COMPASS: Lessons for Labour after Crewe & Nantwich

Though Labour's loss of Crewe and Nantwich is a blow for Labour and an unwelcome boost for the Conservatives, it hardly represents a surprise. The Brown government's serial mistakes - most notably, the recent watershed abolition of the 10p tax band - and failure to develop a convincing political narrative were always going to make success difficult, but the death blow to the party's chances was delivered by an inept, negative and poisonous campaign.

Previous byelections have found the party ill-advisedly demonising its opponents, speaking the crass language of authoritarianism and clumsily trying to close down the issue of immigration, but Crewe represented a new low.

Labour needs to have a long-overdue look at issues of class, inequality and social mobility, but in its absence, decrying Cameron Conservatives as "toffs" simply looks desperate (indeed, what remains of the British gentry is not the central issue - if any layer of society symbolises what is increasingly wrong with the post-Thatcher settlement, it is the tiny array of super-rich financiers who dominate the City Of London).


Though the party has been right to be mindful of the issue of anti-social behaviour, encouraging its candidates to come out with such lines as "I want the Police to harass yobs and get in their faces" not only heightens people's fears, but sits uncomfortably with a government recently heard paying tribute to the British tradition of liberty, and bemoaning Britain's "unlocked talent". The hysterical maligning of young people must stop. And what is a Labour government doing advocating police harassment?


Perhaps most poisonous of all was the Crewe campaign's attempt to make political capital out of issues involving Crewe's large Polish population, via a claim that the Conservatives are opposed to "making foreign nationals carry ID cards". This smacks of the poison spread by the far right. In addition, it misrepresents the debate. The Tories are opposed to making anyone carry or be issued with an ID card. So, in the face of massive public unease about the project, should be the Labour Party.


What is the alternative? Labour needs to call time on scorched-earth politics, realise the failures bred by triangulating to the right, and offer a positive vision not just of its record in government, but the Good Society at which it should aim.


The Tories are now stampeding towards such issues as the rising cost of living, social exclusion and poverty. Labour needs to understand the shift that represents, but also shine light on the futility of the solutions they offer: essentially, a shrinking of the state, the cutting of taxes, and a refusal to look at the pivotal issue of equality.


Most importantly, however, the party needs a clear change of direction and message. It needs to turn its recent claim to be "on your side" into incisive political action that speaks to 21st century concerns. The government's half-hearted moves on temporary and agency workers are a small step in the right direction, but much more is required. The issue of housing needs to be returned to centre-stage, and pursued even if an economic downturn renders private solutions impossible.
Labour has to be bold enough to open up the issue of tax rates at the very top. Low pay and insecurity at work have to be at the very centre of policy. The government needs to start taking action on such issues as rising prices and snowballing household debt, which are eating into the lives of people across society.


All told, it has to seize on the fact that fixating on supposedly "affluent" marginals while ignoring the so-called core vote is yesterday's strategy. As the recent local elections proved, Labour's one-time electoral base is deserting the party in its droves. So too are the parts of Labour's electoral coalition that finally came aboard in 1997 and ensured victory. But Labour need not be paralysed by this potentially toxic political cocktail: if these anxious economic times prove one thing, it is that middle and working-class Britons increasingly have a common set of concerns and aspirations, and that a more social-democratic Labour government could speak to them.


As some voices have been suggesting, the current debate is not a matter of ultra-Blairites battling with left-Labour traditionalists. To move in the direction required will mean the jettisoning of both assumptions rooted in Labour's far-flung past, and the now-redundant formulae of the 1990s. We need a left-of-centre politics fit for the 21st century. As we have long said, the problem with New Labour is not just that it is not Labour enough, but that it's not new enough either.



Display: Sort:

COMPASS: The lesson of Labour's loss in Crewe (#1)

"As the recent local elections proved, Labour's one-time electoral base is deserting the party in its droves. So too are the parts of Labour's electoral coalition that finally came aboard in 1997 and ensured victory."

A London constituency lost a few of its New Labour members after the London fall-out.  I wonder how many activists will also defect because they want to be on the side that's winning, rather than actually hold a political view.  As some else said - yes a silver lining to our cloud.

According to Harman, No 10 is hoping for a change in the economy before the next election.  Wishing won't make it happen.  We must be left of the Tory party or else they will lose on beauty alone.

Re: COMPASS: The lesson of Labour's loss in Crewe (#2)

Name and shame please! 

Re: COMPASS: The lesson of Labour's loss in Crewe (#3)

And people claim that New Labour isn't influenced by opportunistic Toryism...It makes me sick! I'll vote for these goons when hell freezes over!

Dear Mr Returning Officer,
I want my vote of Labour in the local election back please. I should have voted Green.

Re: COMPASS: The lesson of Labour's loss in Crewe (#4)

The local elections were actually quite mixed.  I don't think on theirt own they show our core voters have deserted us.  And I think we need to think more carefully about what Crewe tells us.  Part of the problem is the state of the Labour Party machinery.   There were huge numbers of people working in Crewe, but clearly the central message of the campaign did not deliver.  In fact maybe it was counter productive.  
What we no longer have is any clear distinction between what the labour party proposes and what the Tories propose.  In health policy, which is the only bit I have any claim to understand, the Tory position is that they will pursue Labours policies but deliver them more effectively.  Very hard to counter that.  After 11 years we have upset most parts of the health workforce and our major achievements are mostly forgotten.  We are blamed for a great deal of not very effective managerialism, which is nothing directly to do with politics of any kind.  Our only argument against Cameron's plausible story is that we don't believe that they will carry out these soft left policies.  That isn't much of a message.

Re: COMPASS: The lesson of Labour's loss in Crewe (#11)

I think the general trend is core voters abandoning Labour, with a few notable exceptions associated with local issues - Liverpool, for example.

Re: COMPASS: Lessons for Labour after Crewe (#5)

Of course we need a new message - this is obviously correct. But we also need a new messenger - Gordon epitomises the last 11 years and it is quite unrealistic to expect him to articulate a different message with any credibility. Indeed, in the past 12 months he has shown himself to be quite incapable of articulating anything at all. Any new message from him at this stage will be dismissed as opportunistic and insincere.

We have to face the fact that he is the major obstacle to Labour's political recovery, and take action accordingly. I

Re: COMPASS: Lessons for Labour after Crewe (#10)

If we waste time on a interregnum, we'll be saying that what's really important to us in to win the next election rather than to make the changes people want.

It will also be exactly what Cameron wants.

Get your head out of the sand (#6)

" Labour needs to understand the shift that represents, but also shine light on the futility of the solutions they offer: essentially, a shrinking of the state, the cutting of taxes, and a refusal to look at the pivotal issue of equality."

Eh?

Ask most voters and they will tell you that
a) The state is too big
b) Taxes are too high
c) Inequality has widened under Labour

These things need to be addressed - there is nothing futile about them. Also remember this - even if YOU think that the state is too small,  taxes should be higher and there's no problem with inequality, the ELECTORATE does not agree and they'll keep demonstrating that everytime you shove them into the polling booth.

Re: COMPASS: Lessons for Labour after Crewe (#7)

learly whoever wrote this dross has never had to take responsibility for a campaign tougher than a student union election.

 

Total drivel.

Re: COMPASS: Lessons for Labour (#8)

It's a very coherent analysis from Compass. There is very little to disagree with from my perspective. My only qualm is over the sentences:
 
"As some voices have been suggesting, the current debate is not a matter of ultra-Blairites battling with left-Labour traditionalists. To move in the direction required will mean the jettisoning of both assumptions rooted in Labour's far-flung past, and the now-redundant formulae of the 1990s."

Whilst I agree very much that it is not simply a left-right question, it would be wrong to pretend that issues bound up in such debates are wholly redundant, and we need to be careful that we do not try to bury political debate between a false facade of consensus. Let us have vibrant and imaginative political debate as comrades whilst keeping sight of our common purpose in rebuilding our coalition of forces that constitutes the Labour Party.

Re: COMPASS: Lessons for Labour after Crewe (#9)

Sorry to sound like a stick record, but Labour needs to focus after Crewe on competence and integrity. Obviously this means gettingn rid of people who have displayed spectacular incompetence and a lack of integrity. Until this is done the electorate will not trust the party.