It’s time for Labour to reach beyond “the empty stadium”

October 11, 2012 11:30 am

Party general Secretary Iain McNicol, in his speech to the Labour Party conference, cited Philip Gould’s metaphor that politics is like a game of football without any spectators. The players work hard for every ball, and strain for every goal, but the stadium is empty. The decline in voting across most developed countries, the utter collapse in party memberships, and the low regard in which politicians are held have all contributed to this crisis.

At no point in the year is the ‘empty stadium’ more obvious than the conference season. Apart from a couple of hours at a Tory conference, I’ve only ever attended the Labour Party conference. For over twenty years, I’ve decamped to Blackpool, Brighton, Bournemouth, and latterly to Liverpool and Manchester, to take part in the tribal ritual. Ask me what I can remember about them, and I’d have to think hard. I can remember Kinnock’s speech in 1990, Prescott’s in 1993, Blair’s in 1994, Mandela in 2000, and Bill Clinton’s incongruous appearance in the Blackpool MacDonald’s. There are odd moments, funny incidents and flashbacks to fringe meetings or receptions. It’s a bit like school – after a while all the names, places and faces become jumbled up.

If I can’t remember more than a handful of significant moments, and I was there, what chance has the electorate? For a conference to ‘cut through’ to the public takes some high drama or major event. The IRA bombing the Tories in Brighton in 1984 qualifies, and Kinnock routing Militant, but that’s probably about it. All that effort, so many canapés, all those late nights, the endless speeches – all played out to an empty stadium.

And yet this year in Manchester it felt different. A mid-term conference for a party in Opposition is always a tricky one. Tony Blair used the 1994 conference, mid-term between the 1992 and 1997 general elections, to announce the modernisation of Clause IV, Part IV of the party’s constitution. Neil Kinnock used the 1985 conference, mid-term between the 1983 and 1987 general elections to expel Militant, and break with their fellow-travellers on the ‘hard left’. Ed Miliband came to Manchester with neither a taint of extremism to tackle, nor 15 years of Opposition to overturn. The party has remained united in defeat, for the first time ever. Nor was there a big policy or organisational schism which needed fixing. It was entirely possible for Ed Miliband to give a workmanlike speech which disappeared without trace within minutes of its delivery. Not a disaster of IDS proportions; but nothing to write home about either

But he didn’t. Instead, he delivered a speech which will be remembered for decades, which will define his leadership, and, if Labour wins the election, will be seen as the decisive moment. My mother, who is 80, and who hovers on the political spectrum somewhere around Nick Griffin, thought it a wonderful speech. She phoned to say so. She’s never done anything like that before. I know one shouldn’t judge the whole of public opinion based on our own families, but it can give a clue. The post-conference opinion poll bounce is a surer measure.

It might be that our expectations were flat, so anything half decent would be a pleasant surprise. I was joking in the minutes before going into the hall, that the long queues of people didn’t know what they where queuing for. But it was more than that. It wasn’t even just the memory trick of remembering over an hour of excellent material, without a stumble, hugely impressive though that is. Try it for yourself. In fact, try just remembering ten minutes of material, without the world watching, and without the knowledge that if you foul it up, you’re finished forever. Ed Miliband must have nerves of steel to attempt it.

The One Nation leitmotif, the references to winning in the south of England, to supporting private enterprise and reaching out to new voters showed the bare bones of an electoral strategy which has learned the lessons of New Labour. It killed dead the nonsense that Labour must ‘win back the five million lost since 1997’ (one and a half million of whom are dead).  The political content, especially on the banks and vested interests, showed a vision of society beyond the Crash.

There’s something else too. Politics is a zero sum game. For Labour to prosper, the Tories must falter. In Birmingham, they began their decline. They haven’t won an election for twenty years; they haven’t had a new idea for thirty. Cameron had no choice but to speak from behind a podium, with an autocue, trying to look like a prime minister. His days of note-less stage wandering are over. But his speech was useless. Apart from the ‘one notion’ line, itself a reaction to Labour, can you even remember what he said? The Tories’ message this week in Birmingham was simple: we’re right-wing, we hate the Lib Dems, and we want to win the next election. That’s not the basis of an election-winning strategy.

Labour faces a crucial few months now. We need to reach beyond the empty stadium, and into the homes and workplaces of people currently disengaged from politics. These are the months when people are deciding how to vote, not a few weeks in 2015. Speeches don’t win elections. The alchemy between strategy, policy and communications is what wins elections. Leadership is what wins elections. But in Manchester we started to see a glimpse of gold.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Yes. I think that Ed is clearly building a distinctive approach which is very different from that of the Tories.

    And I agree – I hope I can be objective enough to admit when the Tories do a competent job, but Cameron’s speech was awful. He had absolutely nothing to say other than fears of globalisation and its impact – and yet the Tory instinct is neither to look towards working with Europe or returning to Tory protectionism, but a fantasy that we need more free market and can compete direct with China to produce cheap goods if only we liberalised even more. Not only is that vision nonsense, but it would be deeply unpopular

  • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

    “It killed dead the nonsense that Labour must ‘win back the five million lost since 1997’ (one and a half million of whom are dead).”

    But we must learn how not to lose another 5 million. Significantly, once in government New Labour lost votes, the landslide was won while out of government. There can be no return to the vote losing ways of New Labour in government. But there is much to be learned from the radical  pre-government period when Blair promised a stakeholder economy “which involves all our people, not just a better-off 30 or 40 or 50 per cent.”.

    But it didn’t work out that way and inequality increased. As Ed said, New Labour were too timid. Let’s hope we get a second chance.

    • aracataca

      Dave- a couple of points. First, 2001 was a landslide – overall majority 167 seats.
      1.5 million of the 5 million ‘lost’ voters are dead- that’s a fair point to make and is a cogent response to the ’5 million lost votes’ mantra-no? 
      IMHO the neo-liberal era is over, so a return to New Labourism looks unlikely but anyone expecting the next Labour government to roll up the carpet of capitalism is courting inevitable disappointment. 

      • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

        But the 2001 landslide was only achieved via the previous high – 1997: 13, 518 167 votes (418 seats). 2001: 10,724,953 votes (413 seats). 2005: 9,552,436 votes (355seats). 2010: 8,606,517 votes (258 seats).

        If we want to find lessons in how to win votes then the New Labour in government period is not the place to look. Of course, it is ridiculous to suggest that we must “win back” lost votes, that’s an example of the backward-looking approach we must move on from and also is Paul’s straw man.

        We are, as you suggest, in a different era and new solutions will be needed. But Blair’s radical stake holder economy proposal, if instituted as described, would have diminished the severity of the crises currently afflicting us (housing, industrial decline, personal debt bubble etc). And the popularity of Blair’s radicalism (whether sincere or not) illustrates a fluid and sometimes radical aspect of the centre-ground which was abandoned by Blair when in government.Agree re Labour and anti-capitalism.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

          Also, the 2001 landslide was caused by huge numbers of Tories staying at home – the lowest turnout ever.

          Labour has always been a social democratic party of reform, and I think Ed comes from that stable. What is most noticeable is that all the ‘modernisation’ language and constant talk of ‘reform’ has gone. I think the Blairites realise only too well that there has been a definitive move away from this New Labour theme.

          But of course we won’t just be turning the clock back – it would be daft to think this was feasible or desirable

  • marigwilliams

    Being a united party is clearly our strength. I sense that we are becoming the common sense party. The party your vote for if you care about strengthening society and looking after our most vulnerable you’ll vote Labour. My mum and dad also raved about his speech and brought the newspaper out to the States for me to read it. Word of mouth is crucial in building the strength and reputation of a leader and I really hope this is Ed’s moment.

  • Brumanuensis

    “It killed dead the nonsense that Labour must ‘win back the five million lost since 1997’ (one and a half million of whom are dead)”.

    I appreciate that the 5 million voters lost do not necessarily represent losses due to a perceived lack of left-wing policies – although as negative evidence of Blair’s faltering standing, it remains very compelling – but what exactly do you want us to do on this front? Settle for 10 million or perhaps 11 million if we must? And where is this figure of 1.5 million coming from?

  • uglyfatbloke

    For most people, Ed’s speech is al;ready pretty hazy and in a month’s time will be utterly forgotten..it’s the general nature of political speeches. There is the odd exception – ‘I have a dream ‘ and the Gettysburg address come to mind, and who could forget David Steel’s ‘prepare for government’? Even these examples are really just known for the soundbite moments and Ed’s speech did n’t really have a soundbite I’m afraid. Repeating ‘one nation’ fifty of sixty times in an hour does n’t qualify.
    As for getting the ‘lost’ voters back..nothing much can be done for the dead ones really, but the others might be attracted by adopting popular policies or just pursuing things that are fair – such as democratic elections and personal liberty.
    Blair’s radicalism? Well it was pretty radical for a Labour PM to be so very helpful to the rich, and under Blair the very poorest only became a little bit poorer, so that was good……or maybe not.

  • robertcp

    I agreed with nearly all of an article by Paul Richards.  Labour must be united!

    The 5 million argument was always a bit simplistic.  The turnout fell in 2001, Labour lost liberal-left votes in 2005 and lost the 2010 election badly due to the recession. 

  • Dave Postles
  • Pingback: The power of Mumsnet – for Blog Action Day #PowerOfWe #BAD12 « Guerilla Policy

Latest

  • Comment A call for action at the G8

    A call for action at the G8

    In less than a month’s time, the UK hosts the G8 Summit. With hunger, tax, trade and transparency all on the agenda, the UK has a unique opportunity to show global leadership on these issues. The scale of hunger is devastating. There is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry. 2.3 million children every year die from malnutrition – to put that in perspective, that is around 16,000 children every day. Or one [...]

    Read more →
  • News TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 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. TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run “The TUC along with its international equivalent – the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – is calling on UEFA to address the appalling treatment of workers and players in Qatar and [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    The Labour Party spends a great deal of time beating itself up over its performance in Southern England. We know it simply isn’t good enough, but we can’t seem to put our finger on why exactly that’s the case. Is it demographics? No. Culture? Perhaps. Lack of basic party organisation in some areas? It’s certainly a factor. But whilst we’re flagellating ourselves over our inability to perform south of the Watford gap (outside of London), we should remember that the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Why we love Woolwich

    Why we love Woolwich

    Woolwich is an amazing place. It’s where the Labour party was founded as a mass membership organization. The Woolwich Provident was one of Britain’s first building societies. The Royal Arsenal Coop one of our first cooperative societies. Woolwich had the second Polytechnic in the country, created with the aim of providing education for working adults. Woolwich is my nearest big town centre, where I shop and go to meet friends. In the last few days, for many people, its name [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    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 →