Comments on: Core vote or Middle Britain – what should Labour now do?

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:37:00 +0000

Mr Reed,
I take it that you are on a nice income yourself. Down at the bottom, people are struggling to keep up with rising inflation. My next door neighbours, for instance (both working people) have no holiday this year. (They usually go, they tell me to a nudist colony with their two sons!!!) My other neighbour is finding it very hard to keep up. She works in a local factory, doesn't run a car, but smokes a lot. On the other side, my neighbour is putting all his money into double glazing. He has managed to do half his house. Work has now stopped.
If these people don't soon get some relief, they will snap.

By: H

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:03:13 +0000

A fight for Labour's sole? Something fishy here….

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:15:55 +0000

Historicaly Labour were the party of the unionised urban working classes. This became even moreso when much of industry was nationalised. Now, when is seems likely they are again going to have to financially depend on the unions it is worth noting how this base has changed. Union membership is no lobnger concentrated among urbann industrial workers but, as the government got out of owning industry but not out of employing people, union membership is largely now among government employees. Labour has become, by increments, the party of government employment. Since they, with job security, relatively good pay & better pensions, are not a popular group the Conservatives can win by promising to cut the public payroll & shift the long term demographic base by doing so.

By: DBC Reed

DBC Reed — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:42:53 +0000

Like many of the contributors above I wonder if there is any point in pondering the last knockings of this New Labour government.The Conservatives are now probably the Government in Waiting ,virtually the Incoming Government ,and it is now no longer practical to simply overplay the Change Card (like Barack Obama). People can change to anything, SNP even.
Conservatives need to be be getting their policies sorted out and since they are wedded to the Free market and Property Owning for All(which results in systemic House Price Inflation) they are ill-suited to the present crisis, which is entirely due to structural problems in the extolled Free Markets which translate low interest rates into high house prices .As they cannot rely on traditional responses, they need to be doing a major re-think .
"Dave" Cameron seems more of a Public school chancer than even Blair, and George Osborne is only belatedly doing his homework on Tax Simplification.The last thing the economy needs is Free Market Faffers acting on instinct and cutting interest rates so destroying manufacturing and the provision of goods and services when all the cheap money gets diverted back into the House Price Bubble looming over the economy since 1972 (and the Barber dash for growth increased house prices by 70% in two years).
A period of level house prices is necessary but is not good news for the Conservatives who will not be able to rely on the feel-good factor of continuously rising house prices and are ideologically opposed to increasing jobs and pay.
BTW I entirely agree with Neil Craig above.How did the party of the workers get weighed down with all these liberal causes?Any one of them must get cause people to vote against.
Reply: Lower interets rates help industry and commerce. The money does not all get diverted into a house bubble, especially if banking and banking reg is improved.

By: Acorn

Acorn — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:08:08 +0000

JR: â€œWhat should Labour now do?â€
Wave good bye would be nice. I am frightening myself thinking what damage this government can do, up till May 2010.

My first recommendation is to spend the holidays reading and re-reading the following, until it is understood.
http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/adv…

The link will open on floor 2; but, I recommend that members, particularly those with one of the numerous grades of ministerial status – all 119 of them – should start on the ground floor.

Second, try and avoid selling of strategic assets that you may need in the future, even if you are strapped for cash; Westinghouse's nuclear reactor division for instance. You are only going to pay through the nose for their products when you need them.

Third; try and find a bunch of guys who really can work out the "cost of legislation / regulation" and how to rank all the components on, say, "net cost per outcome" [start with the seven variants of "New Deal"] or; "cost per life year saved" [speed cameras say] or; "quality adjusted life years added" see, for instance http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2004_5/111004… .

Forth, publish it for the nation and its elected representatives. Then we could even have a bit of direct democracy and give you a hand at reducing the governments Â£154 billion employee pay bill; and, the Â£450 billion that so easily glides from their in-trays to their out-trays.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:34:28 +0000

You know the one about the Irish peasant who was asked the way to Connemara? After a long pause, he spoke: "Well, I wouldn't start from here myself."
John, you are assuming that the Labour party has something useful to give the country. You are also (subconsciously perhaps) talking like a politician: What would I do to save my own skin if I were them?
What they would, of course, do in an ideal world, would be to call an election. That way, they would have to offer the country some positive policies – as would the conservatives.
What is more, because they are Â£20,000,000 in debt and about to be taken over by the Unions, they might like to get back to their grass roots and go round canvassing and speaking in their constituencies so that people were reassured and, yes, inspired with the very real Labour ideals of helping the poor, bringing full employment (instead of fudging it) and of supporting the genuine working class.
This wouldn't actually cost very much money at all.
If they did it right, too, they might very well give the (hated) Tories a run for their money in a lot of Labour seats, especially in Scotland.
The problem, of course, is that they haven't got the bottle for this.
Simon Heffer in the Telegraph is of the opinion that all they are suitable for is the dole queue. He predicts that Jacqui Smith will, in two years' time, be a lollipop lady!
Ouch!

By: Puncheon

Puncheon — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:28:52 +0000

John – thanks for an excellent analysis. I agree with (almost) all of it. The one exception is your claim that taxpayers' cash has been directed to the north/north-west. I live in the far north and have yet to see any evidence of this. Our Farmers have been nearly bankrupted by the incompetence and worse of DEFRA. The corruption endemic in this administration seems to have seeped even up here, eg our city council has been working with a large local company to approve expansion plans for our local airport that would have secured lots of jobs and developed a small local airfield into a much needed commercial/business/tourist small local airport. But the Regional Administration, based in Manchester has intervened and threatended to kill it. I wonder if that is connected in any way with the fact that plan B of the said large company is to move to the Manchester/Merseyside area? This is an example of the misuse of national/regional government interfering in local affairs.

John – an incoming Conservative Government is going to have to spend 10 years or so weeding out of local Gov and Quangoes all the left-wing Guardianista implants. An idea – if the Conservatives embraced an English Parliament they would not only sweep up all the votes in England, but would be able to abolish all the Regional quangoes and the useless county authorities as well. We are all sick and tired of lefty/pc self-serving lectures and insults, but of course we are too polite to say so.

Reply: The Celtic countries and the North has done much better out of Council grants, health and welfare payments

By: William B.

William B. — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:09:08 +0000

I wonder what Labour's core vote is these days. The union dominated blue collar sector of the 60s-80s no longer exists and many of those inclined towards traditional old-Labour ideology have changed their minds and become far more pragmatic.

It seems that both main party have a hard-core of immoveable supporters but probably a smaller number than in times gone by. In the same way that people who might have been thought traditional Labour supporters were persuaded to turn blue during the Thatcher years so they, and many traditional Conservatives, were persuaded by the Blair message.

Mr Brown's biggest problem, as it appears to me, is that he is not delivering what middle Britain wants and has no ammunition with which to deliver it over the next two years. The Old Labour message was "we will make things better for you by taking money from other people", New Labour's position is "we will make things better for you by taking more money from you". The alienation of Middle Britain is inherent in this approach, as has been seen so dramatically now that the economic bubble has burst.

The national mood, as measured by polls of voting intentions, seems to have changed pretty quickly but all that has happened is that worries about where all the money has gone are no longer masked by a veneer of economic wellbeing. Tax and spend has been tried in a different way from 30 years ago but has failed for all the reasons it failed then.

I believe that power can be gained only by appealing directly to Middle Britain, and Middle Britain fears throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Sustainable economic success will require a radical approach including a massive reduction in the size of The State, as you have identified here many times. I doubt that such an approach will be received well by Middle Britain unless it is effected incrementally with consistent proof that each reduction in the size of government has removed only what people do not want and has left intact the things they value.

Mr Brown cannot achieve this because he does not believe it is the right thing to do and, in any event, his party's paymasters in the unions will not allow it. He has no means of appealing to Middle Britain except by painting the Conservatives as wreckers of valued public services.

By: APL

APL — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:46:10 +0000

JR: "What should Labour now do?"

Interesting question, but it can also be turned on its head, with the opposing party in some disarray (Oh joy), can members of the Tory party ever again say, "a vote for the xyz party will let Labour in"? Not for a very long time in the future.

So what can the Tory party do to attract votes from the UKIP or English democrats, or will these parties fill the vacuum left by the Labour party?

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:18:51 +0000

Brown is fundamentally a high spending, equality of outcome socialist. He is intellectually just bright enough to ask the right questions – all the talk of neo-classical macroeconomic growth models – and the need to enhance total factor productivity. But I realised during the Laura Spence affair that he didnt really understand the question and he certainly didnt understand the answer. He spent the proceeds of growth and borrowed more, and he spent it unwisely. What did Gordon do for TFP? Nothing.
Once one understands that the economy grew without any aid from Brown (except for the public spending splurge of 2001 when public spending helped the UK avoid recession post-dotcom bubble – and the spending wasnt wise), one can see that the Brown reputation is hollow. He is a shallow and rather stupid man, but with an iron determination to influence those around him. This makes him difficult to shift from No. 10, and I have no doubt that he would react badly to hints that he should go.
Thus a grip on public spending is beyond him (high spending socialist). Whether the Labour party get a grip and off Gordon before an election is an open question – the infighting caused, the lack of an effective new leader, the fundamental intellectual bankruptcy of the Labour machine, all suggests otherwise, but desperate people might just summon the courage to face up to Mr Bean.
The direction taken by the Labour party will depend upon:

1) Whether Brown stays or goes. If he stays, a gradual slide to the left is likely as he finds the unions calling the tune.
2) If (and when – for example after losing the next election) Brown goes, the direction of Labour will be determined by their next leader. However, expect a great deal of infighting no matter what. I'd guess total incoherence is the most likely outcome*.

*Actually the results of the next GE will have a major impact, as only those with parliamentary seats can be leader, a la 1992 and 1997 for the Tories.