Is Danny Finkelstein right?

alexanderbaker Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:53:42 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Danny Finkelstein argues in the Times that the Tory Toff campaign in Crewe and Nantwich is the final nail in the coffin for New Labour. But is he right, and does it matter?



Unfortunately, I suspect the answer might be yes to both questions (and as someone who rarely if ever agrees with anything Finkelstein writes, this is personally gutting).
 
The trouble with this change in strategy is not what is lost (for it may be that a move away from New Labour is needed), but what replaces it. And it doesn't appear that what is replacing it is all that appealing.

Finkelstein is right in suggesting that the Labour campaign in Crewe and Nantwich says more about Labour than it does about the Conservatives:

Voters do not use Labour's campaign to help them to understand the Tory party. They understand that one party isn't likely to give them an honest picture of the other. They use Labour's campaign to help them to understand the Labour Party. And what the Crewe campaign is doing is signalling that Tony Blair's Labour Party is dead and another, much less attractive, organisation has replaced it.

I was attracted to the Labour party not because of its ability to slag off the opposition (although, admittedly, it has in recent years been fairly good at that), but because of its ability to speak positively to the aspirations of the electorate; to share in their concerns and work constructively towards improving society for all, irrespective of background.

So I personally find the Crewe and Nantwich campaign to be deeply disappointing; it is both misjudged and misguided.

Yet it is also symptomatic of a deeper malaise within Labour party politics at the minute - there is little narrative to accompany policy proposals or to explain what the party is for.

If all the current Labour government believes in is staying in power at all costs, then I for one am no longer interested. And if they don't, then they need to do better in demonstrating this.

Deep down I still believe that our current team of Cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, have the ability to turn things round; to lead the way in continuining to make Britain a better place to live and work.

Tony Blair once said that "Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile."

If things don't change rapidly, then soon Labour will have neither.


tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Is Danny Finkelstein right? | 11 comments (11 topical)

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#1)

by Prbo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:52:26 PM GMT

Alex makes some interesting and powerful points.  My opinion, for what it's worth, is that through the 10p tax fiasco Labour have made things impossible for themselves.

In 1997, the middle ground deserted the Tories.  No undecided voter would have been able to say that they offered the best way of governing, and the Tories duly lost.  However, they still had their core vote.  Even this doesn't seem to be the case for Labour at the moment.

The 10p tax issue hasn't alienated the middle classes who swing between the parties at general elections - it's alienated the core vote who always vote labour.  Even if that means that they stay at home at elections, rather than vote for anyone else, it means that the party can't even rely on its core vote.  To me, that is the most worrying thing for Labour.


Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#2)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM GMT

I agree with him. I think the problem now is that collapse of hegemony that Finkelstein speaks of has managed to smash into the core vote too, causing them to stay at home, or even vote Tory as some of the "Core vote" have been saying in C&N. Like it or lump it the Labour policies they're attempting to employ here are not going to work, and I sincerely doubt that whatever the guys come up with for a proper General Election isn't going to work. It's just going to look either desperate or clutching at straws. There's been too many calamities to bring back the fortunes now, the collapse has been horrific and near total.

 
Personally I think the problem here can be seen within the actual structure of the party: The Union, MPs and Party Members are all 3 powerful and constantly competeing blocs of power. The fact that your leader cannot be easily changed may be another factor.

The Unions now seem to be holding too much sway and power over New Labour and this is turning off a number of people from the middle classes and even the Working Class. Party members and activists seem to have too little say and their numbers have dwindled accordingly, further diminishing even the core vote. MPs still have some say, but cannot seem to find enough unity to either support Mr Brown, or kick him out.

Mr Speaker, a former Labour man probably hasn't helped preceedings either, being mired in controversy over claims and attempting to bloc the publishing of expenses at huge cost to the tax payer [£100,000, to be precise.] 

Especially when compared to Baroness Boothroyd, a woman I have an awful lot of respect for as Speaker.

Fact is, the New Labour project is dead. The problem now is, with the Tories at 47% and even the Lib Dems now beginning to chew into Labour's ratings according to the ICM poll for the Guardian at 22% with the possibility of rising more should Clegg start really chewing on the positive Labour Policies and take from both sides....

The question now is, will its death take Labour down with it? 


Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#3)

by e10rifles on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:09:11 PM GMT

"The Unions now seem to be holding too much sway and power over New Labour and this is turning off a number of people from the middle classes and even the Working Class."

That is the funniest, and stupidest, thing I have read on here in a couple of weeks.

Congratulations.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#4)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:17:56 PM GMT

So can you explain the way in which said Unions are currently the last of the major Labour Bankrollers and according to several newspapers are all that's left in stopping Labour going bankrupt?

 Or the large meeting between Union Bosses and Brown that took place earlier this year at Downing Street?

Like I said, it's "in my view" you just say it's stupid, then provide no actual evidence pointing to the contrary, so for now I shall just shrug and assume that what I am reading in the papers and from various other sources [such as my Grandfather, a Labour Party Activist and lifelong mener] is presently the truth.

Infact this seems to be a bad habit of yours e10rifles, you snap and snarl at my posts and then never reply, when you're challenged you simply vanish into the ether.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#5)

by jkitleft on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:31:15 PM GMT

for once I agree with e10.

People aren't turned off by the unions, the public are moving towards the left (except Labour doesn't realise it). The 10p tax fiasco would not have been as contraversial 5 years ago, nor would private equity, non-doms, or the uber-rich.

I don't think people give much attention to the unions. The unions have always financed Labour, but it doesn't prove that they control Labour. If this were true, then Labour would be shifting dramatically to the left now. Second, why does a meeting prove anything? The Toris have had to negotiate with union bosses, so why shouldn't a Labour government?


I just don't see any substantial proof, that the public don't trust Labour because of the unions, nor that the unions are controlling the party's policy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#6)

by AngryVoter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:50:57 PM GMT

See, now I can hold my hand up and admit I was wrong, thank you for actually talking about it instead of a simple snub of a comment with no substance behind it. I just do feel that the Party's "3 elements" can be the problem, and in my perception it could be the weakening of one, that sees rise to another. I felt that it could have been older militant-like Unions that could be yanking the odd string. "Bit of class warfare would go down a treat in a traditional seat like Crewe"


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#8)

by alexhilton on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM GMT

I'm very disappointed with all the class warfare stuff. I don't believe there's a need for friction between classes. what we need is for a war on the class system itself, which is just another name for entrenched privilege and intransigent deprivation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#10)

by Prbo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:06:40 AM GMT

Agree with your premise on this Alex.  However, what do we mean by the class system?  I'm not quite sure what I understand by it - I don't think being 'posh' or having been to a private school is anything to do with class.  So, when you talk about entrenched privilege, to what are you specifically referring?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#11)

by jkitleft on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM GMT

Well thankyou for being so polite in debate. To be honest, I understand many of your concerns. To an extent, yes I do worry about the level of taxation on fuel, whilst we have no coherent energy independence, as it disproportionally hits the poorer. As CJ Cregg puts it in the West Wing, when the President calls for calmness during an economic blip, "It's like those President who are so out of touch, that they don't know what the price of milk is. Sir, do you know what the price of milk is?" So PM Brown, for your benefit, a litre of semi-skimmed milk is 90p, but 1.5 litres is £1.40 where I live.


I think if we coulp prove say, fuel duty was going towards a coherent clean energy policy, then it would not be as contraversial. But atm, it looks like to the ordinary voters, that the money isn't going towards anything.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#9)

by e10rifles on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM GMT

Don't know what you're talking about on other posts but I'm back on this one.

You content that the unions have too much power and control over New Labour.

Can you quantify this? Yes, the unions have ALWAYS provided a large amount of Labour Party money but they have never had less influence on policy. The government has reneged on most of the deals it made at Warwick before the last election and the leaders of the major unions see it as more their job to keep Labour in power than to get policies enacted by Labour for their members.

This may be one of the reasons that a smaller, more militant, un-affiliated union like the RMT is the fastest-growing union in Britain at the moment. TOo many union members see NOTHING in return for their affiliation to Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is Danny Finkelstein right? (#7)

by snowflake5 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:43:38 PM GMT

I don't think finklestein is right. I think the toff thing does resonate - but only in very special circumstances. Labour's problem is that they've gone for a scattergun approach and have focused on the wrong things - eg top hats and tails rather than issues of substance.

coincidently, I did a blog post explaining why it had gone wrong and in which circumstances we can get it right. you can read the post here. The main issue in my opinion is that the public has the wrong idea and image of the Labour party. Once we correct our image, then things will change.


Is Danny Finkelstein right? | 11 comments (11 topical)