Opinion: The Conservatism of the Left

by Alex Chalmers
When the Labour Party loses an election, as it did in 2010, it usually retreats into its shell. Instead of trying to re-engage with the public, refresh its image, and present a credible alternative to the new government, it embraces a toxic mixture of complacency and factionalism. Many in the party adopt the attitude that the electorate 'got it wrong' and will not repeat the mistake, whilst others descend into divisive battles about whether it is time to tack to the right or lurch to the left. Either way, this results in Labour being perceived as the party of 'no change', pursuing the same course as when the electorate rejected them, unrealistically hoping that they can pick up where they left off five years ago. 

At the moment, Labour lacks credible policy on many of the main issues people are concerned about. On the economy, it has been recycling the same 'Five Point Plan for Jobs and Growth' for approximately two years that falls short of a comprehensive alternative. Whilst the short term stimulus measures it contains are certainly welcome, it lacks detail, providing only vague indications about the impact and cost of its policies, nor does it explain how Labour would eliminate the £99.5 billion deficit. Labour also has not addressed how it will plug the gap between the money raised through a mansion tax and the amount lost with the return of the 10p tax rate for which it was meant to pay. Also unclear is how the money raised from the bankers' bonus tax would be sufficient to end youth unemployment. It is true that parties rarely outline detailed spending plans before the elections, but economic policy is usually a key part of a party's vision for the country. So far, it is hard to discern just what a 'One Nation economy' would be. 

This lack of clarity extends to other areas of policy. On immigration, Ed Miliband has apologised for what some believe to be past mistakes on the problem, yet we do not know what policy he would pursue in its place. Welfare is a similar story with Labour announcing it would 'strengthen the principle of contribution' by prioritising housing for "those who work and contribute to their community", without giving any details about how much this would cost or what these terms actually mean. If Labour is going to win the next election, it cannot rely on using slogans as a substitute for policy. The electorate are not fools; they can discern vision from catchphrases and see through empty lines such as "we need banks that serve the country not a country that serves its banks". Whilst people may not be enamoured with the current government, they do not know what Labour stands for, and as we discovered much to our chagrin in 1992, the electorate often adopts the attitude of 'better the devil you know'. 

If Labour is to win in 2015, it needs to change radically. Labour is often in opposition for such long spells because if fails to change. By 2010, we had become associated with irresponsible economic policy, toxic internal splits, and the corruption of the Parliamentary expenses scandal. The idea that the public will come running back to us in 2015, just because they do not like the current government, is unrealistic. Unpopular governments can and do secure re-election. Today, just as when Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair tried to change the party, there is strong hostility in our ranks to any idea of reform. Anyone daring to question the consensus is immediately accused of being a 'Tory sell-out' or 'in the wrong party'. The default stance of many is that any attempt to reform the welfare state or public services is actually a tacit acceptance of government austerity policies. Even if the crisis had not occurred, reform would have been necessary. To give a few examples, the housing benefit bill was rising, the welfare state was failing some families, and whilst Labour's health and education reforms had worked well, more work still needed to be done. There is nothing radical or progressive about advocating conservatism and stagnation; policies the voters rejected the first time will not be accepted the second time.

An equally worrying tendency is to view an opinion poll lead now as a guarantee of electoral success in 2015. Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, and Neil Kinnock all enjoyed healthy opinion poll leads before defeats in 1959, 70, 87, and 92. Opinion polls and local election results provide an exaggerated knee-jerk response against the government, meaning that mid-term dissatisfaction will not necessarily transform into votes for the opposition at the next general election. If the opposition is not consistently enjoying a double-digit poll lead over the government and gaining significant numbers of seats at local elections, alarm bells should be ringing. After all, Michael Howard’s 7% lead in the share of the vote in the 2004 local elections was the same as Ed Miliband’s in 2012. Despite leading the country into a double-dip recession, the Conservatives are still regarded as better stewards of the economy. Research conducted by Lord Ashcroft shows that only 35% of people think Labour has learnt lessons from its time in government and is ready to run the country again. More worryingly, 45% of those considering voting for Labour believe this is the case. This means Labour’s opinion lead is soft at the moment, and once we allow for the fact that many UKIP supporters would vote Conservative to keep Ed Miliband out of Downing Street, the lead shrinks further.

I realise this article may come across as somewhat critical, but unless we confront these problems, the country will not elect the Labour government I believe it desperately needs. Obviously, it is impossible to outline a full manifesto at the moment, but people still need to know what direction we would take. Ironically, those who accuse others of being Conservative sell-outs are often themselves the true conservatives, their only goal being to defend the status quo. Finally, it is too risky to hope that Ed Miliband will be elected by a coalition of Labour loyalists, Lib Dem defectors, and uncertain voters, as this coalition may fail to materialise on polling day.