All of the above Tom, not just Target Tories

July 23, 2012 11:27 am

Tom Haris writes:

“The “strategy” of targeting those who opted out of the democratic process ten years ago is so flawed that I cannot even write the word “strategy” without placing inverted commas around it, just to warn readers that I use it in a purely ironic sense”

Tom’s polemical style as ever gets points for quality of writing but suffers from an uncharacteristic lack of cleverness – and is also mildly rude to those trying to think differently aout how Labour wins. Simply put, as Tom knows full well, you win elections by creating a winning coalition of voters. Come 2015 Ed will need ex Tories, ex LibDems and ex voters in general. One hallmark of good strategy when you’re still years out from your goal is that your strategy opens up options rather then close them down. That’s why Ed was right to call at Progress conference this Spring for “the largest voters registration drive in a generation.”

Now I’m sure Tom didn’t have our own Leader in mind when he wrote:

“the defining characteristic of non-voters is this: they don’t vote (stop me if I’m going too fast here).”

Because if we just abandoned others who have stopped voting we’ll be abandoning a rich potential pool of voters who in large part have previously supported Labour (actually, they disproportionality supported NEW Labour so I’m further confused by Tom’s criticism of the pursuit of these voters given that he so enjoys his “Blairite lickspittle” status) and who make up a huge chunk of the Squeezed Middle suffering under this government.

Targeting lost voters in all their forms is *not* a lurch to the Left. The data on their views is anyway quite clear that with top concerns beyond the economy in the areas of immigration, welfare abuse and crime – these (non)voters aren’t exactly crying out for more Leftiness.

What it is however is an attempt to create the biggest possible pool of voters from which a majority can be constructed.* It’s a false choice to say we win by either targetting Tories or non-voters. We win by flipping Tories, holding onto our new found LibDem converts and upping turnout in key constituencies.

An ‘all of the above’ strategy means taking the best that comes of both the Smith Institute’s work on Labour’s lost voters AND Hopi Sen’s clever breakdown of the C2DE voter shift. ‘All of the above’ mean marrying a grand design strategy as outlined by Anthony Painter with aggressive targeting of voter pools by organising on the ground. And it means flipping Tory votes as Tom says and holding on to LibDem votes as Andy Harrop has argued. Navigating these approaches and their potential trade-offs is difficult enough without us needlessly creating dividing lines and falling into Left/Right camps.

I don’t really think Tom wants us to just target Tories and I really hope Tom doesn’t want our politics to be mired in low turnout elections forever. But if he doesn’t then it would be nice if he could try to show just a wee bit more pluralism in the debate over how Labour wins. We are all trying to win after all.

* = it’s also a chance to reengage people who feel abandoned by politics and politicians but I’ll leave the moral argument for higher turnout to a later occasion

Marcus Roberts is the Deputy General Secretary of the Fabian Society. He writes here in a personal capacity.

  • http://twitter.com/johnringer John Ringer

    TOM HARRIS WRITES INVECTIVE-PACKED POLEMIC THAT GLAZES OVER KEY NUANCES

    More news on this shocking revelation on page 94.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    The points here are well enough made but continue to gloss over the old “what is Labour for” conundrum which is at the heart of this debate.

    There has been a general decrying of triangulation and focus-group policies (taken by some, it seems, as a short-hand for Blairite/centrist policies), but disappointingly (for me, at least) these complaints don’t seem to have been arrived at from any specific “core” strategy, but instead seem to have been borne out of the results of focus-group reactions to current political strategies and triangulated accordingly…!

    If the party is to be serious about winning voters over (rather than simply accepting protest votes repelled by the current government – a valid strategy in certain circumstances but hardly inspirational or even seemingly appropriate at present) then I believe the leadership will need to declare what they are “for” with a much meatier message: the “responsible capitalism” concept might be a start, but for now it appears about as substantial as foam: I believe that people want to know what practical steps will result from this – greater regulation? transparency on earnings? international or domestic taxation changes? perhaps even tax simplification to cut down on loopholes?  And all this before we get into the question of would Labour follow the “original” plan by Darling – cuts and all – or take the more bullish (but to date uncosted) “Ballsian growth paradigm”.  And then we might even talk about our relationship with Europe, or America.  And so on and so on.

  • christof_ff

    However much it might hurt politicos to hear, policy is only one factor that impacts of people’s choice of vote. Given that the difference between Labour and Tory policy is often miniscule (how many people in the street can tell the difference between a Free School and a City Academy?), policy for many people isn’t even a factor at all.
    Trust is arguably a more  important factor in people’s voting intention, and to gain trust Labour need to whole-heartedly move on from the let-downs (real and percieved) of past administrations. Moving on can’t be acheived whilst you’re constantly trying not to offend the devotees of yesterdays messiah (devotees who only exist within a party, never beyond).
    The Tories still haven’t fully moved from their hand-bagged messiah, look where they are – unable to gain the trust of enough disillusioned voters to win an outright majority against a stale ruling party with an unpopular leader widely perceived to have failed at his own specialism (economic stability).
    Remember that this is politics, not religion.

Latest

  • News Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Unions The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]

    Read more →
  • News Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

    Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

    Ed Miliband is speaking at the Google “Big Tent” event this morning, and as we noted earlier this week, he’s picking a bit of a fight with them over their tax affairs. Understandably, most of the press coverage in advance of Miliband’s speech (and presumably afterwards too) is about Google’s tax affairs. That’s in part due to David Cameron’s unwillingness to challenge his adviser, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, when the two met earlier this week. The Downing Street media team [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

    Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

    It was good to see the vast majority of Labour MPs voting for marriage equality yesterday, although here are some special mentions – Iain McKenzie, Frank Roy & Mike Wood - voted FOR after voting against in the 2nd reading Anne Begg, Gordon Brown, Bill Esterson, Pat Glass, Michael Meacher, Ian Mearns, Yasmin Qureshi, Virenda Sharma, Shaun Woodward - these MPs didn’t vote in the 2nd reading, but all voted FOR this evening (not all abstentions, a number were unable to attend [...]

    Read more →