Guest article: Is Labour’s century-long Party over?
July 7th, 2006A guest contribution from Tabman
“The founding of the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marx. Discuss.”
At the heart of this classic A-Level Politics question is an examination of the founding coalition of the Labour Party – the finding of common interest between the “Working Man”, in the form of the TUC, and the “Concerned Middle Class” represented by socialist intellectuals such as the Fabians. This founding coalition has changed shape and emphasis over the last 100 years, but its continued existence remains the reason why the Labour Party is in government today.
The extension of the Universal Franchise, the Liberal Party’s self-destruction and ruthless exploitation of the political situation by the Labour leadership led the party to become the natural home of the “progressive left” by the end of the Second World War; a situation that has pertained for over 60 years.
But could “Time” soon be called on Labour’s Party?
The signs of fracture are there. Membership has fallen below 200,000, the calls for Blair’s departure grow ever louder, and articles by the likes of John Harris chronicle the disillusionment felt within the activist base. That article hints at the reason for the strength of the Labour movement in retaining its middle class support, and the potential catastrophic effects if it loses it:
After four decades of membership, [Rina Silverman] left the Labour party in 2005 … As with so many activists, the party is in the family; her late father-in-law was the Labour MP Sidney Silverman, whose private member’s bill led to the abolition of capital punishment. When she resigned her membership in 2005, she felt a bracing sense of guilt. “You think about the people who came before you and how they would regard you. I was letting my family down. I suppose it’s a minority of people who really are that committed to this. But for us, it’s like a religion. It’s taken the place of religion.”
This Concerned Middle Class vote, once characterised on this site as “GMW” (Guardian Men and Women), and represented within the activist base by the likes of Ms Silverman, has deep roots. The Labour Party is deep in its psyche, and its loyalties are strong. But it is only part of the Labour-voting coalition. The other two important elements can be characterised as the Urban Working Class (UWC), and Aspirant New Middle Class (ANMC).
Ever since it got the vote, the UWC have viewed the Labour Party as “their” party. They have always believed Labour has had their interests at heart, although that loyalty has been severely tested as of late. That is why Labour has put so much effort into the likes of ASBOs – yet turnout in urban constituencies has declined dramatically, and the rise of the likes of the BNP highlights that this group feel marginalised. The UWC are on the front-line as recipients of the State’s support, and as their expectations are raised above the ability of services to deliver, their frustration seeks an outlet. Until now the chasing pack have been so far behind in these constituencies that Labour has been able to ignore them without suffering the consequences. Yet May 2005 showed the initial tremors of a potential electoral earthquake, if the core vote stay-at-homes increase, or the opposition coalesces around the main challenger.
The other key element in New Labour’s coalition of voters are the ANMC. Such voters are not overly ideological, but tend to support the party who they think best reflects their aspirations. This group has been characterised as “Mondeo Man” or “Worcester Woman”, and tend to be the swing voters in key marginals upon whom much attention is focussed. Whilst they remain comfortable and optimistic, my hunch is that they will continue to vote Labour - “It’s the economy, stupid”. But any economic downturn that affected their actual or perceived well-being would see this group head off into the sunset. The Conservatives would most likely assume that these voters will “return” to them, and in many cases they would be right. But nothing in politics can be taken for granted, and the Lib Dems’ recent tax-cutting initiatives could, if played properly, persuade some of this group that there is an alternative that isn’t Tory.
What does the imminent accession of Gordon Brown hold for these three types of voter?
Brown is often portrayed as having the Labour Party at his very core, and he carries the aspirations of the Labour Left, for so long marginalised under Blair. Yet Brown knows he has little room to manoeuvre if he is to retain the ANMC support deemed crucial to Labour success. Yet, “more of the same” tests the loyalty of the bedrock of Labour support – GMW and UWC. This dam of disillusionment threatens to burst, and the deluge could take the Labour Party with it. But where will the final, spent trickle of votes end up?
On the face of it, the Conservatives are best placed to benefit from those UWC who decide to vote, especially in the marginals. But the in the real homeland of the UWC, the main opposition is now in many cases in the form of the Liberal Democrats. But there are ominous signs that it could be none of the “traditional” parties who ultimately benefit, with many staying at home, or going with the populists.
Cameron has made much of trying to woo the GMW vote with recent pronouncements on tax and the public services, and here, too, he could make gains for the blue column. But many of the public sector middle class would rather cut their arms off than vote Conservative, so he has much still to do to turn things around. The Lib Dems may benefit, especially if Civil Liberties issues come to the fore, but Labour is a religion for this group and its faith has been shaken greatly without collapse before.
But there is now a strong sense that Labour’s coalition is starting to look at its collective watches, drink the remains of its drinks, and eye the door. There are other events that now look more enticing, and this will make the politics of the next decade fascinating. We could be entering a phase of electoral developments similar to the events of the 1920s - four elections and massive swings between parties in terms of votes and seats. The relative size of the Third and Minority party blocs in Parliament is a massively unpredictable factor on outcomes.
This will prove an exhilirating white-knuckle ride for the activist and the punter. Fasten your seatbelts!
Tabman is a Liberal Democrat activist and a regular contributor to discussions on this site.
MessageSpace Advertising
That’s an excellent article, Tabman. I agree with virtually every word. I’ll want to comment in more detail later, but some points are worth considering.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties are potentially under as much strain as Labour. It would be good if you performed a similar analysis of the groups that vote for those two parties, and how disaffected they may be.
Tony Blair’s political success has forced the Conservatives to move leftwards. Unlike the Labour left in the early nineties, the Conservative right do not consider that they have been proved wrong - and that causes tensions. Nor can the Conservatives rely on deference in this day and age, as they could in the Fifties, when they also moved left.
The new parties threaten the Lib Dems position as the anti-politics party. To take an extreme case, look at the results in East London in the recent local elections. Although never an area of great Lib Dem strength, Havering, Newham and Barking & Dagenham have all elected Lib Dem councillors, and some wards have generated big Lib Dem votes, in the recent past. Now they’re winning 2/3% per constituency, as protest voters turn to the newer parties and Independents.
Many thanks to Tabman for the thought-provoking article.
One of the things that comes through from this is the move back to political parties being run more through activists (in the ‘ideologically pure’) sense as opposed to members. This could be a problem for Labour - especially as they were determined to ‘water-down’ the activist base in the run-up to 1997.
However, it is also a fact of life that oppositions are better at gaining new members that opposition parties.
The Tories obviously suffered from this post 1997 with a large contingent of die-hards left in the party who were not representative of many strands of modern Britain. I’m never sure how the activist/membership/leadership balance works with the LibDems though as the leadership seems content to make up policiy which seems to be against all the instincts of the activists I know but which they then accept without complaint.
I also find Respect’s coalition of socially conservative muslim voters and (I assume) the traditional left socially liberal outlook (eg abortion, gay rights etc) to be quite incredible.
An interesting article from tabman on the challenge for Gordon Brown.
For sometime now I have had the view that unless Labour “renewed” itself under the right Leader it may fall further into a terminal decline. The loss of half its Members matches a decline in Councillors of nearly a half since 1997 (11,000 to 6,000). Within these figures is a major decline in its activists. The Labour party problem with Blair, is that his policy positions are so far adrift from the activist base that many have simply gone off and found something better to do. Labour may be entering the next GE (circa 08) with Membership well below 150,000 and a councillor base of 4,000 (less than LDs).
Gordon Brown knows that the answer is renewal. But to do that he has to first achieve the Leadership and secondly make policy statements more in line with his activist base. Unfortunately Brown seems incapable of getting the top job quickly and has shifted his policy positions closer to Blair. The reality for many activists is that they see the future as moving from a Ramsey McBlair (Dianne Abbot’s nickname) to a Ramsey McBrown.
When the Tories fell out of favour with the electorate, there was not a massive policy gap between activists and their sitting PM (Major). Europe was the one divisive issue, it was a very public matter and spawned UKIP. However within the Conservative party the breach was a narrow one. But with Labour the policy gaps are more extensive and more insidious. Blair has become a Tory PM in charge of a Labour party and Brown now looks likely to operate in a similar fashion.
Brown may have little choice. He has fewer years ahead of him than most of his MPs. He needs the middle ground voters now and therefore will sacrifice the activist base to try and win an election. These activists just cannot summon up the enthusiasm to go out and campaign with the voters for policy positions that are little different from Thatcher’s.
The Lib Dems have shown that it is the activist base that creates strong foundations for a party and Labour’s base looks to be built on sand. To get MPs requires Councillors, to get Councillors requires activists. A simple truth that Labour just does not get. It needs to renew itself but Gordon’s need to win in 08 will just delay that process as it will not be a true renewal more a “papering over the cracks”. I therefore agree with tabman that further decline for Labour just looks inevitable.
Top class article, Tabman. I also take Sean Fear’s point - I think there may soon be another guest contribution expanding on it…
Parties in government lose membership - end of story - and of course Labour has never been continuously in government for so long before.
4 - yes, this is the first in a mini-series of two contributions on the theme
It may worry Tabman to learn that I broadly agree with what is a thoughtful piece! There is probably a time lag but the loss of Councillors and members can only have a detrimental effect upon a party’s ability to campaign. It means for example that the local newsletters dont get delivered, that the fundraising functions are less likely to be arranged and attended, and ultimately that there is no-one to be the face of that party locally.
In SUtton with the wiping out of the Labour Party from the Council, that ability for them to obtain some free publicity from their Cllr activity has gone. Across the country this is being mirrored and it is similar to the loss of Conservative representation in many of the major cities of the North.
The only answer as I can see it is for parties to actively seek out good local people who will fly its flag for many years in an area without any real hope of electoral success initially. Only when the party is seen as re-established will electoral support return. This was why it was so important in Reading for the Conservatives to start making the incremental gains that we have. Progress which was massively helped by the election of a Conservative MP in Reading East.
Possibly the best guest article yet, especially in terms of the potential for debate it generates. FWIW much as I would like to believe Labour’s natural support base is set to crumble, I have a feeling it may prove surprisingly durable. One of the main reasons for this is economic - in an economy with a large public sector, there will be a large constituency dependent directly or indirectly on the state. Recent data showing how large a % of regional GDP is created in the public sector in some parts of the UK underlines this. Labour has also worked hard to extend this ‘welfare dependent’ vote in its latest period in office.
I think Labour will remain the best party to appeal to this constituency, notwithstanding the inroads the Lib Dems may have made into the more middle-class end of it. This sets some floor on their level of support, although they remain at risk of losing a large chunk of the key part of their 1997 coalition, the ‘Blair Tories’.
Does this article imply, that Lib Dems might replace Labour as the main centre-left force in the British politics? Then what will happen to the new economic liberalism which is raising its head within the Lib Dems?
Very well written and argued article Tabman. The immediate thought that came to me from your introductory question is “Who do Methodists vote for now?” I realise that in your article you equated them to GMW, but I wonder if they are the same thing? Personally the Methodists (and low church, socially caring, CofE) people that I know are divided almost exactly 3 ways - Hold ones nose and vote Labour, stay at home, or vote Lib Dem; the vote Lib Dem tendancy seems to be very much in the ascendancy though, with people increasingly disillusioned with Labour.
This is a genuinely insightful article that rings true for me. The hardest of the hard Labour vote is starting to splinter now.
Does the analysis of Labour’s support need to consider changes in ethnic minority voting patterns? (I’m particularly thinking of the impact of the Iraq / Afghanistan situation).
Agree with others - an excellent article and excellent comments that followed. Like Sean I would like to see similar analysis on LD and Tory supporters
v. interesting: does this analysis of various groups of voters imply that, if you are middle class and you don’t vote Labour and read the Guardian, you have less/no interest in the general well being of your fellow human beings, by not being “concerned”?
Meanwhile, the Prescott story continues to build - not only are senior colleagues apparently begging Blair not to leave him in charge next month, but some interesting evidence has come to light about how his department tried to squash a rival plan to take over the Dome..thereby helping his fellow Wilberforce fan Mr.Anschutz….(Torygraph today).
With the Conservative Party currently in 30 million of debt, and The Labour Party with similar problems.
Both I presume will be more favourable to state funding of political parties.
If this needs all party agreement, the Lib Dems should hold support until there is a fair voting system of PR.
If that was ever granted Labours century could be over.
However there isn`t a chance in hell of that happening, so as long as the present system is in place, the Labour Party is still in a good position.
Just as I never believed the Conservative Party was finished after 97, the same will apply for Labour after 2010 or 2015.
Just as claims of the Tories imminent collapse and replacement by the LIB Dems were greatly exagerated so claims that Labour will defenestrate itself and be replaced by ( guess who ? ) are unrealistic also.
The collapse in party political engagement may be a more pronounced problem for the left as its sucess is much more wedded to an active participation in democracy - It traditionaly does not have the economic and media resources that the right enjoys.
However you could argue that most of the Left’s objectives were achieved in the last century and Labour therefore has found itself adopting the Con position of defending the status quo, while the right has moved toward the ‘progressive’ position of actively organising to ‘change’ society.
I would argue that as well established mass parties both Lab and Con are here to stay and that that is just as important as any policies. They both have experience of power and Structurally they are inherently more stable and disciplined than the Lib dems .
For example I would point to all three main parties Leadership’s relationships with their members and activists and in particular argue that the LD’s while ‘popular’ with their activist base are actually in a similar position to labour in the early 80’s
Tabman jnr. I wish I could smash this cosy mutual admiration society on your mock A level paper answer. But I agree with the other teachers and regret to say it’s a sound analysis Tabman and much better than your usual contribution in class.
I could have done without the chewing gum on the back of the paper and the other stains look suspiciously teenage in origin. You only lost marks for lack of a bar chart and the use of orange ink was unfortunate. See me later.
Mark : A-
Signed : The Headmaster.
Tabman, good article, but the Conservatives get a very good rural working class vote and also get a slice of the urban working class vote.
That said, I have thought for a while that if we return to two party politics it is most likely going to be Conservatives v Lib Dems.
Agreed. A solid, thoughtfull piece. One thing that jarred a bit: “The Lib Dems may benefit, especially if Civil Liberties issues come to the fore…” Seems to me that Lib Dem credentials on civil liberties are as suspect as the other parties. Genuine civil liveries end where currently fashionable PC hobby-horses begin. The manufactured hunting ‘issue’ is a case in point.
Also, I was surprised at no mention of the potential for an English National backlash against the current devolution settlement and how that might shake down. Seems to me that Labour are in a cleft stick on that one no matter which way you cut it
8. It’s not new, and it’ll stay where it is. Lib Dem social justice, unlike the Labour sort, is perfectly compatible with economic liberalism, which is why said economic liberalism has always been there.
Good article, Tabman. I think there are many ‘religious’ GMWs who take a very long term view, and for whom the very fact that change seems inevitable means it has already occurred in their minds (and ‘change’ means anybody else, it seems, regardless of whether it’s actually more of the same). Only if Blair really does go on and on - for years and years - will they feel cheated. The question is whether they’ll be able to carry things on their own without the rest of the coalition.
[16] Crossland wrote you could argue that most of the Left’s objectives were achieved in the last century - er, why didn’t anyone tell me that economic inequality and insecurity had been abolished?
O/T but I did only dream I saw somewhere that house prices were falling?
Imteresting and thoughtful piece - thanks, tabman. Before commenting more generally, a small factual point that affects the disucssion: Labour membership is now stable at the reduced 200K level and has been for some time. This is roughly evenly divided between the tribally Labour left (Dennis Skinner is a good example - thinks every Labour government too right-wing but rallies round when it counts) and people who are broadly satisfied with Labour’s record (for example, my branch, unprompted by me, voted to endorse the recent Education Bill when it was under criticism). NEC elections mostly reflect that generally even division though I think the left will do well this year.
It’s important to separate long-term trends from current unpopularity: I remember articles in the 80s arguing that Labour was now a coalition of disapppearing manual workers and left-wing ideologues, and would never form a government again. Similarly, there have been suggestions that the Conservatives would never revive, which now look less plausible. Parties generally in the end do what is necessary to “compromise with the electorate”.
However, I do think that the classic quasi-Marxist concept of class-based voting is increasingly inaccurate. DE voters are still predominantly Labour, for good reason, but often disinclined to vote. ABC voters are open to persuasion by all sides, and increasingly unwilling to align themselves for the longer term with any party.
There are a few touchstone issues that still generate a core vote for each party. People who rate patriotism (whether British or English) as their key value normally vote Tory; fighting poverty and increasing overseas aid still are overwhelmingly associated with Labour; the LibDems increasingly get the votes of unideological libertarians (as opposed to the ones who read Ayn Rand and want to abolish tax).
Beyond that, it’s competence, competence, competence. Labour has lost ground partly because of Iraq but also partly because of the perception of serial mistakes. The Tories and LibDems have not yet gained much ground in this area except in some local councils, and the DC ‘I’m a nice chap’ approach is at best neutral in terms of generating a perception of competence. This is GB’s strongest card and may yet prove decisive next time. However, in the long term competence is an apolitical issue and over time each party will have periods where it seems the most competent. Moreover, few people join a political party because they merely think it more competent, so there is a risk of long-term decline both of membership and of committed politicians in all parties. The American model is a possible future (not IMO an attractive one): parties with faint historical associations with left and right but which basically don’t stand for anything and could exchange positions on any issue. When someone like Colin Powell weighs up a political career in the US, he considers which party would offer him the best prospects, rather than thinking instinctively “I’m a Democrat/Republican”. I meet this sort of careerist thinking among some new members and I’m sure the Tories do too (the LDs, being further from power, must see it less). I don’t think either major party will go into long-term decline in this context, but they could gradually mutate into alternative associations of people who’d simply like to be in government. If British politics were already like that, I’d still be peacefully earning double my current salary as an IT manager - if it had just been another career instead of a cause, there was nothing wrong with my old career, so why switch?
Societies get the parties they want and perhaps deserve, and if we are becoming a predominently individualist and consumerist society this is perhaps inevitable. On the other hand, as people get wealthier they also become more idealistic in some ways. Environmentalism and overseas aid are vote-winners in a way that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. To the extent that this increases, it will predominantly benefit Labour and the LibDems as things stand, and I think that Cameron also has an eye to this when he tries to make the Tories seem nicer; it will make it more plausible if he promises to (say) give reduction in pollution priority over tax cuts, which could one day be a popular position.
We’re talking very long-term here. In the next 10-20 years, I think Labour and the Tories will retain a 30% core vote and the remainder will be fought over mainly on the competence issue. But 20-30 years from now, we may see all three parties still in contention, but with more apolitical messages than they still have today. The consolation for those of us with reformist ideals is that this reflects the fact that the worst extremes of poverty and deprivation in Britain have in fact largely disappeared, and if in 20 years nearly everyone is reasonably OK economically (as is already the case in, say, Scandinavia), then it’s reasonable if they no longer feel so strongly that the country needs huge reforms.
I’ve mainly talked about the major parties, but in principle this de-alignment could benefit the LibDems. Their difficulty is that they aren’t really seen as the ‘competent middle ground’ of Jo Grimond, but as angry insurgents some way from power. That’s a good position for by-elections, but strategically they may need more Ming Campbells and Vince Cables to put themselves in contention as a serious alternative government: if one of the major party hits a 1983/1997-style shipwreck, that could give them their chance.
9 Lennon. I’ve tried to dig out the research on voting patterns and religeon, but so far the usual suspects haven’t coughed it up.
The Liberals of course owed much of their success in the late 19th century and early 20th to the non conformist vote. Indeed after WWII the pockets of Liberal support were Free Church strongholds in the Celtic fringe.
Anyone have any news from yesterday’s local by-elections?
21 - O/T but I did only dream I saw somewhere that house prices were falling?
I hope you don’t dream about the Daily Mail, IA
25 book value. Or worse the Diana Express !
[25] Nope - it’s here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5153140.stm
24 - Not yet Iain but as there is no Labour candidate in 3 of the 4 including one where they won the ward last year perhaps there is more than a grain of truth in Tabman’s article .
I can only assume that particularly incidence is one almightly cock-up.
Probably the best article I’ve read on here, thanks for the time and effort that went into it. As an ex labour member (well, twenty years ago) it rings very true as regards the uneasy coalition and how it may react.
There is, of course, no way of knowing which way the cards are going to fall but that’s the fascination of politics. One thing could blow any presumptions out of the water. A ‘white knuckle ride’ is probably not short of the mark.
21: House prices fell in the latest report after surging in the previous one. No clear trend at the moment, and there are arguments, too O/T to repeat here, for either a resumption of the rapid rise or a long period of stagnation.
I think the Liberal Democrats’ emergence as the main challengers in many of our urban areas is more to do with organisation and perception of potential success than any great identification with the LibDems.
Compare Manchester (strong LD organisation, Conservatives struggling) with here in next-door Salford (weaker LD organisation, Conservatives a clear second in vote share with 30% plus).
O/T: British support for the EU surges:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1164557.ece
Even as a long-standing Europhile, I must admit to some surprise! But as the article says, it’s probably a recovery from the depths explored after the referendum in France.
You might also ask simply whether there’s still much demand for a socialist party and, if so, whether that demand will last long. Labour tried to change, with a good deal of apparent success, but that was more because Blair was in the right place at the right time. The result is a party that continues to behave in very socialist ways (authoritarian, centralist). With less underlying - and intellectual - demand for a socialist party continues to weaken, how long can it be kept up?
34. sorry, I meant to say ‘If underlying…’ not ‘with less’.
Valerie you may have a point. Socialism is dead as a political ideology here, and Labour moved to the right but retaining their less pleasant aspects.
However quite a bit of the party will want to move them back there and it will be interesting to see what happens.
Valerie, if socialism were simply authoritarian and centralising then your implied conclusion would follow. But that is only one kind of socialism - although admittedly the kind that Labour politicians (or those few of them who are socialists) in office get seduced by. It’s those wicked civil servants, you know…
Re. house prices - three successive subdued monthly rises on the Nationwide measure, on the Halifax measure a marginal rise in May followed by a steep fall in June. These are the main two surveys, though there are a host of less important ones. It certainly seems from them that things have cooled off a bit in the last couple of months after a healthy start to the year, probably in reaction to rising long-term interest rates. I’m not sure we can say much more than that, though.
RESULT OF THE BY-ELECTION FOR THE LYDDEN VALE WARD OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL
The by-election for the Lydden Vale Ward of the District Council took place on Thursday, 6 July 2006, the result was as follows:-
David Charles Thomas Fox - Liberal Democrat 429 Elected
Ian Johns - The Conservative Party Candidate 324
39. This was in North Dorset DC
House prices falling in Nottingham - because of overbuilding - too many flats in old mills and high crime rates.
Thanks Tabman and Nick - will try and coment further this afternoon - when am at work! I find Gordon Brown an enigma. He has given massive and under appreciated (both by the recipients and us concerned middle income types) help to low wage earners but his treasury managerial efforts seem to have undermined the core economy. He has boosted public spending (hence the lift in the economy) on Health, Education and Defence but the outcomes are at best patchy.
39 - Do you have the previous result?
I never believe any house price surveys. Ones done by lenders generally survey the initial asking price of instructions, not the eventual sale price. At least they weight them. The RICS base it on the valuations, usually the same as the price accepted, but do not weight them, and this approach will often leave out cash buyers - eg. the very rich and those trading down. Not sure about the government’s own index - it may be the most trustworthy. None of these indices headline figures give any idea of the fluidity of the market.
I live in Reading, and for many sorts of houses, there has been no increase for about 3 years. Anecdotally, in our road, there is nothing for sale, but many extensions, garage conversions and so on going on. The buy to let market is dead too; whilst house prices increased rapidly here from 1998 to 2003, there has been no great shift in the cost of renting for 8 years.
There was a report in the FT (I think) about six months ago, saying it was likely there would be no real increase in property prices for about 20 years. A little harsh, I think, but not too far wide of the mark.
There are an increasing number of borrowers who have interest only mortgages, but no capital repayment vehicle. This will have an effect in the long term, and will baby boomers selling their houses to pay nursing home fees.
Of course, any mortgage lender or estate agent will tell you different…
“and will baby boomers” should read “as will baby boomers”
42. Not yet. I will post a full list of all results, vote shares & changes as soon as ALDC have them up at http://www.aldc.org
42 - the previous Councillor for Lydden Vale was an Independent who garnered over 75% of the vote last time. So it is a Liberal Democrat gain from Independent, but almost impossible to draw any wider significance without being on the ground there.
39/42 As my post yesterday 2003 result was IND ( disqualified ) 491 CON 94 LDEM 62 so LDem gain from Ind
Another result from which we can deduce litlle :-
Lincolnshire CC Bourne Castle Con hold
2005 CON ( disqualified ) 1979 LAB 1131 LDEM 1093
Yesterday CON 657 No Party Desc 435 LDEM 255 UKIP 127
33. Thanks - interesting. It seems to have gone up in a large number of other countries, too, with the only countries to see falls, or increases in opposition, being Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal. The Netherlands are on 74% (increase).
The survey is here(table is on p. 11)http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb65/eb65_first_en.pdf
37. What are the other kinds of socialism? (and have they ever been successfully practised?)
Thanks Tabman - a very interesting piece indeed. I am equally impressed by Nick’s thoughtful contribution at (22), and the quality of response in general. In such circumstances, I hesitate to contribute my own humble views, However, as “Devil’s Advocate”, let me put a couple of reasons why I think Labour will NOT decline.
Firstly, we cannot tell what sort of constitution we will have in the future, and what voting system. Someone mentioned PR earlier. If this were to come in then ALL parties would implode into very different groupings of right/left/special interests. It happens practically everywhere where PR is in force. (Even Scotland
) Amongst these, there is always a strong conservative and Labour/Social Democrat party.
Secondly, the present level of material affluence will not continue - with profound implications for us all.
(a) The issue of ‘Peak Oil’ has been discussed at length on this site. Some people are in denial - but then some people still think that the Earth is flat, or that John Prescott is an honourable politician. The coming oil shortage will dampen the world economy into a dull recession which will take us years to escape from (if ever).
(b) The great growth economies of the East led by China and India will continue to dominate manufacturing and start to compete with us head-on with all of the other services in which we in the West still currently have an edge (IT, Research, Banking, etc)
The cumulative effect of all this will be large structural unemployment, and much lower living standards.
Quite simply people won’t like this, and will turn towards a left-wing (Labour) solution of redistribution of wealth.
It could be that Labour’s golden age is only just beginning.
DISCLAIMER. I am not a cheerleader for the Labour Party (or any other party) - whatever the good people on this site might think of anyone who does not automatically talk Labour down
Nonetheless a bit suprising that LDs winning anywhere called Vale in North Dorset… it tends to be the towns that lean to the LDs in the West Country.
OT. The fallout from the Tories wretched foray into the WLQ continues as they scrap an Opposition day debate on the issue next week amid reports that Dunky Dinky is off Cameroon’s Christmas card list :
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/65487.html
Are there any countries in Europe without a left leaning party? For the same reason i always believed the need for a right-wing party made the disappearance of the Tories most unlikely If they ceased to exist (under IDS for example someone would have had to (re)invent them. Whether the Lib Dems will survive when the other two parties become really competative is a more salient question. If you believe that them to be a lazy option for those who can’t make up their mind which government they want then a close contest could see them seriously squeezed.
53 - So ostrich-like Cameron thinks that burying his head in the sand will disguise the fact that the Conservatives are split between the Little Englander faction and the old Unionist faction .
religion and voting preference - as i remember, in ball park terms, it goes like this:
- Minority religions favour Labour with a big majority
- Catholics vote heavily for Labour
- Secular/Atheist voters strong preference for Labour, Lib Dems do very well with this group and the tories very badly
- Protestants still vote in the majority for the tories, even during labour’s landslide years.
Haven’t ever seen anything that breaks down the proddie vote any further.
“Protestants still vote in the majority for the tories” - do you really mean over 50%?
Re. 51, indeed, it’s possible to see the parties re-coalescing in the following fashion:
a) Cameroons and Portillistas join up with Orange Book LDs to form a party rather like Eire’s Progressive Democrats
b) Cornerstone and UKIP
c) Campaign Group and Compass with left-wing of LDs
A very good article by Tabman. What was worrying for Labour in the local elections was the UWC going to the BNP in Barking & Dagenham, and the AWC deserting to the Tories in places such as Ealing. The Concerned Middle Class, meanwhile, had left Labour in droves at last May’s GE (accounting for notable LD gains in Hornsey & Wood Green and Manchester Withington).
2 policy announcements both flops. This could show that Cameron is still a novice when politics moves to the serious stuff or it could show that the Tories are serial mavericks who can’t be disciplined as they have been since Maggie was forced out.
54 - Roger - what about Ireland? I’ve never really understood Irish politics, but it seems to be dominated by two virtually indistinguishable parties of just right of centre. They have a Labour Party, but they seem a distant third.
If anyone has any knowledge of this area, I would be very interested in an explanation. A future guest piece from somebody?
For what it’s worth, I can’t see Labour declining much further. There is still a hard core who believe in socialism, and, less trumpeted but just as strong, a hard core who believe in New Labour’s soft-left managerialism.
Just because people don’t have extreme opinions doesn’t mean they don’t have firm convictions.
Great piece Tabman. My only quibble would be the that the UWC in traditional areas can still have the same visceral anti-Tory mindset as any Guardian reader . As an example, many of my family live in Makerfield constituency (former pit villages around Wigan). If you look at the demographics, it has decent levels of homeownership, low unemployment, few large council estates, and hardly any ethnic minorities. It also remains one of the safest Labour seats in the country, in part because many people still feel in their gut that they are born and bred Labour and that the Tories are for other people. The one thing that the smaller parties give is the ability to express displeasure with “The Labour” without having to vote Tory. Thankfully in Makerfield it has been Community Action rather than the BNP who have benefited at the local level.
The one election result that really struck me in recent years was neighbouring St Helens, where Labour flagrently took the mickey out of the UWC Labour voters by forcing a millionaire former Tory MP (Woodward) who had never even been to St Helens as the Labour candidate, and he still got in with a safe (albeit reduced) majority despite a good LibDem local candidate.
57 - majority in the fptp sense
There are some interesting MORI tables in this article:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01030
OT. The Tories having got their credit card statement in todays post find themselves the odd copper over their spending limit :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2259692,00.html
54. Neither of Ireland’s leading political parties could be called left-leaning, though Fianna Fáil certainly win more working-class support than Fine Gael.
That said, when put together Labour, the Green and Sinn Féin are polling at around 28pc, which is as high as Fine Gael and means that at least one and possibly two of them will be needed to form a new coalition next year.
48 Apparently the No Party Description candidate was the Labour candidate . The swing in his favour from the Conservatives was possibly due to this and the disqualification of the Conservative councillor and former leader of the council by the standards commision
Cookie. i just believe that there are at least 30% of the UK population that will always identify themselves as “left” and Labour has that tag. In the same way that in contests in far of lands about which posters on here no nothing, Tory supporters always cheer on the “Right-Wing”candidate
65 - in the circumstances I’d mark that down as a good solid hold.
Other results from yesterday
Kings Lynn/West Norfolk DC Hunstanton Con Hold Con 908 Lab 727 - 2003 result Con 1371/1110/1069 Lab 1020/841/725 Ind 933
Boston DC Fishtoft Con Hold Con 495 LDem 428 UKIP 184 - 2005 Byelection Lab 316 LDem 310 Con 254 UKIP 75
Halton DC Castlefields Lab Hold Lab 359 LDem 345 Ind 87 Con 52 - This May Lab 448 LDem 332 Ind 156 Ind 122 Con 105
Don’t know where the last byelection came from LOL
60 - “what about Ireland? I’ve never really understood Irish politics, but it seems to be dominated by two virtually indistinguishable parties of just right of centre.”
I think Irish politics is still based on whose side your (great-)grandparents were on in the civil war. Wikipedia gives FF’s ideology as “Irish nationalism, Conservatism, Republicanism, Populism”, and FG’s as “Christian Democracy, Conservatism”. Doesn’t really help, as I always thought that FG were just a bit more socially and economically liberal.
FG tend to side with Labour these days, but does that make them left wing?
Don’t get fooled into thinking that Mrs T’s warmer relationship with FG meant that FG were more Thatcherite; I think it was because FG were less nationalistic.
68 Mark. Thanks for digging those results out. Even with the usual caveats not sure we may read too much into the results.
54. Poland doesn’t have a strong traditional left-wing party at the moment. You’ve got a conservative populist/nationalist and not very economically-liberal party in government with even more nationalist and statist partners, and the main opposition party a liberal economic party. The Democratic Left party only got 11% of the vote.
68. A bit of a scare for Labour in Halton, where, in a piece of intra-family political divergence, my uncle was the Labour candidate! Thanks for letting me know the result - I must call and congratulate him!
69 - Thanks for that SBS - fascinating. What a strange polity Ireland is.
66 - canb’t disagree with that too much Roger.
66, 69 - I guess what both of these illustrate is the extent to which politics is still tribal - even when you’re not born into the tribe. It’s surprising the extent to which even amongst politically quite sophisticated people, gut politics are a starting point for opinions and arguments, when all logic dictates it should be the other way around.
I seem to recall that the non-conformist vote is very strong for lib dems.
Mark, are the figures right for the Boston DC result? labour seemed to have the most votes last time with your figures.
71 - some of the Samoobrona MEPs sit in the PES, don’t they?
71. Yes (isn’t it all of them?)
76. no, sorry, only one of them (as far as I can count).
Only a couple according to Wikipedia (but you may be more up to date!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoobrona#Members_of_European_Parliament
OT. Peter Riddell in “The Times” gives the Lib Dems emerging tax policies two cheers :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2259693,00.html
77. I can’t count. Two sit with the Socialists, the other four are non-attached.
What’s the real-time weather like for that byelection/match/race?:
http://www.wunderground.com/stationmaps/gmap.asp?zip=00000&magic=1&wmo=03791
75. Book Value - yes. Strange how there is apparently no problem with Labour MEPs being in the same group as them, isn’t it? But then I suppose your leader making anti-semitic remarks and praising Hitler’s economic policies shouldn’t be any bar to membership of the international socialist brotherhood.
82 - indeed: surprised not to have heard that from more Tories re the EPP debate.
HUGE BREAKING POLITICAL NEWS !!
Our Valiant Viscount Steps In Where Others Fear To Tread !!
…………………………………………………..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2259693,00.html
84 - Think that might be the wrong link Jack - you’ve just posted the Peter Riddell article again
Sorry
link is :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2259800,00.html
Yup, add my voice to the swelling chorus - a well-observed article, Tabman.
I think Labour (and the Tories, to a lesser extent) are following the same route as the Anglican church in its long twilight. Back in 1900 there were lots of different classes of people who went to church: the middle classes for social reasons, the rural poor for deference reasons, intellectuals for cultural reasons, etc. But over the decades they have all peeled off, finding fewer and fewer reasons to show up on Sunday.
Of course the church (i.e. Labour) will never die out completely, there might even be mild flurries of renewal from time to time. But for most people the serious faith has gone: only the reflex respect for a venerable old institution now remains.
And where have the believers gone? People these days tend to have a private faith, if they have a faith at all. And people who do, still, really care about their religion, often opt for new niche faiths - New Age stuff, Buddhism, Mormonism, happy clappy protestant sects, etc.
Similarly in politics, people have either stopped voting - or they vote for smaller parties that suit them best on single issues.
Natch, the same thing has happened and will happen to the Tories. However I don’t think this will be quite as drastic a decine, simply because the Tories’ core vote is bigger than Labour - maybe 30% over 20%. And this is because the Tories’ basic values - individualism, consumerism, capitalism, are slightly better suited to the coming age….
85 Lennon. Cunning plan to make posters read it again.
The Lib Dems are coming under fire for their plan to limit tax relief on pensions for higher rate tax payers. However, it is ludicrous at present that to put £100 into a pension, a basis rate taxpayer needs to chip in £78, but a higher rate taxpayer £60. Generally speaking, the higher rate taxpayers need less incentive to save for their retirement as they are probably already doing it.
Personally I would favour a flat rate of tax relief on pensions - at say 25-30%. This would then be coupled with a flat rate on pension income at the same level.
Cable and Campbell continue to come up with interesting ideas on tax.
87. “…the Tories’ basic values - individualism, consumerism, capitalism, are slightly better suited to the coming age.”
I agree that these values appear to be the dominant ones of the CURRENT age, but this is because of the current high standard of living.
There is NO guarantee that this will continue (see my post at 51).
If we hit a period like the 1930’s Depression in the West (and I’m beginning to feel like Cassandra, but I think that we will), then the beneficiaries will be Labour, IF WE ARE LUCKY. If we are not lucky, well, we all know the routes that some countries took in the 1930’s.
Latest GE odds on B/f - some movement in recent days
Most Seats
Lab 2.08
Cons 1.95
LD 60 (£1,630 matched (!)- some people have more money than brains)
On the majority market
NOM 2.38 (was at nearly 2 some weeks ago)
Cons 3.25 (was over 4)
Lab 3.45 (and rising)
Thanks to Billy at 62 for the very interesting link on religious voting groups. There is a division among “other religions” - Muslims are traditionally Labour but now divided between Lab, LD and Respect (and a few Tories and specialist parties), for familiar reasons. Hindus and especially Sikhs tend to be part of the bedrock Labour vote, as do West Indian voters, who I guess are generally in the Protestant group. When I was canvassing in Colliers Wood, Merton, which looked so likely to go Green, it was partly the rock-solid ethnic vote which saved us.
Conversely, fundamentalist Protestant Christians tend to be instinctively suspicious of Labour, because of the (correct) perception that we are not against homosexuality and generally relaxed about Islam. But they are often strong-minded people who don’t readily fit any British party - e.g. I have a local Daily Mail-reading evangelical preacher who thinks homsexuality a serious sin, worries about the ‘Papist-dominated’ EU, but wants to see a big rise in tax to pay for a huge increase in overseas aid. He tells me he scratched his head in 2005 and voted for me as the least evil: although a pro-EU Islam-tolerating atheist I was sound on world poverty. It’s increasingly important to know people individually and identify things one can agree about.
89. Great idea - should push even more people into means testing - I do despair at the Statler and Waldorf show…
84. Skimping on boots, eh? Typical.
If anyone fancies a little lunchtime escapism, I suggest they search Google Images for ‘Rhiconich’.
87 - Always enjoy a good analogy, Sean. To extend it further -
People didn’t just go to church for the reasons you mentioned, they went because - incredible as it seems now - they believed in God. They went to chuch because that was so self-evidently the Right Thing To Do that it was given little analysis.
In the same way, there were people who Truly Believed in Socialism.
Now, as more and more empirical evidence has made religion seem redundant, so has been the case with socialism - fewer people Really Believe in state ownership of the means of production, etc… as it so demonstrably didn’t work.
Conservatism doesn’t suffer in quite the same way, because few people held the ideology (inasmuch as Conservatism is an ideology) with the same conviction.
93 - no it won’t.
89. You might equally say it is odd that people earning what are now quite modest amounts are taxed at a marginal rate of 40%. Still if you really want to iron out all these anomalies, you could go for a flat income tax.
74 ALDC always compare hold or gain with same ward fought last time but give figures of the most recent election for any seat in that ward. I’m guessing the last time the actual seat itself was fought was a Tory win but last time there was any election, it was a Lab win.
98 - Thanks. Seems pretty strange to call a seat that has been gained a hold though, almost as though the pesky loss never happened in the first place……
Fred @ 97 - alternatively increase the threshold above which the 40& rate kicks in.
Hang on … that’s exactly what the Lib Dems are proposing
At the time of the 1983 election, similar analyses were being made about Labour. I recall the SDP/Liberal Alliance stating it was their aim to overtake Labour as the main opposition. Even though it was the moment of the Conservative zenith, I knew even then that there was more chance(albeit a very small chance) of them overtaking the Conservatives…
The favourable distribution of the Labour vote is such that under FPTP, Labour will always be either the Government or the main Opposition. The Conservative and Lib Dem vote are structured more similarly, and the moment when the Lib Dems could have replaced the Tories was 1997 or 2001. Had the vote shares between these two been analogous to the relative standing of the Alliance and Labour in 1983, the Lib Dems would have come close to doing so.
For the time being that opportunity seems to have passed, although I don’t believe the Tories have any chance of forming a government at the next election. My bet is still on Labour, quite possibly with a working majority. The next Labour leader( whoever he or she is) will gain a bounce and the weakness of the Tories will be more apparent. The only way I can see a Labour collapse, is a simultaneous disaster on all fronts: to the SNP in Scotland, to Respect in Muslim areas, to the Lib Dems in Liverpool and Manchester, and to People’s Choice in the Welsh Valleys…. Unlikely.
Party loyalties are very strong and long-lasting. I well remember a study done (by I think Michael Steed) of the 1970 General Election. Focusing on very elderly voters(over-80s) he made the somewhat surprising discovery that the Liberals were by far the most popular party, with Labour a very poor third. The reason being that when those elderly people cast their first ballots sixty years earlier, those were the relative standings of the three parties…..
Late lunch - only just looked at the site. Excellent piece Tabman.
I may post an opinion when I’ve mused a little longer…
P.S. Don’t forget Liberal Views.
Going back to Richard’s post at 58, if we did get a party of Portilistas and Cameroons, would they be Cameratilla’s pr Portaloons?
On another note, in the survey on my blog, 100% of respondents said my blog “makes me think”, and before any casts aspersions, it was not me who voted!
98 True - Labour gained a seat in the ward from the Conservatives last July ( the tutnout was very low ) but failed to put up a candidate at all this time .
104 but it was a Conservative hold as the election was to replace the 2nd Conservative councillor elected in 2003 .
A very good article Tabbers although I’m not sure the outlook is quite so bleak for Labour.
It does seem that there vote is holding up well in the North even though they seem to be doing rather worse in the South and Midlands. And it does appear there are probably at least 175-200 Labour seats that are extremely safe and won’t be lost even in the long term. It also has to be considered that despite all the recent bad publicity they don’t look in much danger of sliding into the sub-30% range which is where we were not so very long ago. I certainly don’t think they are in as bad a position as we were from 1997-2005. So I’m afraid the party may still continue for another 100 years!
97 - I have had a good look at flat tax. Nice idea, and good for emerging democracies like Russia, where tax collection from the rich has been a problem. Really not convinced it would work here.
What ever happened to the old Lib Dem policy of integrating tax and national insurance? I expect it to be unearthed soon again to much song and dance.
“If we hit a period like the 1930’s Depression in the West (and I’m beginning to feel like Cassandra, but I think that we will), then the beneficiaries will be Labour, IF WE ARE LUCKY. If we are not lucky, well, we all know the routes that some countries took in the 1930’s”
In really hard times, people tend to shift rightwards, rather than leftwards. If our economy were to collapse, then I imagine that the beneficiary would be an authoritarian party of the right, rather than a left wing party. Such a party might adopt a number of economic policicies that would today be regarded as left wing, such as protectionism, but it would not be a left wing party.
RE 108, Sean you mean like what actually DID happen in the thirties?
107. It certainly has particular advantages in jurisdictions like that, where historical yields from income tax have been very weak. The flat rate can be set quite low then, and you still normally get improved revenues. In the UK there is a problem because the higher rate tax payers actually cough up a very big share of the total yield from income tax..so the flat rate would have to be rather higher than Russia, Slovakia etc.
109 - Funny how National Socialists are always portrayed as being “right wing” - in actual fact their economic policies were incredibly “left wing”
110 - Yes, that’s right. America provides a counter argument, but most of Europe (including the UK) shifted rightwards in the depression.
In such a situation people are likely to want strong government, be furious with people who are perceived to be sponging off the welfare state, be fearful of foreigners, be desperate to retain whatever property or savings they have, and be reluctant to give a hard time to the businessmen who are essential to get the economy moving again.
107. It’s also worked fine in countries with levels of tax collection closer to ours. You can’t condemn a flat tax on the basis of a comparison with Russia.
I don’t think it’s an idea to be implemented uncritically. Still, what the Lib Dems are proposing is a significantly flatter tax structure than at present.
RE 111, I was thinking of here, not there. But I agree with you that Nazi’s seem fundamentaly left rather than right.
The Nazis’ economic policies were corporatist, and involved a heavy measure of state intervention, but not left wing per se, IMO. They weren’t interested in redistributing wealth, but rather in preparing the economy for war.
108 Sean. “If our economy were to collapse, then I imagine that the beneficiary would be an authoritarian party of the right….”
Another landslide for NuLabour then !!
21 - innocent abroad
“[16] Crossland wrote you could argue that most of the Left’s objectives were achieved in the last century - er, why didn’t anyone tell me that economic inequality and insecurity had been abolished? ”
Sorry for taking so long,
I was thinking of the working class aspect that has its roots in Chartism and the trade union movevement and struggled for 100 - 150 years to gain its chief concerns around representation,universal suffrage, union recognition and ‘mutual aid’ which reached its end point in the formation of the welfare state.
Historians such as Eric Hobsbawn put forward the sucess of the above as one reason for the decline of social democracy across Europe From the 70’s onward and the curious switch between ‘radical change’ and ‘defending the Status Quo’ that occured between left and right in the 80s onward.
15. ‘Siege economy’ would be the best description I think, Sean. Ferocious exchange controls, a lot of state direction of industry(if not actual state ownership), strict price, wage and import controls and very loose fiscal policy.
So similar in many ways to what the Labour-allied Cambridge Economic Policy Group were suggesting for the UK in the late 1970s and early 1980s. To be fair the Cambridge lads did baulk at the idea of using slave labour, though.
103 Re Survey. I cannot tell a lie Benedict. I am that man.
With regard to politics in the Republic of Ireland, I believe it was best summarised by Dr Garret Fitzgerald, who called it a “necrocracy”, that is, government by the dead (i.e. which side a candidate’s grandfather was on in 1922 mattered far more than his/her views on policy matters.
110. You can’t compare Slovakia and Russia on that count.
Slovakia’s shadow economy was 18.3% in 2000/1, Russia’s was 45.1. The UK’s was 12.5% (according to one of the best studies, done before either Slovakia or Russia adopted a flat tax - http://www.csd.bg/fileSrc.php?id=10337)
So, although it’s difficult to get good figures for this sort of thing, Slovakia’s is (was) closer to the UK’s than Russia’s.
Re 119, Gladstone, thank you very much for the kind vote!
I hope to be able to “make people think” even if they don’t agree with me.
I agree with Sean F, et al. If there were a collapse in the world economy, with concomitant social turmoil in the West, I do not for a minute think the European nations would swing left. If only for this reason - the first people to get the blame would be recent immigrants, or even not-so-recent immigrants.
This is practically a universal law of human behaviour - When in trouble, blame the outsider. It’s also a sensible if unsavoury reaction in a way. It means you preserve the cohesion of the nation (or tribe) in the midst of troubles.
As a result, if we hit a Depression (or worse) I think the people would almost certainly elect a hardline anti-foreigner, end-all-immigration party, which would (presumably) be on the right.
Immigration is already a hot topic in this time of relative plenty…
63 >>>>. Tories deny “The Times” story that Smith Square is to hold the mother of all car boot sales ……. Jack W bags the door case and fireplaces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5157566.stm
113 - I certainly would not rule flat tax out. (It’s a bit like nuclear power, in that it may well be the way forward - but I need to know more first.)
I recall Richard Teather on Radio 4 a few months ago stating how wonderful it was, and that everybody, yes everybody, would pay less tax… provided it was coupled with massive cuts in public expenditure.
I do like the idea of flat tax, but I feel that its introduction, with an increase in the nil rate band, would have to hit somebody - probably in the middle - fairly hard.
From my simplistic point of view the problem with a flat tax is that those earning squillions are BOUND to benefit so those earning less will have to pay more. The saving on collection I’m told is neither here nor there though accountants might go through a bad time.
20 - Garret Fitzgerald himself is probably one of the best examples of that. One of the most highly regarded statesmen and political leaders Ireland has produced in the last 50 years, yet consistently beaten by elections by a scandal ridden, populist, machine politician like Charles Haughey.
123. Isee. . . you think that we’ll stop being forward looking investors in future technology