Labour & Middle England

Without an emotional, visceral connection with Middle England, Labour has no business being in government and will lose the next election catastrophically.


Hello everyone, this is my first post here. I'm no Labour voter or activist, but these last few months I've developed an absorbing interest in UK political developments, browsing several blogs and websites from all across the political spectrum. This website seems to be the most representative of grassroots Labour activitists, and your debates have drawn me in repeatedly, so I felt it was about time to chip in with my own verdict on the issues facing the Labour party.

The state of the Labour party affects everyone in Britain, not just Labour people, so I have a valid right to an opinion. Whether or not that opinion itself is valid is another story, but please read with an open mind rather than dismissing me as merely a Tory troublemaker (you might sense the slow build-up to some, erm, controversial, opinions ahead!).

OK, here goes... it seems to me that the natural order of things in Britain is a Conservative government. Even though Labour has had a good spell recently, this is an aberration. The people of Britain (certainly England) are natural Conservatives, always have and always will be, and unless Labour governments manage to socially engineer our population to such an extent that the natural Conservatives become an oppressed minority, your spells in government will always end in tears.

Now before I go further I must stress I'm not endorsing the Conservative party, I'm just commenting based on my observations of the behaviour, attitudes and culture of Middle England. Middle England represents the silent majority of this country, hence the name. If it wasn't a reflection of the majority, it wouldn't be called Middle England. Mean, median or mode, no matter how you define it, Middle England means the national average. If the government can't appeal to, and represent, Middle England, then it has no business being in government in a democracy. How many of you reading this like or dislike Middle England? If you dislike it, then you really should be asking yourself what moral right you have to represent it in government.

Tony Blair understood this inherently and that's why he won elections. At the same time as he won the elections, the Tories managed to put up leaders who didn't (at the time) represent Middle England. William Hague possibly could have done, had he not taken over the graveyard shift. Ian Duncan-Smith had many of the right attitudes, but not the aspirational factor that most people in Middle England want from their prime minister. Michael Howard had a certain degree of appeal, but was basically tainted from being associated with the dying days of the last Tory government. But now the Tories have David Cameron, who represents Middle England a million times more than Gordon Brown. And it shows!

That's the root of your problem, that basically it seems the Labour party doesn't actually like Middle England. The feeling's clearly mutual, as you can see from the recent by-elections. One thing that springs to mind is that, as Middle England represents an average, although there will be regional variations, you can't argue with the pattern. Hence the ridiculously low turnout for Labour in Henley, the larger but not large enough turnout in Glasgow East, and the losses in London and Crewe.

If your own principles and beliefs, no matter how noble and well-meaning, do not benefit or resonate with Middle England, then you have no business taking these principles with you into British government. It might take a while for the population to catch up with you, but rest assured, once you lose the support of Middle England, you'll never get it back. The British people are amazingly tolerant and stoical, but once you're out, you're out for a generation at least.

The Crewe by-election exposed for me personally the real feelings at the heart of the Labour party, an idiotic, hate-filled class warfare that comes across to Middle England as absolutely inappropriate and a terrible indictment of our so-called caring government. In that one campaign, Labour became the "nasty" party at one foul stroke, a party that showed it basically despises the majority of its population. So is there anyone in the Labour party who actually likes and will stand up for Middle England? If not, there's a Mr Cameron waiting in the wings who knows EXACTLY how to get through to Middle England. Don't say you weren't warned...



Display: Sort:

Re: Labour & Middle England (#1)

" a party that showed it basically despises the majority of its population"


Yes,  but the majority of the population despise Labour.  At the last election,  they took less than 25% of the available vote.   75%+ voted for someone else or just didn't bother.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#3)

Given that Laobur polled more than all other parties in 2005, does this mean the other parties are equally, if not more despised than Labour?

Re: Labour & Middle England (#2)

I basically disagree with the vast majority of this posting.

However, as it's so long and nearly time to go home, I will leave the arguing to others.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#4)

I don't think Middle England means the 'majority'. Middle England for the Daily mail means earning 45k. Really, it should mean those hovering on median income, at around 24k.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#5)

The good news is that Labour may indeed "lose the next election catastrophically," but the bad news is that the Tories will win.

This false left/right paradigm has us arguing with each other because we think we have a choice and while we argue, those in power have their wicked way with us: over-taxing and over-regulating us; engaging us in immoral wars and giving away our sovereignty.

Let's stuff the main parties and vote for the people who risk their own deposits and spend their own time, unpaid, canvassing because they want to make a genuinely positive difference to the country and don't have an axe to grind against a particular "class".

Re: Labour & Middle England (#12)

I spend my own time unpaid canvassing for Labour, as do almost all Labour activists.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#6)

First of all, welcome to LabourHome. We're an unusual party in that we allow our opponents the opportunity to post on our site, which differentiates us from everyone else!

You stated this in your piece:
"it seems to me that the natural order of things in Britain is a Conservative government. Even though Labour has had a good spell recently, this is an aberration"

I sucked my teeth in at this. Beware of making any generalisations about the electorate. They make fools of those who do.

To illustrate the point I thought I'd show you the % of popular vote that Labour has got since WW2. The data comes from Keele University

1945
England
Labour 48.56%
Tories 38.88%
Scotland
Labour 47.88%
Tories 36.75%
Wales
Labour 58.52%
Tories 16.60%

1950
England
Labour 46.13%
Tories 41.11%
Scotland
Labour 48.13%
Tories 37.71%
Wales
Labour 58.1%
Tories 20.98%

1951
England
Labour 48.81%
Tories 45.64%
Scotland
Labour 47.89%
Tories 70.72%
Wales
Labour 60.54%
Tories 27.56%
Labour lost this election despite winnming the popular vote

1956
England
Labour 46.77%
Tories 47.82%
Scotland
Labour 46.71%
Tories 41.53%
Wales
Labour 57.59%
Tories 26.72%

1959
England
Labour 43.61%
Tories 47.90%
Scotland
Labour 46.68%
Tories 40.70%
Wales
Labour 56.43%
Tories 30.80%

1964
England
Labour 43.53%
Tories 43.05%
Scotland
Labour 48.74%
Tories 37.70%
Wales
Labour
Tories

1966
England
Labour 47.74%
Tories 42.07%
Scotland
Labour 49.91%
Tories 37.27%
Wales
Labour 60.68%
Tories 26.99%

1970
England
Labour 43.24%
Tories 48.30%
Scotland
Labour 44.53%
Tories 37.97%
Wales
Labour 51.56%
Tories 27.69%

Feb 1974
England
Labour 37.64%
Tories 40.06%
Scotland
Labour 36.66%
Tories 32.94%
Wales
Labour 46.78%
Tories 25.88%

Oct 1974
England
Labour 40.08%
Tories 38.78%
Scotland
Labour 36.28%
Tories 24.70%
Wales
Labour 49.52%
Tories 23.88%

1979
England
Labour 36.67%
Tories 47.18%
Scotland
Labour 41.54%
Tories 31.41%
Wales
Labour 46.95%
Tories 32.15%

1983
England
Labour 26.94%
Tories 45.98%
Scotland
Labour 35.07%
Tories 28.37%
Wales
Labour 37.53%
Tories 31.03%

1987
England
Labour 29.51%
Tories 46.15%
Scotland
Labour 42.38%
Tories 24.03%
Wales
Labour 45.06%
Tories 29.52%

1992
England
Labour 33.93%
Tories 45.46%
Scotland
Labour 38.98%
Tories 25.65%
Wales
Labour 49.50%
Tories 28.57%

1997
England
Labour 43.55%
Tories 33.70%
Scotland
Labour 45.56%
Tories 17.51% 
Wales
Labour 54.75%
Tories 19.58%

2001
England
Labour 41.4%
Tories 35.2%
Scotland
Labour 43.3%
Tories 15.6%
Wales
Labour 48.6%
Tories 21.0%

2005
England
Labour 35.46%
Tories 35.74%
Scotland
Labour 38.87%
Tories 15.83%
Wales
Labour 42.71%
Tories 21.38%

So you can see, most of the time Labour has been within a few points of the Tories, whether ahead or behind, apart from the 1980's. It was the 80's that was the "abberation". You are therefore quite wrong that Labour doesn't like "middle England" - middle england wouldn't have been voted for us in good numbers for 45 out of the last 60 years.

The whole middle england is conservative business is simply propaganda put about by the Tories to try to console themselves for their thumping losses at the hands of New Labour - escape into a sort of fantasy world where really everyone was a Tory!

Also note that Labour has been a proper United Kingdom Party. When we are in government we have a mandate from all three parts of Britain. Tories are usually in power with just an English mandate, but no Scottish or Welsh mandate.

I would caution you on your assumptions therefore. You say this is based on your "observations". Well like-minded people flock together. This is why anecdotal evidence is so dangerous. During the run-up to the 97 election, people like Bruce Anderson of the Independent was convinced that the Tories would win,citing your "middle england" fantasy!!!

Re: Labour & Middle England (#7)

Sorry error there in the 1951 Scottish vote. It was Labour 48.57% and Tories 40.72% 

Re: Labour & Middle England (#9)

And as I point out, real Middle England, is often part of our core support. The median income is 24k, which sounds like someone who could quite easily be a core Labour supporter.

The problem with this whole 'Middle England' obsession, is that we imagine people to be homogenous blocks. Every successful coalition includes the middle classes and working classes. I think the problem with the left in the '80's was that the former tilted towards the Alliance, and the latter towards Labour. But Thathcer still had working-class support, with 'aspirational' policies for the nouveau rich. The lower middle-class for instance had people like taxi drivers, and Sun readers, who loved Thatcher.

The middle-classes are just as diverse as the working classes in how they vote. In 1997, the whole middle class didn't suddenly just defect from the Tories to Labour.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#13)

"24k, which sounds like someone who could quite easily be a core Labour supporter."

I think your understanding of wage levels maybe a little skewed.  The average WORKING wage (as opposed to your median) is only around £16K gross.  Over large swathes of the country (ie outside London & the South East) it's even lower than that.

My manager (in charge of 110 people, degree eductaed, over 40) is on 26K gross.  Me (skilled supervisor, over 50) 14.8K gross,  wife (skilled shop floor, over 45) 13.7K gross.

For a lot of the country, 24K before stoppages is very very good wage.  Very good indeed.  People who earn that much would be inclined to vote tory rather than Labour, especially outside the bottom corner of the UK

Re: Labour and Middle England (#15)

I'd have thought that the median was a pretty accurate measure, what exactly do you mean by working wage?

Re: Labour and Middle England (#16)

Well if you think that's accurate,  perhaps you would like to inform the company we work for at the next wage negotiations.

That aside,  I mean non-professionals - ie blue collar

Re: Labour & Middle England (#14)

Definitions of middle classes keep changing. Sometimes it is people who earn £24k. Other times you see headlines in places like the Times saying things like "Middle Classes hurt by rise in school fees" - but only 7% of the nation go to private schools. Does this mean that the other 93% are working class?  

Re: Labour & Middle England (#18)

Middle class, IMHO, is more of an attitude than an income level.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#21)

True. But I also think people use the term "middle class" to normalise themselves.

Take the business of fee paying schools. People who can afford out of their after tax income £10k pa school fees as well as paying for their mortgage, food, clothes etc, are not middle class. As is proved by the fact that only 7% manage to send their children to fee paying schools.

But a headline saying "Upper classes hurt by rising school fees" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it? The reason that this group pretends that it is "middle class" is to persuade the vast majority to empathise with them and to claim that the Labour government has been somehow wicked letting the school fees of these "middle classes" rise, causing "middle class inflation" Not that the Labour govt has anything to do with the setting of fees in private schools!

The real people "in the middle" are those who earn between £22k and the higher rate threshold. They earn enough to be able to do things such as take regular holidays, they pay the vast amount of the taxes raised, but they are by no means "rich" and they are definitely sensitive to changes in prices. People who are higher rate taxpayers don't really notice price changes much at all.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#34)

Indeed, it's like when people describe themselves as an 'average' voter. It makes people feel more comfortable, and more listened to.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#8)

Labour have destroyed this country since they have been in power . It started when Brown destroyed the working mans pension and they have continued to destroy the pleasures of the working man ever since. They have had this obsession to fiddle with very social  functions of this once great and proud  country. The result has been a disaster. "If it ain't broke, leave it" but they could'nt resist.  They have managed to milk the working man and middle England dry. The cupboard is now bare (except for MP's allowances etc). Changing Brown will not change anything. Its the Party that is defunct.
Roll on the next General Election.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#10)

Are you talking about the pensions raid which was on the private pensions of the upper middle-class, to be earmarked for the purpose of sending NHS waiting lists crashing?

Re: Labour & Middle England (#11)

Of course not. I am talking about "Final Salary Pension Schemes" of factory workers and alike. The people who keep the wheels of industry turning. They are the ones that WILL suffer because of his greed. 

Re: Labour & Middle England (#25)

Most of those pension schemes collapsed because of the greedy company directors and the pension holidays they had taken.

Re: Labour and Middle England (#49)

" Most of those pension schemes collapsed because of the greedy company directors and the pension holidays they had taken"

So, Gordon filching £5bn per year from ordinary people's pensions - people like you and me - has had no effect on our pensions? 

What a load of rot! Since he got in he has pinched £55bn out of pensions. Don't tell me that has had no effect whatsoever.

Re: Labour and Middle England (#50)

Ah yes, the Tories calling tax 'filching'.

I never claimed Brown's changes had no effect but look at the levels which those pension accounts have been at over the last few decades.

The tax on pensions issue is a drop in the ocean.

Re: Labour and Middle England (#51)

"I never claimed Brown's changes had no effect but look at the levels which those pension accounts have been at over the last few decades."

You mean that we were all going to get too much and now we have been "downgraded" to the correct level?

Re: Labour and Middle England (#53)

Not at all. Everybody is entitled to a decent pension. The reason why those pension schemes have closed is partly Brown's fault and mainly the fault of the company directors.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#17)

I'm going to be polite, because I'm going to assume you didn't realise just how incredibly offensive you have been towards many of the people on this board with what you've said. If you expect to be treated in a civil manner please refrain from refering to us as "hate filled" and "idiotic", the "social engineering" comment was not appreciated and neither was the ending barb. That may play well to the crowd on ConservativeHome, it doesn't here.

On Britain being naturally conservative, we live in a very different society compared to that of previous generation, society is simply too different, has changed too much and is changing too much to make any concrete judgements of that sort. On your larger point, I don't see it, accusing us of hating middle England is just plain wrong, we don't, and I wonder what makes you think we do.

Can you actually explain what you mean by "middle Britain" and what exactly the Labour party has done that you think it is motivated by hatred?

Re: Labour & Middle England (#23)

actually I think social engineering can be a good think. there's not enough of it.

engineering society so that teenagers don't feel the need to carry guns or choose to expose themselves less to pregnancy and STIs would be social engineering i could sign up to

how about social engineering that improves social mobility? also a good thing.

Social engineering should be the business of any good government

Re: Labour & Middle England (#28)

Citizen Andreas, thanks for the reply. In fact, thanks everyone. I agree with the poster who said Middle England is more of an attitude than merely a salary bracket. Go back to my heading...Labour needs an emotional/visceral affinity and understanding with Middle England. It's no use getting bogged down in tractor-production-statistics debates about what exactly salary constitutes middle class, that misses the point, and is a good example of what I mean.

The "toff" stunt at Crewe said it all. Nobody from the Labour party seriously in their wildest dreams thought that would play well with Middle England did they? Yes, it's a cultural thing primarily, whoever said that understood the issue. Does anyone in the Labour party have any cultural effect of the knock-on effect of the smoking ban on pubs, for example? Now there may well have been good reasons for this ban, but did the Labour party even consider the implications for small, rural communities? Ditto post office closures, ditto fines for those who overfill their dustbins, ditto ID cards, ditto tax, fuel and food prices etc etc.

If only just one Labour MP would come out and explain, in a tone that resonates with Middle England, just why they have done what they have done... Even if economically or rationally there are decisive arguments in favour of the government's actions, it's the lack of empathy with Middle England that will lose you the election.

Nothing I've said in my post is any different from the philosophy of Tony Blair. I can't believe that whole faction of the Labour party is so quiet at the moment, well maybe Milliband is staking out his claim to this ground. An appearance on Radio 2 is "very" Middle England!

David Cameron is also bang-right to realise that at the moment policies aren't the important thing, although they will be in time. Right now it's about making Middle England feel loved. Right now Middle England feels Labour has brutalised it, messed it about and broken all its promises. That emotion will need to be addressed very soon, but before it is addressed, it needs to be truly understood and felt by the upper echelons of the Labour party. Again, I can almost predict the cynical Labour raspberry noises to this, but you ignore the emotions of the voters at your peril. It's emotions, after all, that play a huge part in motivating people to stick an X in a box.

Maybe the poster who said I only associate with like-minded people is right, maybe not everyone thinks like I do. I must remember that next time I turn up for work at the NHS District Hospital where I'm employed.

No hard feelings to anyone. This is a debate forum after all, so it's nice to have a debate!

Re: Labour & Middle England (#29)

You keep mentioning rural england. Is this your idea of "middle england"?  What of urban england, where the vast amount of English actually live, and which is where New Labour has won their vote? Do their views and wishes not count in your eyes?


You mention smoking, but 70% of Britain doesn't smoke, and polls show that urban England was delighted that the ban prevented anti-social elements from blowing smoke into their faces as they were trying to eat or drink.

Regarding the fines for overfilling bins that so irk you - this is down to council by-laws, not central government. Local councils have the power to introduce or repeal any by-law they want. The majority of councils in England are run by Conservatives or LibDems (the Labour councils are concentrated in urban places such as Manchester or Oxford) - this has been the case since 1997. Therefore by-laws about overfilling bins etc have probably been introduced by local LibDems or Conservatives. If you are upset at what you local council is doing, you need to kick out your local Conservative/LibDem (delete as appropriate) council, and get in a Labour one! 


As for food and fuel prices - these are being driven by global demand. In fact the Labour govt has taxed petrol far more lightly than the previous Tory government -see here

Your prejudice against Labour seems to be based on lots of vague feelings, rather than any hard evidence.

I note that you didn't respond to the point I made that Labour has always scored a healthy vote in England since WW2, which disproves the idea that Britain is naturally conservative and disproves the idea that the present period is an aberration. Do you accept that you are wrong about this?

Re: Labour & Middle England (#31)

I believe I only mentioned the word "rural" once, but post office and pub closures affect people in cities and suburbs just as much as rural communities. I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae of the smoking ban (not running away from an argument, just trying to stay on-topic) but it's the knock-on effect of pub/social club closures (rather than the aim of cutting down on smoking itself) that illustrates Labour's lack of the common touch, and how heavy-handed it can come across to Middle England.

Yes a lot of the feelings I explain are vague and not based on hard evidence, but since when did voters require hard evidence in order to place a cross in a box? It's the vague feelings that all add up, eventually reaching a tipping point that results in governments falling. Are you seriously not aware just how many people share my vague feelings? How many more by-election losses do the Labour party need before it starts to sink in?

The whole point of this thread was not to get into a debate based on hard facts because clearly party anoraks will wipe the floor with a  newbie like myself. This particular debate is strictly about perception and empathy - the public's perception of the government and the government's level of empathy with the public. What is lacking from Labour currently is this emotional connection, this instinctive two-way bond that Tony Blair was able to somehow able to maintain for a decade, and David Cameron shows every sign of being able to repeat. Maybe it is just a leadership quality, something as nebulous as charisma or charm; but whatever it is, it's sadly lacking at the moment, and you can see clearly the results of it not being there.

A couple of final points: I'm sure the figures you provided are correct, but they don't alter my perception that "most" people's first choice of government in this country would normally be Conservative; however the Tories don't have carte blanche to Downing Street, they have to earn every vote and if they fall short for whatever reason then a strong Labour party will achieve power.

Finally: I know there is more to Britain than just Middle England, but Middle England represents the average, the heart and soul of the United Kingdom. Of course there are massive regional variations and anomalies, but these variations centre themselves around the contours of the massive middle ground. Suburban London, for example, influenced by both urban and rural issues, is a great example of Middle England, and look what just happened there!

Re: Labour & Middle England (#35)

I don't understand what 'Middle England' really is. The defenition can be subjectively skewed, in order to make people feel more comfortable and listened to.

But if it means 'middle-class', then I doubt that it was the reason we lost in the poorest end of Glasgow, or a traditionally Labour seat like Crewe.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#46)

Middle England is just a concept. Generally it is used to mean middle class Tories - as Mauda suggests - but the electoral evidence shows they are not really very average at all.

New Labour liked to talk about Middle England when trying to triangulate so they could win some Tory seats in the South. It's often used to refer to middle class swing voters, and as such everything seems to be targetted towards them. 

Re: Labour & Middle England (#33)

as usual Snowflake writes well.
Just ignore Gordon's rising taxes.the increasing autocratic Government attitudes, the inability to do anything half competently (SATS anyone), the inability to recognise mistooks before they screw up peopel's lives (10p tax) and the lies...(I will not list the lies because there are so many, but WMD, 10p tax, Northern Rock 's asset base being solid  are just a few examples).

Government starts off with a clean sheet : and gradually loses all trust and credibility : and then blames the voters for not understanding its message.

the message is quite clear: it's tax and spend, lie and waste money, legislate and legislate again - , fail to implement legislation, .

I define middle England as those who are not so wealthy they don't need to work nor those who do not work. The rest pay their taxes - and expect to get fairness and valu for money from their elected leaders.


OT Apologies for blank posts - I believe they were greatly appreciated:-).. This site for some reason does not accept Opera posts.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#19)

Re: Labour & Middle England (#20)

This is the best post you've ever written.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#22)

Correct.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#24)

Is it a coincidence that the last Scottish PM was Alec Douglas-Home and he didn't win an election either?  And the one before that was Ramsey McDonald.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#26)

"It might take a while for the population to catch up with you, but rest assured, once you lose the support of Middle England, you'll never get it back. The British people are amazingly tolerant and stoical, but once you're out, you're out for a generation at least."

Mauda, The above quote is a good example of the laziness of your argument. You seem blissfully unware of your conflation of England and Britain (unfortunately rather typical of an English attitude but likely to infuriate the other nations in our union).

What is "Middle England"? I am not at all sure what it means sociologically, historically, or whether it means anything at all. In some ways I suspect it's a bit of a euphemism for those (predominantly white) inhabitants of everywhere except for the cosmopolitan and multiracial inner cities. If that's what you do mean then I still think you are wrong. The inhabitants of the shires and the middle classes of England still need an excellent NHS, decent state education and care in their old age. All things that may be put at threat by a Conservative party that apparently believes that the social good can be met by charity!

Re: Labour & Middle England (#30)

The term "middle england" was actually invented by the Daily Mail, who claim to speak for these people! It's not clear who exactly they are. Sometimes it's very rich people who send their kids to Eton. Sometimes it's rural people. Sometimes it's people who live geographically in the Middle i.e. Worcester. The definition changes depending on the point the journalist wishes to make.

Political parties need to be careful about generalisations. I'm not sure which American politician it was who said that "all politics is local", but he was speaking the truth.

I'm not sure journalists get out of London enough to understand the rest of the country, to be frank. Recall when Labour held it's first party conference in Manchester (2006, Blair's farewell conference). The journalists were agog at the city. It had cool shops, it had clubs, in places it was more sophisticated than London. But all this time they had no idea it existed!

Re: Labour & Middle England (#32)

"Sometimes it's rural people."

Never all rural people, of course. The rural working class is never mentioned. Because in the imaginary world of the Daily Hate Mail we don't actually exist.

"I'm not sure which American politician it was who said that "all politics is local", but he was speaking the truth."

It was the late, great Tip O'Neill.

"I'm not sure journalists get out of London enough to understand the rest of the country, to be frank."

Oh, I'm sure. Sure that they don't get out of London enough to understand the rest of the country, that is. Mind you, I doubt that they really understand certain parts of London all that well either.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#27)

I have no idea whether or not it is a coincidence that Douglas-Home, lost the 1964 General Election because he was representing a Scottish constituency at the time, but it is certainly irrelevant to the present political situation.  Douglas-Home was 'parachuted' into the Perthshire seat by the Tories in 1963, and I am not sure whether he was actually Scottish or had any connections to the area beforehand.  Anyway - what is NB's point? 

Perhaps he could try moving the debate forward in some way if he is going to make posts here?  He could help us all understand his point by explaining why he thinks the Labour government is to blame for some companies' decisions to end Final Salary Pension Schemes?  In this way he might inject more light and less heat into the discussion!

Re: Labour & Middle England (#36)

Alot of pension funds collapsing is due to companies' incompatance. GMB has calculated that private equity takeovers have caused 96 pension funds to collapse. And we subsidise this to a tune of £2 billion.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#39)

If this is true,  how many since 1997?  And why hasn't central governmemt legislated to force businesses to safeguard them? 

Re: Labour & Middle England (#37)

May I say that while I disagree a lot with the article, it has started a very interesting, if slightly abstract, debate - which is welcome.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#38)

Thanks Alexhilton, and to all those who have made it a good debate. What's interesting is that clearly the emotional issues I am referring to come across as "abstract" nowadays. I think that is a huge shift from when Tony Blair came into power back in '97, because what contributed more than anything else to his victory was people's raw emotional hatred of the Conservatives at the time. And of course a couple of months later with Diana's death, it was Tony Blair who tried, and largely succeeded, to speak on behalf of the nation.

Right up until the war in Iraq, Tony Blair never really lost his Midas touch, and the more I think about it, the more I think he knew full well Middle England was no longer supportive but he believed, rightly or wrongly, that this was an issue that was more important than transient public opinion.

Maybe it's a reflection of Labour under Gordon Brown's leadership that the instinctive feelings of the electorate are now somehow regarded as abstract and almost an irrelevance from the "real" business of government. I say the instinctive feelings of the electorate should always be a priority.

As for the definition of Middle England, I like the one above about it being taxpayers who have to work for a living and expect decent services from their government. But maybe the best, simplest definition I can give of Middle England is:

The segment of the population that votes for the governing party.

In other words The MAJORITY! We shall soon see whether Labour really still does represent Middle England.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#40)

The biggest slice of the electorate don't vote.  Of the entire voter-base,  at the last election Labour got what?  22-23%?  Somwhere round there.  Hardly what you would call a convincing argument.

Politicians are getting what they deserve - apathy, contempt and disinterest.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#41)

Your Middle England, as the MAJORITY, is a little reminiscent of Richard Nixon's attempt to recast the political debate with his idea of the 'silent majority'. It's a thoroughly reactionary concept, but, as with most things, there is a grain of truth there.

When the Tories were kicked out in 1997 there was such a wave of revulsion against them that there were no Tory billboards to be seen and noone would admit to having voted Tory.

Tony Blair certainly put together a skilful coalition of the centre-right - with just enough to keep the left on board. Oddly he put through Parliament the truly enormous increases in health spending - somewhat out of character perhaps but that is the positive side of his legacy.

But you are right that the Labour government has in many ways lost touch, as tends to happen after many years in power. So there is a grain of truth to your argument. However, simplistically one might think from this that Labour simply had to tack further to the right to solve all its problems. Not true. Cameron has seen this problem and in many ways has tacked to the left, into Labour's territory. And we now have a situation in which I believe the electorate is to the left of the main parties in a number of respects - in its opposition to privatisation and belief in public ownership of key services for example. So, moving to the left may make Labour electable.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#42)

Oddly he put through Parliament the truly enormous increases in health spending - somewhat out of character perhaps but that is the positive side of his legacy

Why do you say "oddly". At his core, Blair was as Labour as you or I. He joined Labour in the 70's, when the ambitious people like Portillo were joining the Tories and following Thatcher. He was elected as a Labour MP in 1983 during the dark years, and it never occured to him to defect to the SDP like so many others. 

The minimum wage was a Blair thing, conceived when he was shadow employment secretary. And as you say, the increased spending on the NHS was a Blair thing too - he announced it on TV (I think it was Breakfast with Frost in 2000), taking the treasury by surprise.

Blair was an actor, always able to pretend to be Tory, to reassure certain voters, while quietly making decisions as Labour. His flaw was foreign policy. He genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq and that he would be hailed a hero. I think he wanted to believe it very much. Of course Iraq is the downfall of the Labour party. Since then, everything we've done has been met with increasing scepticism. If you like Iraq broke a spell in the population, giving them permission to criticise Labour for the first time, and they've continued with ever increasing intensity since.lE, unm

Re: Labour & Middle England (#43)

" And we now have a situation in which I believe the electorate is to the left of the main parties in a number of respects - in its opposition to privatisation and belief in public ownership of key services for example"

You cannot be serious!

Privatisation has had its flaws but to argue it is unpopular is to ignore the huge benefits obtained by using other people's money to invest when Governments  - of all hes - were unwilling or ubale to do so..

Clause 4 was dropped i believe several decades ago.

As for public ownership of services, if anyone seriously can prove by independent reports that UK educational standrads have risen overall in the past 10 years, please explain why independent universities no longer value A levels ?

It's one thing to belive what you believe in. To then assume that others hold the same beliefs is misguided.

I after all believe Labour are basically incompetent at anything requiring organisation. i.e the economy , education, health, improving government productivity. facts suggest I am correct. But I am 100% sure that 99% of the contributors to this thread  believe I am totally wrong, that Government finances are well run and that the cause of current difficulties is the world economy.


The proof of the pudding in assessing what people belive is of course an election .. or failing that opinion polls.  Well, they quite clearly say what people think.

Re: Labour (#44)

I wouldn't say that Government finances are well run. It's a bit of a nebulous question but I wouldn't say that the country has been well run since the mid-70s at the latest.

And the cause, of course, is global capitalism. We had a nice few decades of moving away from it but now we're about to plunge straight back into all the mistakes of the 19th century.

Maybe I'm that 1%.

Re: (#48)

Well opinion polling generally shows people against privatisation. And in many cases despite all the extra money the service isn't any better. Or the taxpayer has to subsidise it anyway. Take the railways, even some Tories think it was a mistake!

Re: Labour & Middle England (#45)

What is abstract is the obsession with Middle England. Many people and families think they are normal and many believe they are abnormal or special. Some even manage to believe both at the same time.

I'd like to see an opinion poll ask people if they are middle england and see who answers yes - probably stockbrokers and white van drivers.

Also you are obsessed with the majority. It's an absolute priciple that minorities have to be protected from majority tyrrany.

The majority who vote for any winning party (on the rare occasions when it is a majority) are generally a far more disparate collection of people than you would suggest. there are stockbrokers who vote labour, single mums who vote tory - even the BNP attracts the occasional unlikely supporter.

I suspect your definition of middle england is much like the definition of the bermuda triangle, you have to keep making it bigger until you get enough people in it to make it noteworthy.

but do they identify with each other?

I doubt it

Re: Labour & Middle England (#47)

"Also you are obsessed with the majority. It's an absolute priciple that minorities have to be protected from majority tyrrany."


Is it? An absolute principle of what? Certainly not democracy, which is about the will of the people, ie the majority. Or, if not the majority, the largest minority.

I might ask what is the alternative to an obsession with the majority: an obsession with minorities? Surely that is flawed thinking, both politically and morally. Politically, because without backing from the majority, you ain't ever gonna get to implement your absolute principles! And morally because it implies antipathy towards the majority ie most people don't matter, only selected minorities.

On reflection, you're right. I AM obsessed with the majority of people in Britain getting a government they can be happy with. So should the Labour party be.

Re: Labour & Middle England (#52)

"even the BNP attracts the occasional unlikely supporter."

You should be careful with statements like that.  I spent several years in the North West of England working at street level against the BNP in an area where they were very active.  I went knocking on doors in target wards every sunday afternoon for over 2 years come rain wind or snow, likewise leafletting in town centres.  I have met literally thousands of BNP voters.  The overwhelming majority of them not only fully understood and fully supported BNP policy,  they were frighteningly ordinary and everyday people.  Old, young, working, unemployed, single parents, traditional families, workers, professionals, I've even met afro-caribbean & asian BNP voters.  Even a handful of gays.