Labour’s real ‘blue collar’ problem

As is entirely predictable, the post local elections analysis has focused on ‘what on earth is Labour to do about blue collar voters’? There is a terror that the movement of Labour’s ‘traditional support’ to the no voting party or right wing populists seems to be accelerating after temporarily stalling. So there must be a strategy to win ‘them’ back.

But what has been entirely missed is that Labour’s entire post-2010 strategy, based on a fear of Gillian Duffy, has been entirely focused on winning back ‘blue collar’ voters. The apology for A8 accession immigration, all the retail bungs, talks about living wages and ending zero hours contracts, flying the flag of St George, emphasising the importance of English in public services, the community organising of Arnie Graf, has all been focused on the ‘blue collar’ vote. As a policy package and strategy, there are good elements and not so good but one thing that can’t be argued is that labour has been ignoring its ‘blue collar’ support. It’s obsessed with it.

And it’s not working. Labour is still losing support in this demographic. What on earth is it to do? More of the same? Shout louder? More community organising? Nationalise the railways? All of this entirely misses the point. There is no such thing as a singular ‘blue collar’ vote. As a group, this demographic is just as diverse as any other group. Within it, there is one (broad) group, not the majority but a significant minority, who are more concerned about issues of identity, culture, patriotism, and a stable English or British culture than they are about economics. This group is more heavily older and male than other working class voters. And frankly, Labour has been pitching the wrong strategy at them entirely.

To win them back, Labour needs to advocate a strict cap on immigration, end free movement of Labour (ie leave the EU), adopt harsh anti-welfare dependency approaches, espouse a dominant national culture over pluralism, and get rid of its current crop of Oxbridge educated leaders. That is how it could prevent many of these voters drifting to the party of ‘angry, not interested’ or to UKIP. It would be more ‘one nationalism Labour’ than ‘one nation Labour’.

So let’s get serious in this discussion. If that is the Labour party we want then do it. It will keep Labour’s ‘traditional support’ intact. And this is not about ‘socialism’; it’s about identity. That’s a category error that the left has been making ever since the completely inaccurate Labour’s lost voters analysis of a decade ago.

Miliband hasn’t gone there. Instead, he has targeted ‘blue collar’ voters who, whilst concerned about identity, are more worried about jobs and economic insecurity. These voters, on average, are younger, more likely to be working age, have a family at home, they are more gender balanced and ethnically diverse. If life takes a turn for the worse, they could be tempted by UKIP. But for now, they are sticking with Labour. They don’t like welfare dependency and they are anxious about levels of immigration. But they are not harsh about either – they are more concerned than anything else. When added to Labour’s public sector and Liberal Democrat refugee support, this is Miliband’s current coalition. It is pluralistic coalition. According to Marcus Roberts of the Fabian Society, this takes Labour towards a vote share of 32.5% or so in the next election.

Where I part company with Marcus is the notion that what Labour needs is more of the same (though he would argue that it is not the same). Labour’s problem is not that it isn’t going to renationalise the railways (though that will probably be its policy by the Autumn), it’s that not enough people think it can govern competently. Labour has expended most endeavour trying to persuade its ‘traditional’ base to stay rather than building new reservoirs of support. And time is now short. Unless Labour reaches out more to those with mortgages, with a more comfortable yet precarious existence, with a sense of social justice but within tightly guarded parameters, with huge ambitions for the children’s future then it will remain in the 33% territory. No, it will secure 33% of the vote at very best. And, what’s more, the swing away from Labour will be very late in the day when it is too late to do anything about it.

Since the local and European elections which were clear about Labour’s predicament, the party has given one speech on its economic plans. You might have read about it on p17 of the Financial Times. If Labour’s core argument is that there is a cost of living crisis then voters, especially suburban voters, will be in no mood to take a risk on Labour- mortgages matter more than £50 off the electricity bill.

A winning coalition for Labour is not an either-or coalition. It’s not a ‘blue-collar’ or ‘suburban’ coalition or a ‘traditional’ or ‘modern’ coalition. It’s a broad and plural coalition. This is getting critical now and there has been little sign of an understanding of this point at the top of Labour since the recent elections. Quite simply, Labour has not earned the permission to talk about its more visionary policies because it’s failing to pass the competence test. This is not a route to greater social justice.

After the local elections, I wrote on LabourList that Labour has ‘a London problem’. What I meant is that London is unique and Labour’s appeal there was particular rather than indicative a broad national appeal. If it clung on to the ‘London factor’ it would miss the broader message. It has a ‘blue collar’ problem too which is the corollary to its London problem. This problem is that Labour is pitching policies at a singular group of voters who are looking for something different anyway. One nationalism Labour would be consigned to a heavy and brutal defeat. If One Nation Labour is not to go the same way, then it must seek a broader national consensus.