You are here: Home » Comment »

Reaching out to people who left the party after 1997 isn’t a left-right project

July 16, 2012 10:07 am

Author:

Sunny Hundal

Tags:

Share this Article

What do the (limited) return of Tony Blair and Labour’s by-election loss in Bradford have in common? An abundance of apathetic voters.

Perhaps it was a one-off, thanks to how George Galloway was able to exploit local conditions, but Bradford also points to a larger, looming danger for the party.

While the Conservatives have become largely confined to Southern and rural areas, Labour – as the only truly national party remaining – faces insurgents in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland and independents elsewhere. And sometimes they are better at mobilising apathetic voters than Labour is.

You’ve no doubt heard this statistic countless times before: between 1997 and 2010, the Labour party lost five million voters. Some died, some started voting for other parties, but the vast majority simply stopped voting.

Why have they stopped voting? What would get them to return? Is it even possible to mobilise them?

These are some of the questions we hope to ask and eventually answer through Five Million Votes – which officially launches today evening.

We say in our mission statement:

“We believe strongly that triangulation, whilst successful in the 90s, has reached its limits. Instead Labour must find new ways to reach out to people who share our values but do not currently support our party electorally, starting with the five million voters who left Labour between 1997 and 2010.

We do not believe this will be an easy path, but success depends on labour winning back voters who chose to support the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and others; and also those who simply stopped voting.

This is a tough challenge that will certainly involve a change in Labour’s culture and practices that – in our view – is long overdue.”

This is not an ideological grouping and we do not place ourselves on the left or the right of the party.
Indeed, Ed Miliband said at the Progress annual conference:

“Whether we succeed or fail, I am committing today that we will embark on the biggest drive to register new voters in a generation.

In the coming years, we should knock not just on the doors of people we already know vote Labour, but also on people we haven’t contacted for years.

Let us make 2015 a change election, and set a target of making voter turnout at the next election the highest since 1997.”

That speech received a thunderous ovation then. Reaching out to people who left the party after 1997 isn’t a left-right project: it should simply be an essential project.

The triangulation of the past, which assumed that left-leaning voters would have nowhere to go, and Labour could win simply by appealing to floating Tory voters, is a strategy that ran out of steam in 2010. Labour’s traditional supporters did not come out and vote, while floating voters saw through the cynical vote-grabbing exercises.

We want to ask why those voters left the party and what it would take to attract new voters to Labour, many of whom may have never voted for years.

And neither do we have ready-made solutions. We want to ask and debate those questions, and create the space to push to discuss a new style of Labour politics. We hope you will join us.

http://twitter.com/sciamachy Sciamachy

I’m not apathetic, I just think that the system as it stands utterly fails to deliver democracy. As a left-libertarian I disagree with Labour in 2 main areas: Labour’s not left-wing & hasn’t been for quite some time, and they’ve long been way too centrist & authoritarian. Policy appears to be dictated by the NEC, & there’s very little influence anyone can have on them if they’re not already in the NEC. Getting into the NEC is obviously subject to gaining the approval of those already there, so how any major change can happen contrary to the general direction (rightwards & more authoritarian) of British politics, I don’t know. We elect them every few years & when they’re canvassing for votes they’re all ears, and then once in they shove through all kinds of stuff we never wanted. The thing is, we have the technology to operate completely without the political class. We don’t need them, they’re no good for us, so why vote?
- Brumanuensis
  
  Without wishing to be unduly cutting, I can only say that if you think the NEC dictates Party policy then you’ve completely misunderstood how the Labour Party works. The NEC has virtually no major say over policy; the National Policy Forum nominally has a major role formulating policy, but in practice it’s largely worked out within the Shadow Cabinet.
  
  The NEC is not a completely closed shop, as Johanna Baxter’s excellent performance shows. There do need to be more like her though.
  
  Could you explain what this marvellous technology is that enables us to do away with representative democracy? If you say ‘the internet’, I may get slightly irate (apologies in advance).
Alan Giles

Surely to help stop some of the apathy, Labour should be concentrating on the future the “(limited”) or otherwise return of Blair – and remember he told the press a few weeks ago he would like to be PM for a fourth time – merely reminds ex-Labour voters of one of the reasons, one of the main reasons, they left and became disenchanted after Iraq.

It doesn’t help that there are still many culpable Blair supporters in the shadow cabinet.

The greatest defence of Blair on LL comes from Conservatives or right-wing Labour party supporters, who fail to see he is now a figure of the past. The public might have fallen for his charms 15 years ago, but Britain was a very different place 15 years ago – now he is one of yesterdays men.

Frankly, I am more than apathetic at the thought of Labour desperately trying to bring back those years, when the party truly became “Tory Lite” – which is why so many Conservatives supported Blair.
- Chilbaldi
  
  I think you misunderstand risidual support for Blair.
  
  Most Blair ‘fans’ see him as a figure who can be learned from. There is a minority who believe that we should follow his ideas and policy like a script. Most however think that we can look at his approach and adapt this to modern times.
  
  In my opinion you’d be a fool not to consider this amongst other things, given that he is Labour’s most successful ever leader.
  - Dave Postles
    
    Politicians should not have ‘fans, although Tessa Jowell seems to regard herself as the secretary of his Fan Club. Our current travails are the result of Blairism: a failure to inhibit, challenge or modify, but rather to subscribe uncritically to, the transatlantic consensus and triangulation. This trite comment about the most successful leader ever avoids any analytical content other than electoral success – for what, exactly? Those who have learned from Blair include the current ‘dynamic duo’ leading the Tory party – is that a recommendation? As far as I am concerned,, Miliband has blown it.
    - christof_ff
      
      I never quite sussed Blairism and Brownism – I always thought that an ‘-ism’ denoted some sort of thought-out philosophy.
      To me Blairism means a comprehensive victory for style over substance, whilst Brownism denotes a no-score-draw.
      - aracataca
        
        But actually aren’t they both meaningless terms? For instance , which Blair are we talking about- the one who brought peace to Ireland or the one who supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq? Similarly, we have Blair -the Social Democrat of 1997-2002 and Blair the neo-liberal 2005-2007. There was not one Blair and this may or may not have been a consequence of his focus on style. ’Blairites’ today consist primarily of a string of somewhat nostalgic and out of touch individuals left stranded after his departure- Purnell and DM being cases in point.
      - http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
        
        “which Blair are we talking about”
        
        Unfortunately Blair blew any chance of a remembered positive legacy by his advocacy for the Iraq disaster.
        
        I certainly didn’t think Blair capable of anything other than following the economic consensus. But the time of that consensus is over. And many of the gains New Labour delivered for ordinary people are being quickly dismantled.
        
        All that remains is the catastrophic error and the associated habit of institutionalised authoritarianism. And, sadly, we’ll be living with that brutal legacy for a generation at least.
      - aracataca
        
        No question Dave regarding your point about the neo-liberal consensus being over. IMHO it is dawning on an increasing number of people that this is the case-Osborne, Cameron, investment bankers, etc excepted.
        
        My only point about Blair is that he cannot be simply pinned down and boxed up.
      - robertcp
        
        We can learn from the 1994-2001 Blair. His government was very right wing in Labour terms but it was still worth voting for. After 2001, the government almost stopped being a Labour government. There is nothing positive to learn from that period.
      - aracataca
        
        Iraq was a terrible mistake and that bedeviled the last few years of his premiership.
    - Chilbaldi
      
      Trite it may be, but the fact that he is the most electorally successful former Labour leader suggests there are some aspects of his leadership we can learn from.
      
      I was also suggest that the Tories are ‘script followers’ rather than learning from and adapting his approach as I suggested.
  - John Dore
    
    No point in trying to be logical with him, the only answer acceptable is that Blair, Byrne and Purnell should be excommunicated.
    - Alan Giles
      
      Mr Dore, Do you think you could try to stop being so damned personally offensive or trying to put words in my mouth?. You have started to behave like an internet stalker, forever feeling you have to make some silly comment about what I have written – or not written.
      
      It seems that you deliberately go after Treborc and me, and to be honest you are getting a silly bore.
      
      Many people neither like nor trust Mr Blair and certainlyu don’t want to see him back in any position of authority in the Labour party
      - aracataca
        
        Of course you’d never be personally offensive or try to put words into people’s mouths, would you AG?
      - Alan Giles
        
        I certainly didn’t make anyone post under three different screen-names, in your case and two in the case of “Purple Booker” aka “Labour Right Toughie”. I know you said it was “a mistake” but I can’t see how you made the same “mistake” twice.
        
        It is a pity you both demean your LL contributions by this somewhat devious approach – and if that is “offensive” I apologise
      - treborc
        
        Three times not twice
      - aracataca
        
        Any chance of changing the record?
      - treborc
        
        This from the nappy rash kid who had to change his names to be relevant
      - Alan Giles
        
        Perhaps you would prefer it if I relayed the same message but using three different screen names?
        
        I could always claim “mistakes” when I got found out, but – seriously, William – when you do indulge in tricks of that sort, don’t be too surprised if you are treated as a lightweight.
  - Alan Giles
    
    I understand only too well: Blair could hold a masterclass in deceit, dishonesty, greed and cupidity. Croneyism doesn’t have a better expert. He could be a Professor of Freeloading (the Cliff Richard holidays etc)
    
    He would be a marvellous example of conducting buisness on the sofa, arranging for your underlins to “adapt” a 12 year old PHd thesis to become a document guaranteed to frighten your colleagues into voting for an unwinnable war. He could provide tuition in how to crawl and grovel to the President of the USA.
    
    Mr Blair, should, by now, be a figure of history. Many people regard him as less than an example of perfection. In fact, I frankly would never trust him. You get the feeling that the only reason he would do anything for anybody would be if he were going to benefit from it personally (probably financially).
    - Chilbaldi
      
      Irrelevant Blair abuse, skirting around the question posed. As usual.
      - Alan Giles
        
        If only we could all be so clever and relevant as you think you are.
        
        Harold Wilson was just as electorally successful as Blair, and unlike Blair he avoided us going in to a war we couldn’t win, with the concomitant loss of life and money
      - Chilbaldi
        
        Unlike Wilson, Blair never lost an election (other than the Beaconsfield by-election).
      - Alan Giles
        
        You can sure as hell be certain Blair wouldn’t win an election now, if he tried for a fourth term. He has been rumbled.
        
        The Blair “fans” as you phrased it might think the sun shines out of his keyhole, but the majority on non-Labour voters and a great many Labour supporters have seen through him now.
        
        What was that quotation about you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all the people all the time.
        
        Iraq, cash for honours, the sofa and the cronies – he is damaged goods and Ed must be desperate if he thinks Blair will do him or us any good
      - James
        
        Blair won elections standing against a Conservative Party in ruins led by John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard, respectively. A wooden rocking-horse could probably have led Labour to victory standing against those no-hopers.
      - Chilbaldi
        
        That old chestnut. The party won those 3 elections under his leadership. Do you think Cameron is markedly better than any of those three Tory leaders you have listed, or that the Tories contain greater talent than in 1997, 2001 or 2005?
      - James
        
        Cameron represented a break with the Conservative Party’s Thatcherite past presenting himself (falsely) to the electorate as a “compassionate Conservative” who possessed solutions to the nation’s problems which didn’t require naked Thatcherite harshness. Major, Hague and Howard carried far too much baggage with them to ever be trusted by the electorate with the keys to 10 Downing Street.
        
        In point of fact Cameron is much, much worse than any of the aforementioned Tory leaders but (as an ex-public relations flunky) knew how to deceive the country into believing he was something different and much more decent and humane than he actually is and the country, faced with another five years of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister as the only plausible alternative, decided to give him the benefit of the doubt to a degree.
        
        Cameron guilefully portrayed himself as a different kind of Conservative leader who would head a very much different Conservative Party which would have very progressive and compassionate policies.
        
        Of course it was all bullsh*t and we can all see his true colours now but the mask he wore formally sanitised and made the Tory brand seem electable for a while.
      - Chilbaldi
        
        I agree with most of that, but do you not think that most of the country saw through Cameron by May 2010? He failed to win a majority against a deeply unpopular Labour government.
      - James
        
        I think Cameron ended up as Prime Minister because a majority of people loathed Gordon Brown.
        
        Having seen how utterly hopeless and out of his depth Gordon Brown actually was when he became Prime Minister people decided it might be best to go with the devil that they DIDN’T know than stick with the one they knew only too well.
      - Hugh
        
        Whereas Wilson couldn’t manage a majority (or even the majority of votes) in the midst of a three-day week in 1974.
      - Alan Giles
        
        Whatever Conservatives and Tony’s Toadies say about Harold Wilson, at least he left office without having been responsible for sending the country to war, with countless military and civilian deaths on his conscience – and – once he retired in 1976 he never attempted to go back into the limelight.
        
        Poor old Blair is an overrated old drama queen who can’t bear to leave the stage. End of.
      - Hugh
        
        Actually I didn’t say anything about Wilson or Blair’s record in government. It didn’t really seem relevant to the point. You claimed Wilson enjoyed as much electoral success as Blair. He didn’t. End of.
      - Alan Giles
        
        Sorry if I misread you Hugh, but actually, something Blair’s sycophants forget is that HW won 4 elections (Oct 1964, March 1966, February 1974 and October 1974), so in a sense he was even more succesful than Blair’s 3
      - Brumanuensis
        
        At the time, the consensus was that Heath would win, given that trade union disputes were hardly beneficial for a Party founded by and closely linked to, the trades union movement. Wilson did well to win twice in 1974. The electoral tests he faced, with the possible exception of 2005, were tougher than Blair in 1997 – 2007, especially considering that the economy was more or less a non-issue for Blair’s time in office.
      - Alan Giles
        
        I well remember when Heath called the February 1974 election he did so using the emotive term…[this election] “will decide who runs the country – the government or the unions”.
        
        No prizes for guessing how the newspapers portrayed it, and I remember after that weekend in which Ted Heath desperately hung on in Downing Street, one of the real old Tory grandees (for the life of me can’t remember who) saying that he was outraged and surprised that they had not been given a mandate considering the basic question Heath had posed at the outset.
        
        I agree with your post very much indeed. So many people have forgotten the 3 day week which Heath implemented.
      - treborc
        
        That is true he left to earn his badge from Bush, before the war he started ended.
      - Hugh
        
        No, he wasn’t. Blair won two landslides, and a solid 60 seat majority in his third election. Wilson got a decent majority – though less than Blair’s – in just one.
      - Chilbaldi
        
        don’t get AG started on the 60 seat majority Hugh. He’ll start wittering on about how it was only half of the two landslides.
      - Alan Giles
        
        I leave the “wittering” to you.
        
        Blair is the past – I would invite anyone who thinks he is the future to go ahead and nominate him for the leadership. I am quite sure he would lose.
  - James
    
    Blair is Labour’s most elected leader.
    
    Atlee was Labour’s most successful leader.
    
    There’s a BIG difference.
  - treborc
    
    What did you say your not New labour, interesting, I’m all for Blair making a come back and the next leader, it’s the only real way of getting rid of him. go for it.
  - JoeDM
    
    He was a winner who could connect directly with the people in the same way the Maggie Thatcher did.
    
    If only he had joined the party he was most suited to !!!
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    The problem is that his coming to leadership coincided with the literal collapse of the Tories – while they are in trouble, the memories of the last Labour government are still very fresh. In 1995, it was a very distant memory
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    The problem is that his coming to leadership coincided with the literal collapse of the Tories – while they are in trouble, the memories of the last Labour government are still very fresh. In 1995, it was a very distant memory
christof_ff

It will take more than a change of personaily and marketing. Most of Blair and Brown’s hangers-on are still there. These are the same people who happily presided over an era “filthy-rich” bankers, prepared the ground for much of what the Tories are doing now – City Academies, Foundation Hospitals, PFI, etc. The newer parliamentary intake is primarily former SPADs and consultants, not common people with real working backgrounds who the public can identify with.
Ed Milliband’s attempts to break from the past have been pretty feeble – there’s no real change of direction, just a change of tone and a few opportunist soundbites - calling for Tony’s mate Rebekah Brooks to go (once the screams from the public became deafening), and calling for Brown’s mate Diamond to go (once the screams for the public became deafening).
If he wants to actually win new voters rather than stall the haemorrhage, why not do something bold – bring the railways and/or the utility companies back into public ownership, make Britain WMD-free, full commitment to cleaning up party funding – anything that might inspire more than a yawn.
As it stands, the collapse of LibDems as an electoral force and extreme loathing towards the Tories offer a glimpse of future electoral success. Don’t let such circumstances mask the fact that Labour has very very deep problems.
- aracataca
  
  Disagree. There has been a change of direction but the destination has not been reached yet and won’t be reached for some time. This is to be expected after 13 years in office and only 2 in opposition. In respect of policy it would be nuts to announce policy details 3 years out from an election but only last week Angela Eagle mooted that there would be de facto renationalisation of the rail network under a future Labour government.
  - christof_ff
    
    Agree that policy details will be pretty sparse at this point in time, but surely the intended destination shouldn’t be a secret – particularly if you intend on attracting passengers along the way?
    - treborc
      
      Of course your right, and the worry is of course Miliband does not have directions or can read the map.
      - aracataca
        
        Not everyone is as intelligent as you are and they also don’t have the astonishing strategic acumen that you have. You need to be more forgiving towards your inferiors.
      - treborc
        
        Thanks OK if you can live with your inferior complex then so can I , nappy rash boy
    - aracataca
      
      No but IMHO we are witnessing the end of the neo-liberal consensus that was established in the late 1970s and early 1980s- not just here but globally. Our response to these shifting circumstances will take years to develop. In terms of policy slogans we already have those, eg, cuts-too far too fast, etc.
      - aracataca
        
        Balls has just mailed us this as some immediate policy ideas:
        
        Labour is calling for three more u-turns:
        
        * To reverse the failed Tory economic plan and urgently put in place Labour’s plan for jobs and growth, including a tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund jobs for young people.
        
        * To reverse the tax cut for millionaires – their cut in the 50p top rate of tax – so that in tough times the richest pay their fair share.
        
        * And to reverse the “granny tax”, so that pensioners aren’t unfairly hit.
        
        This is kind of Stiglitz (albeit small and short term).
      - christof_ff
        
        ‘too far too fast’ says to me that Labour agrees with the coalition, the just disagree on the fine details – not exactly a seismic shift in consensus.
Stu Jenkins

So long as Blair is associated in anyway with the Labour party, however small, I will never ever return to it. I was on the verge of coming back, had got as far as inquiring when local meetings were going to take place. No more. Not until there’s not a whiff of Blair and his ilk about the party.
- http://www.pickledpolitics.com Sunny H
  
  I think you’re over-reacting here: Tony Blair does not have any input on policy.
  - treborc
    
    So your saying he will only be used on the legacy of the games, I do not believe that for a minute
    
    Tony Blair has agreed to contribute his ideas and experience to Labour’s Policy Review on these issues.
    
    http://www.labour.org.uk/ed-miliband-tony-blair,2012-07-11
  - Alan Giles
    
    Don’t you think you are being a trifle naive?
    
    If Blair was just back for the Olympics, why would he have gone to the expense in the spring of this year to eploy at great expense a new press secretary “to aid his re-engagement with domestic politics during the summer”?
    
    Perhaps that is what Ed and his team beileve or hope, but there are so many Progress/Blair supporters rattling round the shadow cabinet, and given Blair’s self-confessed desire to be P.M. again, how can anyone bank on the notion this is a temporary reappearance?
  - Alan Giles
    
    So that’s why he appointed at great expense a new press secretary back in the spring to help his “re-engagement” with domestic politics?.
    
    You think he would have done that for a three week return?
    
    It seems a very naive idea that you can accept that he would do all that for a temporary fleeting appearance.
    
    I am sure the Blairite Progress supporters will be encouraging him to stick around longer – and no doubt those cosy chats with the 2010 intake has an ulterior motive.
Hugh

“While the Conservatives have become largely confined to Southern
and rural areas, Labour – as the only truly national party remaining…”That made me chuckle. If Labour can manage to be a true national party without “Southern and rural areas” I”m not entirely sure why the Conservatives aren’t a national party that just happens to be very weak in the North and urban areas.
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  It does seem an odd statement to make, particularly so early in the article.
  
  One 50:50 split in the population in the country occurs on a line from the Wash to the city of Bristol: 50% live to the north and west, 50% to the south and east (those numbers include Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). That geographical split also seems to me to be reasonable as for some idea as to where people “look” – towards London, or towards some of the other great cities. There are no doubt anomalies – in Cornwall for example London is very far away, and I do not know what many in the midlands (to the north of this line) think, but it is close enough to an acceptable distinction.
  
  As far as I can see, Labour has about 45 seats to the south of this line (mostly in London, also Luton, Oxford, some in Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth and Southampton). The tories have something like 90 to the north of the line, and it seems from the map that you can drive from the far south west of England all the way to into Scotland without leaving a tory seat. The only solid line of red on the map is across central Scotland, and while I don’t follow Scottish politics at all, I have seen somewhere that the SNP are rapidly encroaching upon those as well.
  
  The statement does not appear to prove that Labour is a national party, and the tories not. In the future, if the Scottish take a route of independence, it would be very difficult for Labour to claim to be a truly national party (of England and Wales) based on the 2010 results. It would have an entirely reasonable claim to be a party of the great cities, but that is more divisive and appears to ignore everyone in the countryside and smaller towns and cities.
Quiet_Sceptic

Are the Tories largely confined to the South and rural areas?

I’d say not – they took lots of urban constituencies from Labour, up and down the country. A quick glance down the list of the seats Labour lost shows many of them were regional towns or cities, outside Labour’s industrial heartlands but not rural, not Southern and by no means default Conservative seats. Seats that Labour had taken in 1997 and held on falling majorities until lost in 2010.
- Brumanuensis
  
  But those were the exceptions, not the norm. Outside the West Midlands, there were comparatively few of them.
- Brumanuensis
  
  But those were the exceptions, not the norm. Outside the West Midlands, there were comparatively few of them.
Simon Jones

The blunt truth is that most of the ’5 million’ do not make a difference to whether Labour wins or loses. The small minority of people who swing their votes, or whether they vote, in swing seats make that difference and the rest don’t.

To pretend that 4 million people who stopped voting or switched the vote in seats that don’t swing matter is to pretend that we have a different electoral system. To pretend that a voter we lost in Liverpool Wavertree or Chelsea & Fulham matters as much as a vote lost in Sherwood or Enfield North is to ignore the electoral system we have to win under.
PeterBarnard

Sunny,

(i) four million of the “lost five milion” were lost between 1997 and 2005 and it may be a bit late in the day to be asking them, “why they left Labour?”

(ii) the turn-out in 2010 was only 1.6 million less than it was in 1997 (29.7 million voted, compared to 31.3 million), so it isn’t quite true to say that five million electors have stopped voting altogether. Our opponents, in aggregate, gained 3.3 million votes 2010 over 1997.

(iii) I have been out on an “electoral registration drive” and it is a pain in the backside (not to say very unproductive), that’s for sure.

(iv) the answer may lie in the perception (right or wrong) that “they’re all the bl**dy same.”
- Daniel Speight
  
  Peter, how to convince the public that (iv) isn’t so when, looking at the PLP, we aren’t even convinced of it ourselves?
  - PeterBarnard
    
    That’s a good question, Daniel S, and I agree that “when, looking at the PLP, we aren’t convinced of it ourselves?”, although I am sure that it doesn’t apply to the whole of the PLP.
    
    The elephant in the room is unemployment and although some (many?) talk about “jobs,” one gets the feeling that their heart isn’t really in it ; it really doesn’t matter whether the jobs are high-skilled or low-skilled, as long as it “gets people off benefits.”
    
    It would make a very pleasant change to hear someone in the Labour Party actually say that he/she believes in “jobs” because properly-paid work leads to human dignity.
    
    Too many in the Labour Party have accepted the post-1979 consensus and feel that they have to work within that framework. They can’t see that the post-1979 consensus, especially the great swing in the distribution of income, is actually responsible for increased (non-pension) benefit expenditure.
robertcp

Isn’t the truth that Labour wins when it attracts votes from people on average and low incomes plus left-liberal intellectuals? Labour managed to lose support from all of those groups after 1997.

I would argue that Labour’s vote in 2010 was so low because it had alienated people who would usually vote Labour in almost any circumstances. To be honest, Labour is very lucky that most of them seem to have returned to voting Labour due to the lack of an alternative. This may explain why Labour does badly when there is a credible alternative, for example, Galloway in Bradford and the SNP in Scotland.
- Quiet_Sceptic
  
  I’m not sure that’s the case though. If you look at the electoral map from 2010, Labour held its traditional post-industrial strong-hold seats which hold the die-hard Labour voters, you could summarise the 2010 result as a retreat back to the heartlands.
  
  Labour lost the large number of urban, but not industrial heartland seats that it had won from the Tories in 1997 – the new towns, regional cities, towns. Basically urban constituencies, many in the East, the Midlands and the South which are neither traditional Labour or Conservative seats.
  
  To win again Labour has to retake those seats.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    Actually, Labour’s major losses were the towns of the north and midlands – we lost many of the southern seats in 2005. The voters we lost there were largely our two sets of core voters – the middle class ‘Guardian’ voters, and the core working class vote. I actually think we will win back the former without too many problems. The latter may be more of a challenge. But I doubt whether we will win many votes directly from the Tories – seems to me that there remains a solid 33% or so of the electorate who like and agree with the Tory party and their views and values
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    Actually, Labour’s major losses were the towns of the north and midlands – we lost many of the southern seats in 2005. The voters we lost there were largely our two sets of core voters – the middle class ‘Guardian’ voters, and the core working class vote. I actually think we will win back the former without too many problems. The latter may be more of a challenge. But I doubt whether we will win many votes directly from the Tories – seems to me that there remains a solid 33% or so of the electorate who like and agree with the Tory party and their views and values
  - robertcp
    
    I think that you will find that Labour’s vote fell nearly everywhere in 2010. The result was lower majorities in safe seats and losing marginal seats.
Brumanuensis

Reading the arguments about Blair, I am reminded of a passage by William Faulkner, about the place of Gettysburg in the southern US imagination.

“For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it’s still not yet two o’clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it’s all in the balance, it hasn’t happened yet, it hasn’t even begun yet, it not only hasn’t begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it’s going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn’t need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago”.

Arguing over Blair is a way of trying to exorcise the past. It’s as if we believe we can somehow stop Iraq by doing so, as though if we argue vigorously enough, at some point the whole thing will disappear from history and we’ll no longer have to deal with the repercussions. History doesn’t work like that.

I am so bored of this. Five years ago I loathed Blair too. Now? I’m indifferent. I’m bored. I’m tired. There’s a Conservative government out there you know? Busy hitting the people we care about; dismantling the NHS; undermining the welfare state. You know, those guys on the TV? They’re the real enemy. Not Blair. I don’t give a fig for Blair. I do not give a damn anymore, about Tony sodding Blair. I am spent. I cannot muster up the energy to be angry at a man who left front-line politics five years ago. Did people in 1981 spend this much time arguing about Wilson?

And yes, both sides are guilty. Alan, I like you and what I wrote above isn’t aimed specifically at you, but you’re never going to persude people to feel the way you do about Blair. There comes a time when you just have to let go and acknowledge that some things can’t be undone. I wish they could be too, but they can’t. And yes, there are other people on the other side of the fence who insist on dredging this matter up, to rile Blair’s critics (think Mr RM). But don’t give them the satisfaction. It’s not worth it.

Sunny is right. We need to work on winning back those lost millions. But in 2012, Tony Blair is not why people are staying away from Labour. He may have been a factor or even a cause, but he is no longer relevant. So please. Stop arguing about Tony Blair.
- Alan Giles
  
  A very fair summination Brumanuensis. I’d just say that to answer one of your points, the reason there wasn’t such an ongoing love/hate relationship with Harold Wilson in 1981 was because he avoided war, and, even if things went wrong, his was a cabinet government, where he had deliberately invited all wings of the party to participate. And crucially, he didn’t continue to push himself forward, going round the world lecturing and telling newspapers he wanted to be PM again. If I may say so, I would share your indifference of Blair if he didn’t keep coming back, but as I have said, I don’t trust him at all – those cosy chats with the 2010 intake etc etc. You have to wonder about his motives.
  
  Blair on the other hand seemed to many people to be almost a vanity project, where he more or less decided policy personally, which was put in place by ministers from one wing of the party. Instead of arguing round the cabinet table, decisions were made in small groups on the sofa, so any minister who did feel aggreived had one of two options: either go on the record and complain and risk the wrath and derision of Campbell and Mandelson, or leak damaging information to the press.
  
  Of course, Mrs Thatcher is the only other PM who can still conjure up these opposing views, strongly and sincerely held by all parties so many years after the event – like Blair she tended to be a one man band, and did certain things which were so deeply felt the damage can never be fully repaired.
  
  Mrs Thatcher did threaten John Major she would be a “back seat driver” and for a year or two she did try, but, to their credit, the grandees appear to have told her her time was over and apart from one or two carefully orchestrated cameo roles she soon left the car. I think Ed’s team need to be as firm with Tony Blair
  - Daniel Speight
    
    I would add that the real problem of Blair is the damage he would do to Labour’s election chances if he were too visible. I’m not arguing this as an ideological point, but as a very pragmatic tactic which one would feel should appeal to those who followed Blair.
    
    Let me put it this way. The negative effect on Blair being closely associated with today’s Labour Party by those who dislike him is greater than the positive effect by those that like him. In other words it causes votes to be lost.
    
    Of course I could be quite wrong about this, in which case I would fall back to that ideological argument;-)
  - Brumanuensis
    
    A good set of points Alan, although I would make two in reply:
    
    First, Wilson’s Alzheimer’s limited his participation in politics after his resignation. Second, Wilson’s colleagues often saw him as evasive and devious, suggesting his cabinet system did not protect his government’s from division – Benn’s diaries are very good on this point.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    A good set of points Alan, although I would make two in reply:
    
    First, Wilson’s Alzheimer’s limited his participation in politics after his resignation. Second, Wilson’s colleagues often saw him as evasive and devious, suggesting his cabinet system did not protect his government’s from division – Benn’s diaries are very good on this point.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    A good set of points Alan, although I would make two in reply:
    
    First, Wilson’s Alzheimer’s limited his participation in politics after his resignation. Second, Wilson’s colleagues often saw him as evasive and devious, suggesting his cabinet system did not protect his government’s from division – Benn’s diaries are very good on this point.
Pingback: Told You So | FavStocks

Latest

Featured
Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

By Jim Knight

If you Google ‘Ed Miliband,’ you quickly get the old stuff about him being a bit of geek. His appearance at Google’s big Tent on Wednesday almost begged the headline “Geek Goes Home”. But that assumes technology is just something for geeks to worry about, and that Ed is a techie. Neither are true. What we saw on Wednesday was a leader with the courage to tell Google straight that it should live up to its founding principles on the [...]
Read more →
Featured
Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

By Mark Ferguson

“We want to start a war” – Woolwich attacker “right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose” - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett Only 24 hours ago, news began to trickle through about a barbarous crime, committed on the streets of our capital city, in broad daylight. It seems that the murderers who attacked and brutally murdered a soldier felt they were acting in a way endorsed by their religious beliefs and their god. But to try and [...]
Read more →
News
Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

By Johanna Baxter

Party Organisation The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success. The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former [...]
Read more →
News
Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

Following yesterday’s attack in Woolwich, Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly Len Duvall AM said: “The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community. “At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to [...]
Read more →
Comment
If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

By Ellie Cumbo

Today End Violence Against Women (EVAW) releases a new report auditing the Government’s progress in acting to prevent violence against women and girls. And with the revelations from Operation Yewtree and group exploitation cases set to roll on for many months , we hope the response from Parliament, policy-makers and the media will be unanimous : that prevention must be at the top of the priority list for any government, of any colour, from now on. On that basis, it’s [...]
Read more →

← previous next →

DOWNLOAD IT NOW: One Nation Labour – Debating the future

Signup to our daily email

Proudly sponsored by

LabourList Videos

Latest Posts

Reaching out to people who left the party after 1997 isn’t a left-right project

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Latest

Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

Email*
Forename
Surname