The election lesson we must learn is relevance

The Tories won a slight majority to everyone’s genuine surprise, but Lynton Crosby’s. Labour’s soul searching has taken off immediately afterwards. This might be expected in the wake of such electoral disappointment. But the collective disbelief over the result should not lead to a misdiagnosis on what to do next.

I don’t think the polls were wrong. The public was split between support for Labour or the Tories. But the exit polls were so different because not everyone voted and Tories did better to get their vote out than we did.

Many voters were interested in the election and following televised debates. Support for one party over others was often seen as the less of two (or more) evils. The election was decided much more by what voters were against than what they were for.

The key to Cameron’s (or should I say Crosby’s?) success is not that the public liked what they saw in the Tories, but their supporters were more motivated to head to the polls. Why? They were concerned about whether their vote could withstand challenges from UKIP. They feared a rising SNP that could put Ed Miliband in 10 Downing Street. In short, Tory voters wanted this election more than our side did. This cost Labour the election.

This helps explain voter motivations. UKIP and SNP won large numbers of votes by their representing ‘none of the above’ and a rejection of Westminster politics as usual. Their supporters can return to Labour if the party can transform itself to a movement that is more relevant for most people. This is not about lazy voters, but about giving voters a vision that can inspire. Support is like respect—always earned and not assumed.

It’s not about running left or right, but much bigger than that. UKIP can weather one fiasco after another because they’re the only choice for many voters that want to give the main parties a kicking. However odious many UKIP candidates might have been, many of their supporters thought only they could best speak for them.

Likewise, there is nothing progressive about wanting to crack and smash our cherished union. Scottish nationalism isn’t on the rise, so what explains the rise of the nationalist SNP? Again, it’s primarily about relevance and rejecting Westminster as usual.

Only political anoraks talk of moving left or right on the ideological spectrum. For most people, Westminster seems aloof from their concerns and irrelevant to their lives. All politicians are tarnished with the same brush and promises treated with suspicion, if not contempt. Economic trust and who could be seem most as Prime Minister counted for so much for voters because everything else seemed to count for less.

Some in our party argue that the answer is not to go back to Blairism. But it depends on what you mean by it. Blair connected with people across the political spectrum. He made voters believe that their success was best promoted through ensuring there was a Labour government. He led changes to our party, but also three big successes in a row. If Blairism is about winning voter trust and being relevant, then let’s have some in spades. Now.

The real and present danger is our collective soul searching may lead us to feel better about ourselves than having any real chance at government. At a Labour North conference a few years ago in Sunderland, I sat next to a nurse who told me what a terrible leader Tony Blair was and now ‘we have our party back’. This pursuit of ideological purity or the politics of support-the-base-only might make some in our party feel comfortable, but it will not win back the votes we’ve lost since Blair was Prime Minister. We should move out of our comfort zone unless we’re happy about being second best for a long time to come. We should be more proactive in recruiting new members and do much more to make our party an attractive organisation to join and become involved with.

I believe part of this project of renewal should focus on Labour as the party of union: of trade unions, of the union of our United Kingdom and of the European Union. Ed Miliband has suffered more criticism than deserved, but one idea he has right is One Nation Labour. You can already see George Osborne talking explicitly about One Nation politics in his pursuit of Northern ‘powerhouses’. Labour is better placed to be a One Nation party committed to defending union. Making this case relevant to everyday life is a major challenge. But so much is at stake from the unity of our country to our prosperity as part of a strong EU. Let us be the party that defends all that is ‘Great’ about ‘Great Britain’ and our place in Europe.

Thom Brooks is Professor of Law and Government at Durham University and communications lead for Phil Wilson MP