Labour's collective failure

sunderkatwala Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:26:45 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Labour infantilises itself if it believes that another change of leader would answer its problems. Brown has made mistakes, but this has been a collective failure too. Nobody else has set out a distinctive and popular Labour argument which could reunite a winning electoral coalition.



Today's Observer asks the main centre-left think-tanks who should lead Labour at the next election: these were the responses.

My full comment was:

"The Labour Party infantilises itself if it believes that changing the leader again will answer its problems. If only it were that simple. Brown has certainly made mistakes over the last year. Voters no longer know what Labour stands for.

But this has been a collective failure too. Nobody else has set out a distinctive and popular Labour argument which could reunite a winning electoral coalition. Whatever their merits as policy ideas, localism and empowerment are hardly an election winning cause.

Labour’s cause is fairness. As David Cameron will say he is for this too, the argument must be ‘fairness doesn’t happen by chance’ with concrete commitments to test warm words:  a new top rate for those earning over £250,000 to reduce council tax; a renewed attack on child poverty; and banning outside earnings in Parliament to show the political class get the message.

Changing Prime Ministers again would mean irresistible pressure for an election within six months. Instead Gordon Brown should spend eighteen months leading a proud Labour government to entrench a legacy, test his opponents and put up the fairness argument that could even yet give Labour a fighting chance".

- Sunder Katwala is General Secretary of the Fabian Society.



tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Labour's collective failure | 20 comments (20 topical)

Re: Labour's collective failure (#1)

by swatantra on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM GMT

What we need is PR to give us an even chance at the polls otheriwise it could be a landslide for the Tories.
The trouble is whatever the Labour message, people are simply not listening, because of the messenger. And we have to face up to that fact. Labour could introducre a whole draft of policies but they help because they won't be effective for a while yet, and people are hurting now. They will be prepared to put up with some short term punishment as long as they have faith in Labour and the Leader, and that is exactly what is lacking at the moment.


Re: Labour's collective failure (#2)

by Teamfumble on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:05:46 AM GMT

You have a good point about Labour policies and it not really mattering about what happens. 

I'm basically pro-labour and I haven't yet voted for the Conservatives in 24 years but I'm planning to this time because I'm sick of the Labour Government at present

I don't have the visceral hatred that I had for the Conservatives under Thatcher or the intense dislike I had for them under Major.  But Labour seems to have absolutely nothing to offer me to offset what seems like years of lies, disappointment and contempt.

Perhaps it is a basic political nature but it sticks in the craw when Government claims credit for the good times and blames others for the bad times.   This is on top of a load of basic incomptetence.  It didn't require a shedload of skill to manage the economy when things were going well  over the past 10 years but there  appears to be nothing in the bank now that things have turned tough.

I think David Cameron is even more of a fraud than Tony Blair was but the whole Labour government looks like a fraud and waste of space at present.    

And while I'm here - most people I know cast their vote against a party rather than voting for a party.   So I am fed up with parties claiming a mandate for all their policies just because they are elected.   If  we were allowed to vote against a candidate in an election then all political parties would get a a very unwelcome indication of the true level of their real support....

 

 

 

   

   

 


Re: Labour's collective failure (#3)

by jaymason on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:57:22 AM GMT

PR??? Changing the rules just because you are losing looks pretty bad, I think this way lies even greater despair for Labour as even more people will turn against such an obvious attempt at gerrymandering.

Also PR will lead to BNP representation in Westminster and I don't think you want to go down that road. Or perhaps you do? 


Re: Labour's collective failure (#4)

by swatantra on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM GMT

I've always believed in PR and not just because cwe are in difficulties. It gives and produces a greater representation of the Peoples rather than the obscene majorities we had in 97' and '01 on a fairly low turnout, and which the Tories could get in 2010.  And if we get a handful of BNP sobeit; they would not be that much different from the views esoused by Tebbit, Soames and Amess and others of their ilk. Other European Parliaments have Facists in them; some of our local councils have facists on them. Its a fact of life. If we have to put up with UKIP, and DUP, surely Parliament could handle a few BNP members?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#5)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:00:39 PM GMT

Swatantra - what you said was...

"What we need is PR to give us an even chance at the polls otheriwise it could be a landslide for the Tories."

Which is an argument completely devoid of any kind of moral sense and certainly not a great argument to sell to the public.

Then you say that we could put up with a few BNP members in parliament, and that their views are not different to Tebbit, Soames and Amess. I think you are sadly mistaken.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#6)

by oratorhunt on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:33:49 AM GMT

The arguments for PR should be kept separate from Labour's immediate short-term chances - although I agree that the medium-long term political and organisational health of the party would benefit from a PR system.

On the BNP - it's wrong to say that they are no different from the Tory right.  But at the same time, is it really the job of an electoral system to sweep uncomfortable opinions under the carpet?  Isn't it more important to find out why so many people are voting BNP, rather than trying to fix the system to suppress this fact. 

And more worrying to my mind is the possibility that the BNP could win control of a whole local council on a minority share of the vote - something that could only happen under FPTP.  There are now two council wards where the BNP has 100% of local represention despite never getting more than 35% of the vote at succesive local elections.  That couldn't happen under PR.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#18)

by adwilliams134 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:43:28 AM GMT

"And more worrying to my mind is the possibility that the BNP could win control of a whole local council on a minority share of the vote"

It's happened in every Parliamentary election since the 1950's I think.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#7)

by swatantra on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM GMT

As I've said, I've been a supporter of PR for many years. We need balanced representaion in our Parliaments and Assemblies, not over inflated majorities which does not serve the public well, or for that matter the Party itself. Unfortunately With PR we may have to accept that those Party's repugnant to us may well gain representation with a a few seats. Its highly improbable that they would ever for the majority at any level of govt. The Tory Party came back from the dead in Scotland because of PR for the Scottish Parliament; the Scots Nats now for the Govt because of PR. That shows a healthy democracy. One Party Rule for decades does no Party any good in the long run, as we've discovered in Glasgow E because you tend to get complacent about your support, and take things for granted without actually improving the peoples lot.
So PR might help us to maintain a prescence in Scotland and the country and prevent the wipeout that is being widely predicted. Getting back to the BNP, we may have to live with that Party, whether we like it or not. They represent the views of some of the poor white working class that Labour took for granted, so they turned to the BNP in protest. And that is what the BNP is basically, a protest vote. No sensible person would vote for them unless in protest. They will always be around, unless that is we proscribe them. But if we did that it would give the the oxygen of publicity. Better that stomach, a few in govt at all levels where the public can judge them for what they are, thugs and racists.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#9)

by swatantra on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM GMT

Correction! '...Better then to stomach them, a few on Councils or Assemblies or Parliaments, where the public can see them for what they are, thugs and racists.'


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#19)

by adwilliams134 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM GMT

Having fought the BNP at street leve3l in their own backyard,  one thing that can be said is that they probably contain %-wise, no more thugs, racists, lunatics, padophiles, drunks, thieves, liars, adulterers, frauds, cheats and general scum than any other political party.

Labour's problem with the BNP is New Labour.  New Labour thought it could be middle-class, middle-england politically correct and still retain the core working class vote.  The BNP in England and the SNP in Scotland (I'm not saying the SNP are in any form like the BNP) and to a lesser extent Plaid in Wales, have proved that belief to be faulty on quite a significant scale.

If you carry on with the New Labour idealogy,  then the others  will continue to grow and continue to erode the working class core.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#8)

by DevonChap on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM GMT

On the topic of PR. Can I just lay it to rest? It has pretty much been accepted up till now that any change to the voting system for the Westminster Parliament would require either a direct manifesto commitment, a referendum, or at the very least a royal commission. Labour didn't have a commitment in the 2005 manifesto and anything they put to the country they would lose. There is no time for a royal commission now.
The Parliamentary timetable is now too short. Nothing can be introduced till October, even emergency legislation (and what emergency would be used to justify this) would take a couple of months. Then the Lords would delay and finally reject it. Then you would have to wait a year to use the Parliament Act which would mean it couldn’t get Royal Assent till end of 2009. And then there would be no time to implement it till after June 2010. After which the Tories will scrap it. So PR will not help.
It is a bit rich to want to change an electoral system that has been helping Labour from 1992 till now. Given that the only reason would be to save Labour seats, it would be massively unpopular and hypocritical. The only reason it would be worth it is if Labour fears it will be the third party after the next election. That could never happen….. could it?


Re: Labour's collective failure (#10)

by oratorhunt on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:21:13 PM GMT

Pragmatically, yes, it will be unlikely to happen.  But as to whether "FPTP" has "played in Labour's advantage since 92" - it might have help us towards a large parliamentary majoirty - but since that majority was gained at the expense of becoming all-but indistinct from every other party of big business, chasing votes in the Middle England marginals and utterly neglecting our own voters - it has hardly "helped" us towards our real aims.  Surely we want not just to be in power, but to be in power so that we can achieve socialist, or at least social democratic, ends?  FPTP has not helped - far from it.  It is part of the reason that we're in the mess we are. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#11)

by jkitleft on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM GMT

The only politically possible option atm, is AV for the upcoming election. It would be too chaotic to reorganise the boundaries now. So we should implement AV for this election, and then have a referendum on a different form of PR, if we win that is.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#12)

by swatantra on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 07:52:58 PM GMT

Why have a Royal Commission, which is just another delaying tactic, when the issue has been talked about for years, when the Lib Dems will back Labour on PR in this Parliament, when the system works well almost) in the Assembly and Mayoral elections to deliver more representative Govts? The time for talk is over and this is the window of opportunity, the only one. Do you imagine a Tory Govt with a Landslide makority in 09 or 10 even contemplating the idea. So why delay?. The boundaries need not be revised yet again; we can keep the single member constituencies, and the link with one M of P.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#13)

by DevonChap on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:16:42 AM GMT

For the government to suddenly bring in AV would be self defeating. Firstly AV penalises a party if the voters want them out by making it possible to vote for everyone but the guys you don't like. AV in 1997 and 2001 would have led to a bigger Labour majority. The current mood is to get Labour so it will amplify the anti-Labour vote, not reduce it.
Secondly, when this isn't being discussed at present outside Labour websites, making it the top government priority at a time of economic downturn on top of the current leadership navel gazing would make Labour look so out of touch as to even further reduce its appeal to the British people.
And I return to my point about time being against you. The electoral commission won't implement Straw's speding restrictions before the next election. What chance they would speed through this massively larger change?
By all means look to include this in the next manifesto, but trying to do it in the fag end of a Parilament when you are deeply unpopular looks like the worst form of political cowardice.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#14)

by swatantra on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM GMT

The people are complaining that no-one is listening to them. Labour has held a number of not so successful, and meaningless 'conversations' with the people. PR is the only way to give 'people' a say in the governance of Britain, even if it means a multiplicity of Parties, and coalitions, and at the same time to smarten up Labour's act.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#17)

by DevonChap on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 03:35:30 PM GMT

Electoral reform is a complex arena, but I would say you are confusing AV with PR. Alternative Vote, especially in a single member constituency is not proportional. As to whether electors ending up with their second preference representative would reengage them in the political process is questionable. A true PR system like STV almost certainly means an end to the constituency link which would remove MPs from the people, not bring them closer. The Jenkins commission recommendations of AV+, so AV for single member constituencies and a top up list for about 1/3 of the MPs would probably the best system on balance but unless you increase the number of MPs to 900 that would require a complete overhaul of the constituencies in the UK, ruling it out till after the next election.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#15)

by NB on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM GMT

The idea that Labour, with barely 25% support, could bring in any controversial constitutional change - let alone one that was intended to save Labour seats at a General Election, is ludicrous.


Re: Labour's collective failure (#16)

by swatantra on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM GMT

Rubbish.The Lib Dems would be supporting us.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour's collective failure (#20)

by adwilliams134 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM GMT

How about reforming it along theses lines:-

1. Halve the number of constituencies,  but double the number of representatives from each constituency.  Constituencies re-organised so that they are roughly equal population-wise.

2. No party in these constituencies is allowed to stand more than one candidate.  That way there will always be 2 representatives from different parties sent to Parliament and the views of the majority of the electorate will always be heard.

3. The candidates must reside in the constituency.  They must have no other residence save a shared flat in London if their constituency is more than a certain distance away.

4.  The Whip system abolished and MPs vote in private.

5.  Voting moved from a Thursday to an entire weekend including overnight Saturday.  Make it compulsory that you must attend a polling station, but you do not have to vote.

6.  If you persist with the ridiculous ID cards, linking the card to the voter database so that no matter where you maybe in the country, you can still vote and your vote will be allocated electronically to the constituency in which you are registered.

7.  Ban postal voting except for the mobility and visually disabled and pensioners.  Postal voting is corrupt.  It is proven as corrupt and is perceived as corrupt.  It is eroding people's belief in the electoral system.


[ Parent ]

Labour's collective failure | 20 comments (20 topical)