes opportune to change them, then she has others instead. Tony Benn described politicians as either being weathervanes or signposts. Thatcher was a signpost. I’ve no idea what the Silent Knight is because it’s difficult to read a cardboard cut-out. I predicted what Labour would do under him and he has proved me right. He is pushing the Party toward more neoliberalism, more privatisation and more acceptance of Imperialism and war. He has even resurrected the corpse of Blair and Mandelson to ride back as key players.
I have no idea anymore.
Labour isolates itself from other parties claiming some sort of higher ground or divine right on behalf the voter.
It thinks about money in the same way as the Tories (it is essentially a Neo-lib party) – its mental cages about this subject are the same as every other party in the UK unfortunately (including the Greens who from personal experience are as ignorant as everyone else about say MMT).
I think Labour is going through an identity crisis – and it was always going to happen after Blair anyway.
It just wants to fight over swing voters in my view – it seems to have given up on those who are looking for something new, better etc.
Labour needs to split to be honest. Blue Labour can sod off to the Tories as far as I am concerned. The Left just need to grow up and become progressives but Corbyn and Co didn’t want to listen Richard which was really, really disappointing.
My view is that Labour are now the ‘Passive Party’. They passively accept that people don’t get them and seem unwilling to win them over with a truly progressive offer. They passively accepted the blame for 2008 when there was none to be accepted.
They are passive because they think that there is going to be some sort of BREXIT or Covid epiphany amongst the population and that they will benefit.
Well there isn’t.
Labour needs a re-set and it needs to up date its progressive roots for today’s age where markets have shown time and time again that they cannot simply be left alone or that they do not solve many if not all our problems.
Clive Lewis is someone I’d like to see more of. Andy Burnham has said that when the party is ready for him he’ll have a go but I’d have to acquaint myself with his record.
Rachael Reeves looks handy and I’d like to see the women in Labour working together and having a go to be honest (I’ve met Emma Thornbury and she is very impressive to my mind). But to hear Angela Rayner who I think is quite capable talking about re-engaging with ‘working class’ voters is very worrying . What era are some of them in? It’s so old hat.
I’d send the lot of them on an away day (even an away- year) to sort it out. And they could do it as no one would notice that they’d gone as they are now.
Labour cannot win by relying on the Tories to fail, implode all sleaze to a halt.
Labour needs to win authentically on its own terms – not keeping to Tory spending plans and bullshit like that. It needs to win big by being bold and yes – courageous – in the Murphian sense.
And it needs to go back and look at Attlee. Because all that guff about not being able to afford it etc., was nothing but bullshit. And it still is.
Getting rid of Clause IV was to show Tory voters that Labour wasn’t a socialist party and confirmed Maggie in her belief that her best legacy was Tony Blair as Labour leader. Blairite Labour certainly proved the former and I’ll leave it to the current Labour membership to debate the latter.
Ian Davidson, where have you been for the past few years? You glibly mention “devolution” in a throwaway line in your manifesto for making Labour electable again. Look at Scotland, where they used to weigh the Lab vote. Now, they’re losing deposits. Labour has lost its hegemony in Scotland and now the Red wall. You also glibly state that they should adopt MMT as if they are flicking a switch. The leadership is so wedded to neoliberal thinking that it needs a Damascene conversion. It’s gonna take years to change them.
“And yet Labour cast itself … as the loser of the election.”
And they were right to do so: the Tories won 36% of the vote; Labour 29%. The Tories gained 235 councillors; Labour lost 327.
Quite extraordinary considering that the government has been in office over a decade and has the record it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Oh dear….the power of selective reading
Given there was no nationwide vote simple extrapolation is not possible
Do extrapolation based on national trends and the Tories would have lost quite a lot of Commons seats
What do you think about the council in Lancaster where the Green Party has joined with the Tories and the Eco-Socialist independents to oust the Labour leader and install a Green leader? Not just labour who have an identity crisis.
Coalition is inevitable I would say
And Labour are not very good at it
So you would be quite happy if Ely libdems went into coalition with the tories they had just ousted? Doesn’t seem right to me. What would be the point of electing them? May just as well vote tory. I doubt the green voters in Lancaster wanted a coalition with the party which destroys the environment, the party which wants to open up a coalmine in the county above them, the party of HS2.
Labour in Wales are going to trial basic income. That’s what labour are for.
It depends in the terms of the coalition of course
That’s now coalitions work
I hate to say it, but you evidence the sort of small mindedness that consigns Labour to oblivion and fails its supporters outside the CLPs
Did the Greens talk to Labour in Lancaster?
I’d like to know what the Labour response was if they did.
Seems that the whole story isn’t out there at the moment…
Greens definitely gone into coalition with con and Lib Dem, but it’s not clear why
Lancaster Labour kicking up a fuss though.
I always felt that Lancaster was a good target for the Greens (plenty of gently ageing hippies and their now-grown offspring carrying environmental awareness)
Ha PSR, I bet I can guess the Labour response, if there was one. “No!, go away Greens, we’re Labour and we’re THE only ones any progressive should vote for! How dare you try to steal our voters……waaaaaah!”
As Richard says, Labour aren’t very good at coalitions. Due to the fact they don’t want any.
That isn’t what has happened though.
The Greens and the Eco Socialists (former labour who left because of labour’s centralism) are leader and deputy leader. There are no Tories in council seats and no coalition with the Tories. There was a leadership election and the Tories chose to vote for the Green candidates.
Time will tell if the Tories try to extract a pound of flesh in due course mind…
Sorry, that does not make sense. There must be tories in council seats, otherwise how could the tories back the greens?
@ MG
Yeah, I saw an infographic floating around earlier today that suggested that the Greens voted for their own person (shock, horror!) and the Conservatives decided to vote for the Green candidate, rather than their own…
Seems to me like Labour expect the Green vote on principle, and have spat their dummy out when it didn’t materialise (why does this feel familiar…?)
@Jen – apologies, I meant no Tories in leadership positions on the council AFAIK, there are Tory councillors of course.
Let’s rephrase the question. “What do you think about the council in Lancaster where the Green Party put forward a candidate to challenge for leader, where their candidate was elected by 10 Green councillors supported by 12 Conservatives and 12 independents (including 3 Eco-Socialist formerly Labour), over the Labour incumbent who supported by 13 Labour councillors with 2 Lib Dems and 7 independents (including one Eco-Socialist)?”
Leading a NOC council with four or five large voting groups like this is always going to be an exercise in diplomacy and compromise, whoever is in charge. Sure, the Greens or the Conservatives or the independents could have supported the Labour incumbent, but perhaps the Greens saw an opportunity to take the leadership and try implement to their policies, rather than being taken for granted and then ignored by Labour.
It seems the unseated Labour leader was not in favour of different groups working together, or “collusion” as she called it.
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-headteacher-becomes-first-green-party-leader-of-lancaster-city-council-3240480
If Labour cannot work with others, they are doomed.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
I so agree with this:
“If Labour cannot work with others, they are doomed”
Thanks for that link Andrew, very illuminating. The former Labour leader’s response is predictably stupid, accusing the Greens of collusion. As Richard notes, if Labour won’t work with others, it, and progressive politics in the UK, are doomed. And the UK is probably doomed in that case, since I can’t see the Scots putting up with perpetual rule by corrupt, dishonest right wing Westminster governments.
Thanks for calling me small-minded, Richard. I voted green for years. I won’t trouble your mind again.
Your comment was small minded
I think I read what you said correctly
For me, there are two big things to do.
Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate. At the 2019 General Election, more people didn’t vote Tory than did. Those votes need to be used in the most effective way to be turned into seats in parliament. If that means one party stepping aside then do it. The main goal (remove the Tories from power) should override party differences.
Then, getting people to vote. So, need to find out why they are not voting and then give them a genuine reason to vote. Talk to actual people (not focus groups). Talk to local party members. Talk to local councillors. There are votes out there to be grabbed so get out and do what it takes to grab them.
Craig
Agreed
Yes, yes, yes, 100,000% yes. Collaboration between progressive parties, formal or informal, to defeat the Tories; including people standing down if necessary. Labour to get rid of the moronic rule that they always have to put up candidates in a constituency, for a start.
Part of that alliance to include the SNP. If that means a future progressive coalition government guaranteeing them a second referendum, so be it.
I’ve seen articles in the right-wing press setting up “purity vs electability” as the main issue for Labour. This needs to be nailed as a false dichotomy though. Surely the task is to formulate policies that will improve the lives of the majority and then convince them to give you their vote!
But that then poses the problem of how Labour can get its message across — and how to prevent the message being either drowned out or distorted by the right-wing propaganda machine of (90% of) the mainstream media?
On an (only slightly) lighter note: evidence is accumulating that Starmer is a Marxist — a committed member of the Groucho faction that has infiltrated the party.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” (cf. the “Labour antisemitism” crisis.)
“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” (Starmer is not very good at it.)
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”
(Starmer is turning to focus groups for ideas and abandoning many of the previous manifesto items he vowed to support.)
And there is mounting suspicion that Jonathan Ashworth is a member of the same insurgent Groucho faction: a headline this week in the Independent:
‘It’s confidential’: Shadow minister refuses to say what Labour stands for
Jonathan Ashworth says discussions have taken place at shadow cabinet level but that they are ‘confidential’
You couldn’t make it up!