The election happened, what next for the left?

Since last week’s general election, many have been quick off the mark with writing the post mortem, suggesting what went wrong and a few early hats have been thrown into the ring for the vacant party leadership roles.

I hope you’ve not become bored of reading such articles. I’ve written this over the course of the weekend; so I’m sorry that’s not been as quick off the mark as others have been. The plan is to look at the disparity between what was widely expected to happen and what did happen, try to look at some of the reasons behind this, suggest how the UK political left might start the fightback and what the ordinary citizens of this country can do in the meantime.

What was expected to happen?

With the opinion polls that were published prior to the election, there was no clear winner. It seemed likely that the Conservatives would win the most seats but fall short of an overall majority. Labour were expected to suffer heavily at the hands of the SNP in Scotland, but that they might gain a fair few from the Liberal Democrats, meaning an overall small loss in the net number of seats.

My own particular guess was that in the Lib/Con marginals, the Liberal Democrat voters would, in spite of their party’s betrayal, remain loyal. After all, their sin was to go into coalition with the Conservatives, so it would make no sense for voters to go from Lib Dem to Conservative. I thought they might lose some voters to Labour, ultimately diluting the Lib+Lab vote and allowing the Conservatives a few wins, but not many, as they would vote with the Lib Dems as a tactical manoeuvre.

I also thought that, given the cuts the Conservatives unleashed in the last 5 years that Labour would pick up some Lab/Con marginals. Further Labour gains would result from the rise of UKIP which would dilute the Conservative vote.

The result would be that the Conservatives wouldn’t be able to win a majority and that another attempted coalition with the Liberal Democrats would still fall short. The other possibility was that Labour would try to form a coalition with the SNP but that too would fall short of a majority. Yet crucially, Lab+SNP would be greater than Con+Lib.

As a result, I thought that we would end up with a minority government. Such a government would not last long, being unable to pass a queen’s speech and losing a vote of no confidence, triggering a second election this year. Given a quick failure, whoever formed the minority government would likely lose the subsequent election, making this May a good election to lose. My hope then was that since the Conservatives had the most seats, they would be the ones to drink from the poisoned chalice.

What happened?

My estimate was wrong. I’d bought in too much to the published opinion polls prior to the election and when the exit polled showed a clear lead (though not quite a majority) for the Conservatives, I didn’t believe it.

The expected windfall of seats for the SNP did happen, with a number of high profile people losing their seats, including Douglas Alexander, Danny Alexander, Jim Murphy and Charles Kennedy.

The first real warning sign, though, was in Nuneaton. It was a target Labour seat that they needed to win if they were going to beat the Conservatives. But instead of that happening, the Conservatives won the seat with an increased majority. This happened in several marginals, though Labour did take some (and the Conservatives won a few Labour-held marginals). This was not a case of a significant victory (though I would say it was a notable victory) for the Conservatives; more a stern defence of that which they held most precariously. Also, the success that UKIP had in the last round of local elections was not replicated, meaning that they did not dilute Conservative support as much as had been expected. A case in example was my incorrect prediction about what would happen in Crawley, where I lived for 7 years.

The real surprise was what happened in the Lib Dem dominated area of South-West England. Here, contrary to my (and others’) expectations, the Lib Dem voters did abandon their party in droves, and went to the Conservatives. It was these wins that really helped to ensure the Conservatives won a majority.

Why it happened?

We have to acknowledge that this is now a highly divided country. Scotland is undoubtedly the country of the SNP. London is predominantly a Labour city. In England, outside of London, the Conservatives are the dominant party except for in former mining communities. Wales is predominantly Labour, by population, at least. As with London, their support is greater in more urban areas, though the constituencies with larger areas are more mixed, so the Labour majority doesn’t show up well on a map. Northern Ireland has a quite different politics altogether, which has a far deeper and more painful history than I can reasonably go into here.

I would need to add: the SNP ensured that Labour had a bad night. But the SNP are not to blame for allowing David Cameron back into Downing Street. If they had increased their share of the vote, yet not won a single extra seat, then David Cameron would still have a majority. The difference would be that Labour would have a greater share of the opposition benches.

I have long maintained the idea that governments are not so much voted in as they are voted out. In 1997, the Conservatives had lost any shred of credibility and all Labour needed to do was present a credible alternative. They did that successfully and won the election with a landslide. At the time, people asked if it was the end of the Conservative party. It wasn’t. It was damaging, yes, and they were unlikely to win the next election either. But then Labour took 418 seats, with the Conservatives on 165. Compare that to last week, when the Conservatives won 331 and Labour won 232. So I think one cannot say that 2015 was as bad for Labour as 1997 was for the Conservatives.

In 2010, Labour were the ones who had lost credibility, so it should have been a cake-walk for the Conservatives to win a majority, but it was a reflection of their electoral failure that we ended up with a hung parliament, resulting in a coalition. A part of this may well be due to the fact that the Conservatives came off worse than Labour did in the expenses scandal. Though trust in both sides was severely dented by that episode.

They key thing that happened in electoral terms was where the disaffected Lib Dem voters went. In London, having looked through some of the constituency results (I haven’t done a full numerical analysis yet), they seem to have gone largely to Labour and the Greens, with some to UKIP and a handful to the Conservatives. This is what I expected to happen nationwide, but elsewhere, particularly in the south-west, the largest chunk of Lib Dem voters went Conservative. I confess, I don’t understand why they would really do this. It’s not a part of the country I live in and I haven’t been able to speak to anyone who did switch their vote that way.

Beyond that, though, my view is that the Labour message was too piecemeal. They were chasing the agenda set by the mainstream media (see below), coming up with policies in response to what others had said, instead of leading the way with an alternative vision. Much of the discussion over the last few days has asked whether they were too far left (which doesn’t wash with Scotland, nor with the opposition to their ‘control immigration’ mug) or too far right (which doesn’t explain why they didn’t take the English marginals that were ripe for the picking).

How to fix it?

There has to be a long term strategy from the left. Ideally, this should be a 13 year strategy, starting from now. Why 13? Well, there should be 3 phases: the first starts now and needs to establish a plan for bringing down the Conservatives at the next election, replacing them with a credible, progress and egalitarian government. But it would be too short term to say the aim is to be elected. The strategy has to include a full 5 year plan for government. Yet we know what the Conservatives have done in the last 5 years of coalition, and we have some idea about what they will do, untethered, in the next 5 years. Will a single term be enough to unwind the legacy of the David Cameron, George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith? Maybe not. So we need to think about how to start undoing the damage they’ve done as well as the further damage they will do; this will entail fixing the country and preparing for a 2nd term.

The strategy has to be two-fold: national and local.

On the national level, there has to be a whole, coherent and credible alternative. The first thing is the substance of the message, be it on business, on housing, on debt, on immigration, on debt, on taxation, on education, on defence, on health, etc. More than that, though, any election strategy has to incorporate the media. While there has been some progress with social media, it remains the BBC and the newspapers who set the agenda. Given these are largely Conservative biased (the BBC’s main political team of Nick Robinson, David Dimbleby, Andrew Marr and Andrew Neill being the most notable of the pro-Tory group) then an infiltration strategy is partly what’s needed. One can combat the right-wing hegemony head on, to sing a different tune. Yet one can also attempt to change the tune from within the choir. In the wake of the election, people have been joining both the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Yet party members are unlikely to find employment in press run by Murdoch, Dacre or the Barclay brothers. A little more subtlety is required. In short, to be as clever as a fox, whilst remaining as innocent as a dove.

Then we have the matter of the Independent’s betrayal, as they encouraged a continuation of a Conservative-led coalition, while the Evening Standard, owned by the same tycoon who runs the Independent, backed the Conservatives. My proposition is that we need a new left-leaning national newspaper. I suggested this on social media on the election and was subsequently trolled for saying it. Amongst the irrational rantings that were aimed at me, they said that the Guardian and the Mirror were sufficient and that there was nothing wrong with the over-arching dominance of the newspaper market by a very small number of very rich men with a vested in interest in keeping the Conservatives singing their tune.

On the local level, the obvious answer is to set about targeting the seats to win. However, there has been a strong suspicion that to counter this, the Conservatives will attempt to rig the next election by changing the constituency boundaries so as to favour them. I’ve read comments from Conservative supporters saying that their primary aim is to make sure than Labour are locked out of government for decades. As an example of how this could be done, they might enlarge the London constituencies (making sure they are larger both in terms of population and area), thus reducing their number; or they might take two adjacent Conservative constituencies and make them into three.

For the Liberal Democrats, they have space to come back. First of all, though, they need to acknowledge their responsibility for helping to introduce the bedroom tax, for Sure Start centres, for cuts to disability benefits, for targeted sanctions against the unemployed. They can’t say that because they were in coalition they were forced to do those things. They need to acknowledge that they were wrong. Then, depending on how the majority Conservative government play things out, they can (as some have before the election) list out the things they prevented happening during the coalition’s reign. Things like the Conservative plan to repeal the Human Rights Act, to change the boundaries, to make even deeper cuts or further and faster privatisation of the NHS. If they can do this, then they stand a chance of taking back some of the Lib/Con marginals they lost, particularly those in south-west England and south-west London.

In the mean time

I am not a politician. I am not a journalist. I am someone who cares. Someone who is worried and fearful of the harm that this government will do.

On Saturday there was protest held in Westminster. I had looked around to see if I could find any plan for a protest but could find none. The first I heard about it was on Twitter after it had begun, by which time it seemed a little late to go and join. I supported that protest, and let me say why.

Democracy should not be an event that happens one day every five years. Democracy should be woven into the fabric of the society we live in. When we’re not at the ballot box, we can protest, we can petition, we can march, we can write letters, we can go and see our MPs at their local surgeries. Such expressions of democracy can be firm, they can be loud and at times, they can be disruptive. There are lines to be drawn, though. I do not advocate violence, nor do I advocate inappropriate protest, such as the graffiti that one person put on a war memorial.

Protests against austerity or against the removal of human rights are not, as some Conservatives have been saying, moaning or whinging about the result of the election. While there is a debate to be had over the effectiveness of our current democratic system (c.f. the referendum debate and the outcome of every close election – my particular favourite example is 1951), I do not dispute the Conservative’s right to govern. It has been suggested to me, by several on the political right, that accepting the legitimacy of the result means that we shouldn’t protest. I cannot agree with that.

When Labour won the 1997 general election and sought to introduce a national minimum wage, Conservatives would have been well within their rights to take to the streets to demand that employers should be allowed to employ people for as little pay as they saw fit.

Nor do I agree with the accusation that protest is in any way sanctimonious or self-righteous. To speak out against the Conservatives is an act of compassion; of standing up for those who have been, and will be hurt, by the acting out of Conservative policy. To turn one’s back or adopt an “I’m alright, Jack” attitude is an act of wilful negligence. There will be a time for gentler persuasion, but right now the time is right to give Conservative voters a metaphorical slap across the face, show them what they have allowed to happen. So that, like the end of The Bridge On The River Kwai, they may realise what they have done. I do not wish to demonise Conservative voters. Instead, my prayer for them is “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.”

Advertisements

6 responses to “The election happened, what next for the left?

  1. I really enjoyed this post up until:

    “There will be a time for gentler persuasion, but right now the time is right to give Conservative voters a metaphorical slap across the face, show them what they have allowed to happen. So that, like the end of The Bridge On The River Kwai, they may realise what they have done. I do not wish to demonise Conservative voters. Instead, my prayer for them is “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.”

    And so, this patronising and arrogant excerpt aside (in my humble opinion of course), I just wanted to say I thought this was very well written and thought out.

    • What you incorrectly think is “patronising and arrogant” is actually just plain honesty. I think there are people who voted for the Conservatives because they genuinely thought that it was a good thing to do. My view is that they need it to have it pointed out to them just what it is they voted for. See this particularly egregious article for example. The person who wrote it seems to think it’s not that big a deal that our commitments to human rights are set to be repealed, that the government would rather repeal a ban on animal cruelty than on repeal a cruel (bedroom) tax on the poor. It is this kind of attitude that needs to be combated. I don’t think Tory voters are evil, I think they’re naive, and we’ve got 5 years to shake them out of their complacency.

  2. I’m not sure what adding ‘incorrectly’ adds to that sentence but I think I understand your meaning. Addressing your perspective again, naivety is exactly the line of attack thrown to many ‘left wingers’, who are seen to prioritise heart over the head. I don’t see how what you’re saying possibly dispels this since the difficulty you have outlined is an ethical one rather than political; “It is this kind of attitude that needs to be combated” a fortiori.

    Many ‘right wingers’ feel that the left need to be shaken out of their naivety. What I feel you want to do is correct their ethics which, in turn, will correct their priorities and thus their politics.

    I want to add that I don’t see the need to read that particular link (though I do thank you for going to the effort to provide it) since surely a link could be found demonstrating someone ignorant of certain economic factors that deserve attention and then say ‘this person would undoubtedly vote conservative if they weren’t so ignorant’ etc. etc. and so I’ll simply take your word that it is egregious but that I’m not surprised such case examples exist.

    Reflecting on this and our previous correspondence, a great deal of the issue may be that you feel that you are intellectually and ethically superior to many voters* and that, if they had been educated as you had been, raised in the environment you had been, exposed to all the factors you have been, they would surely see the error of their ways; thus *not* be ignorant and therefore make the *correct* decision. I find this idea very disturbing and not uncommon.

    *I say this only from the confidence with which you denounce so many of the population as naive along with the fact you have originally stated that your constituency are better educated, on average, than most in the country. It is not meant to be seen as a personal attack.

    • I would remind you of the comments policy:

      The only absolute no-no is abusing other commenters. Trolling is rare on this blog, though if any does occur I deal with it on a case-by-case basis. If a troll is particularly interesting or amusing, I may leave the comments there, but I reserve the right to remove or edit comments which are offensive, untruthful or simply attempting to divert attention away from the main point.

      Your ad hominems are sailing close to the wind, but I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

      you feel that you are intellectually and ethically superior to many voters

      I am here presenting an opinion piece. Of course, I present opinion that I think is correct, it would be very odd to present a view that I thought was wrong. But to leap from this to an accusation of a sense of superiority is quite unjustified. My evidence for stating that those in the constituency are better educated is based on the fact (as reported by the BBC) that 46% of those in my constituency have a degree or a higher level of qualification, compared to a national average of 27%.

      As it happens, amongst my friends, I am one of the few without a doctorate, so may well be considered a bit of a thickie.

      • I could accept ‘post-modern approach’ but ad hominem seems a stretch. I could also see how my tone might aggravate but I feel the thrust of what I am trying to say to you is important and I don’t mean to aggravate.

        Perhaps this is a misunderstanding; I am saying that your *thinking it relevant* that your community is particularly well educated is, in my opinion, a dangerous line to tread. As if intelligence corresponds directly to being of a more liberal mindset. If you think this is the case, then the discussion really would stop right here. I never refuted the statistics nor accused you of lying; I questioned the context and relevance of your saying it. I was hoping that, instead of taking offence, you might say “Well, actually, I have always been fond of Plato’s Kallipolis…’ or the opposite line or what-have-you.

        You clearly have a very particular idea of what constitutes ‘right and wrong’ no doubt in part owing to your belief system, which is why I follow what you say because you offer a life perspective I don’t find common in my circles. When I occasionally chip in with a comment, it is to try to understand or challenge your foundations for why you’re saying what you say.

        “Of course, I present opinion that I think is correct, it would be very odd to present a view that I thought was wrong.”

        I appreciate this but what I want to know is do you think opinions other than your own are wrong ethically or logically or spiritually or anything else? I know it’s likely to be an accumulation of factors but I’m just trying to dig a little bit deeper. As I’ve indicated in the past, I often feel you treat certain issues as a ‘given’, which is a shame because otherwise a lot of what you say seems very considered.

        When you say the Conservatives amending the Human Rights Act is so terribly wrong, it would be interesting to hear why. Do you believe this codified statute cannot possibly be improved upon? I find it interesting this is so obviously an injustice to you; speaking as someone who has an LL.B. and isn’t wholly ignorant on this.

        Have I made my angle clearer? I don’t think I have ever been labelled a troll before.

  3. Pingback: A Friday thought – the shape of art to come | The Alethiophile