Not so solid Crewe

People who have voted Labour in the past are uncertain about what it is that Labour plans to do in the future. They feel we lack direction and purpose.

Labour's defeat in Crewe yesterday represented a devastating blow to the party: a seat it held even as the Tories swept all before them during the 1980s now finds itself with a Conservative MP. Most worrying for Labour are the clear signs that voters are now willing to transfer their votes directly from the party to the Tories.

Of course, disgruntled electors often use byelections (and, as we saw at the beginning of the month, local elections too) to punish mid-term governments. And, as the Tories found repeatedly under Mrs Thatcher, many of those voters may return to the fold in a general election when, instead of a risk-free chance to take a pop at the government, they are faced with a choice between competing visions and policies.

But there's no iron law of politics that this need be the case: the Tories' string of byelection defeats after 1992 represented a series of increasingly shrill warning bells by the electorate that the government needed a dramatic change of course. The Tories chose to ignore them and they paid a heavy price.

It would be easy to blame the result in Crewe purely on the tactics employed in the campaign there but that would be to miss the point. This is more than just a verdict on public uncertainty about the present state of the economy. People who have voted Labour in the past are uncertain about what it is that Labour plans to do in the future. They feel we lack direction and purpose. That we are more exhausted by government than excited by it. And that clear and decisive leadership is missing.

So let's be clear: there are two major reasons why the campaign on the ground appeared to be left with little else but somewhat puerile name-calling. And neither of them can be blamed upon Labour's candidate in Crewe or those who ran her campaign. First, the absence of a compelling vision about what Labour wants to achieve over the next two years.

Second, the repeated failure of Labour to tackle the Tories on policy rather than personality. Ever since David Cameron became Tory leader there have been repeated indications that some in the party believe that attacks on class and wealth, whether it's in the form of wearing top hats or suggesting that all the country's problems can be solved if only the top one per cent pay a little more tax, represent Labour's best bet for securing a fourth term. But such tactics are not only off-putting to the middle-class voters the party needs if it is to be re-elected, they are also profoundly patronising to Labour's working-class supporters.

Indeed, attacks on the rich threaten to undermine one of the key tenets of New Labour: that Labour should be a broad-based coalition representing people from all social backgrounds. It was that insight which has been key to the party's electoral successes over the past decade. By contrast, as David Marquand suggested in the aftermath of Labour's fourth consecutive defeat in 1992, the party's long spells in opposition throughout the 20th century were very much a reflection of the party's failure to attract the support of millions of anti-Tory voters for whom Labour ‘did not make sense' because of its apparent attachment to a narrow, class-based politics.

None of which is to deny that class still matters very much in British politics: examine any of the statistics on the gaping health, education and employment inequalities which still exist, despite Labour's efforts over the past decade, and that is all too obvious. But to seem to reduce these deeply serious questions - about which the Tories genuinely appear to have no clear answers - to playground name-calling runs the risk of suggesting that Labour has run out of ideas and lost the argument. If one good thing comes out of Crewe it should be to nail the myth that class attacks have any place to play in Labour's general election campaign in two year's time.

Instead, Labour's message to its core supporters should rest on the party's commitment to enabling them to further their aspirations: to own their own homes, see their children educated in first-class schools, and know that the tax system rewards hard work. Further radical public services reform, which puts real power in the hands of individuals, is key to ensuring that the worst off, who are often on the receiving end of the worst service, are given the opportunities to enjoy the services which the middle classes have enjoyed for decades. Calls for reform to be abandoned must be resisted. All of this should be accompanied by a promise to restart the stalled motors of social mobility - and an honest examination of why Labour has failed in this task thus far.

With any luck, Labour will have realised the perils of allowing campaign pranks to become its defining message. But that's the easy part. There are lessons that have to be learned at every level in the Labour party. And there is not much time to do so. We cannot take any comfort in the fact that a general election could be two years away. Once people make up their minds it is hard to change them.

Comments

Posted by Shestheone on 23 May 2008, 5:31:00 PM

As far as I see it the problem with Crewe was about two interlinked issues. We retreated back to a core vote strategy essentially saying to people who were doing well for themself but had the aspiration to do better, your not one of us. As the crux of New Labour is about the fact that its not where you come from, its where you are going to that matters the general message just didn't seem to chime with what Labour post 1997 stands for. Secondly, things like rising fuel prices and the 10p tax rate meant that our core vote weren't necessarily going to come out in the numbers that we expected them to. Despite all that I would like to put on record the absolutely amazing efforts by party staff and volunteers all over the country who do such a good job in hard circumstances and rarely get any credit.

I agree completely, I think we as Labour members and those in the Government need to reflect upon what the voters concerns were: economic uncertainty the Government's plans for the short to medium term. It's too simplistic to think the Top hats and tails lost us the election. It didn't. That said, I think Harriet Harman's email to Labour members stating that "rising bills and global economic uncertainty" lost us the election fails to recognise that our core supporters feel let down by some of the recent policy decisions of the Government. Labour has done so much to make this country better since 1997 and we should be proud of our record. But, there have also been mistakes made. It's not enough to say 'we're listening' or repeatedly blame the global economy. We need to recognise that some of the problems that contributed to the defeat were of our own making, face them, apologise, learn and move on.

I couldn't agree more that the Government should focus on ordinary working people "enabling them to further their aspirations: to own their own homes, see their children educated in first-class schools, and know that the tax system rewards hard work". I think it's mistake for government to give £200m to buy properties from "hard pressed" property developers who can't sell their over priced flats and just free advice from those who are facing repossession from loan sharks and private landlords. Wouldn't this £200m be better spent buying up the homes of those families whose homes are in the process of being repossessed who will otherwise end up in bed and breakfast?

Saying that the reason for the dire election result in Crewe is 'because of the economy', as both Gordon Brown and Hazel Blears did today, is about as misguided as the negative by-election campaign itself. A host of former labour supporters were interviewed today and asked why they voted Conservative; not one of them mentioned the economy or the credit crunch. The government's response is, therefore, intensely irritating for those who plumped for Mr Timpson for reasons other than the economy - and for others, more widely, who are feeling similarly. We need to reconnect with what people are actually saying rather than make our own misdiagnosis of the situation. We bury our heads in the sand and blame the economy at our peril.

Absolutly right Labour needs the middle class vote, who are also working class. But Labour urgeantly need to provide some confidence to its rank and file members, who year on year become fewer in numbers. Labour needs to look at which sections of our society go out to vote, which in the main is those who accept responsibility for their personal position. I always understood that for a socialist society to be successful we would all need to contribute, given that we can provide for the old and infirm.However too many of our people do not contribute nor do they have any intention of doing so. Worklessness is a far bigger issue than many realise. It has to be tackled.

This article completely misses the main point. I no longer vote Labour, though a socialist, because of the Iraq war, and the refusal of the new prime minister to admit the mistake.

I have worked voluntarily in the community for the past fifty years, starting with Roy Jenkins when he first took the seat for Birmingham Stechford upon his leaving university as a post-graduate. I am now in my seventy second year of life and proud to be a "Brummy" in a multi-cultural second city. Currently I work in assisting a Birmingham Labour MP as Voluntary Home Affairs Advisor in one of the most difficult areas of our city. Among drug gangs, knives and fire arms which our local Police Operational Command Unit with whom I also work, deserve a medal for their efforts in containing, alongside a more than active prevention plan. The most important quality of an MP is their ability to communicate in true sincerity with their 'flock' whether or not they elected them. Representing their views, aspirations at national government level, fighting injustice in all forms and clearing a way forward for their aspirations no matter of age, gender, colour or cultural background. The number of MP's it appears, who do not have the aforesaid qualities are "two for a penny" in national terms. Let us not have the present rule of only 'female candidates' as an example, let us put forward candidates who are worthy sincere individuals regardless of gender, colour, cultural background or sexual orientation. Those who are prepared to work for the community, not place themselves first and use the community to forward their personal ambitions as a 'professional politician'.

I see the efforts of Labour to remove the class, lets see a min wage set so low not to annoy the CBI, tax credits which help out those who get £50,000 a year while we at the bottom get a voice analyzer to make sure we are who we are. The fact is New Labours been the Tory party, it's hit the poorest the sick and the disabled, I did not ask to become crippled at work, but then again I did not expect to get slaughtered by New Labour. New Labour has made my life hell by giving me the lowest benefits rise since benefits began. what did Labour say get a job, yet we have tried when you piss and shit your self all the time it's hard to find a job. No thanks I've had enough of the party for the rich

"Instead, Labour's message to its core supporters should rest on the party's commitment to enabling them to further their aspirations: to own their own homes, see their children educated in first-class schools, and know that the tax system rewards hard work. Further radical public services reform, which puts real power in the hands of individuals, is key to ensuring that the worst off, who are often on the receiving end of the worst service, are given the opportunities to enjoy the services which the middle classes have enjoyed for decades. Calls for reform to be abandoned must be resisted. All of this should be accompanied by a promise to restart the stalled motors of social mobility . . ." Agreed. The most direct way to get there is to vote LibDem.

I think the editorial is basically spot on, and while I'd join those in thanking everyone involved in the campaign - we did an amazing job in difficult national circumstances - we should not lose sight of the importance of good organisation and relentless campaigning. In London, Slough, Oxford, Hastings and elsewhere in the country where we did well on May 1st - or at least bucked the national trend - it was largely because of excellent candidates backed up by a well organised campaign. I believe Crewe has proved what I have suspected for some time that in many of our ‘heartlands’ the party has for what ever reason stopped campaigning and organising. Addressing this issue in both our key, marginal and safe seats needs to be taken as seriously as discussions on leadership and policy. We can have the best policies in the world, but they need to be backed up by a strong team on the ground – where we win we have a strong organisation, where we don’t we lose. This isn’t as sexy as grand policy discussion but we forget this at our peril. As for the Iraq war – frankly Henry if you knocked on some doors you’d see it’s not the issue it was at all.