Perhaps even more unsurprisingly, i have an opinion on this too. So here goes.
Firstly, let's deal with the English council results (Scotland is a different and, sorry, separatist kettle of fish), which were quite good and perhaps as to be expected (which is to say, i predicted the score). Comparisons to 1980/81 are not applicable. The party situation is different now to then: more parties getting votes, particularly the Lib Dems and the nationalists (Greens too; in many council seats the hundred to two hundred votes gained by Greens would be enough to hand Labour the seat in a three horse race). Labour have also been in power much longer, and are not embroiled in a battle with more leftwing factions within the party. The party is relatively unified. Perhaps more than the Tories, in truth. Labour in 2010 has not pissed off the centre, but had, in many ways, pissed off its natural voter base. Even I was slightly surprised at how, given everything, the Tory vote held up..... however, when I consider it more and more, I'm not surprised at all. In 1997, the Tories got 9.6 million votes, a 30.7% share; in 2005, the Howard-led Tories got 8.8 million, 32.4% share; in 2010, Cameron got 10.7 million, 36% of the vote.... The Tories gained 1 million voters from 1997 to 2010, a poor extra 5.4 % of the vote on a 6% lower turnout than 1997. If people expected the vote share to plummet, where exactly to?! Thatcher had 40-44% vote shares, and never went below 32% (1981) in local elections. and that was before the SDP alliance made inroads on Labour's voter base. It looks more sensible to suggest the Tory vote has bottomed out, and in fact may have topped out too, at between 30-36% of the vote. It is astonishing really: the Conservative Party, even with a unpopular prime minister and a party lacking in ideas after 13 years in office, couldn't get to 40%. They now have a hardcore who aren't going to really listen to Labour unless Labour stop being Labour entirely. And they aren't going to desert over these cuts really; they think the Tories are really right.. As has been pointed out by people on several occasions, Labour lost 5 million voters between 1997 and 2010, but hardly any of them went to the Tories. They went to the Lib Dems, the nationalists (who are social democrats, mainly), the Greens, or just lost interest and stopped voting. These are the people Ed Milliband and Labour need to win back (Milliband seemed to recognise this in the leadership campaign). So those on the Labour right, who wish to revert to New Labour style rightward shift, are ignoring that it was arguably this rightward shift that not only did the damage in terms of our core vote, but also resulted in policy errors such as the failure to regulate the banks, the mess of PFIs, the Iraq War, and ultimately meant Labour was blind to the downturn risk that the Tories now blame them for. It recovered, but too late. When you fell asleep with the cigarette, no-one is going to give credit for you putting the couch out. But the voters are there, waiting for an alternative to the cuts, just not the one these people suppose.
New Labour (that branding was a bad idea, it only gives the opposition a stick, Old Labour, with which to beat you) said that 'one more heave' wasn't enough, but New Labour ideas themselves have become the "one more heave" of the 2010s. New Labour failed because it became naive, complacent and deluded about the real implications of markets and the so-called "choice agenda", and their effects on the majority. The party now needs what has always driven it, but got lost: a sense of egalitarianism, democracy, progressive values, and a scepticism of the uses of the free market and the private sector. Playing to the Mail and the Murdoch press will not get those voters back, those voters who went Lib Dem or Plaid or SNP. It isn't to say a return to 'Old Labour' is necessary, but a modern rethinking of classic principles: core values but modern policies. And this will require a correcting of the right wing excesses of New Labour, which were ultimately where the last government failed (that 50p tax band is actually rather popular beyond the boardroom). The Labour Party should not be the kinder version of Tory party dogma.
Labour now needs to be strong on the environment, keen on finding non-market reforms of the public sector, finding strong but necessary intervention and regulation to build the fairer, more ethical economy we need. growth is important, but so is the distribution of it. And it needs new policies to bring this about. Some should be interventionist, some should be enabling, and some areas it should get out and leave people alone (tough on crime, but strong on civil liberties).
That i guess is the ideological thrust. And Ed Milliband seems to realise this, but until the policy review comes out with real policy ideas and plans, we really won't know. He is genuine, comes across as reasonable (the left always gets media-screwed when someone appears hectoring), and has a decent sense of where New Labour failed. The new Shadow Cabinet look promising, but need to be less by the book, and, frankly, dull; appearing like a competent management figure will not get voters on its own. Furthermore, we need to see real evidence of policy-making skills, and policy selling skills. One area Cameron may have it right is in his ditching of Blair/Brown style top down management. Labour needs serious policy thinkers, or a shadow cabinet who know the advisers to get in this situation. If they've any sense they'll be keeping their eyes on the centre-left thinktanks, the sympathetic economist etc, that can provide Labour with fresh ideas. Because, ultimately, Labour wins by moving the centre to them,like the Atlee government, like the Wilson government, not by moving towards some perceived centre based on newspaper scare stories. it remains to be seen if this will happen, but i am hopeful.
In the next post, i shall posit some areas and policies that may be a step in the right direction.
