Thought it would be worth putting up some bits from my LabourList column yesterday. Having watched Labour in opposition over the last few weeks it is clear that it is ducking some of the big strategic questions. While the leadership election is in process, this is probably understandable but there is a risk that it will acquire bad habits now that it won’t be able to shake. Moreover, the leadership election itself seems to be ducking these big questions.
Whether the objective is to attract the Liberal Democrats into a more centrist/ centre-left coalition after the election or provide a clear alternative to the Coalition in its entirety, it’s clear that a reflexively oppositionalist standpoint vis-a-vis the Coalition and a defensive standpoint with respect to the last Labour Government will provide limited success.
The piece argues:
“So should we simply accept that this short-termist and retrospective form of opposition is temporary? The problem is that there is an addictive quality to this approach. You get the high of being on a full frontal attack. Your troops line up behind you – loyally. You get to look the enemy in the eye and finally unleash all the emotional energy that has been building up over the years.
It’s a real trip this opposition. The problem is that it’s corrosive. You don’t see the long term impact. Your friends move on. They whisper behind your back in sympathy and despair. They look for others to hang around with. After a while even your family gives up on you. You might be life and soul of the party now. Down the line, you just look a bit lost, sad and irrelevant.”
And what will be the consequence of Labour not raising its strategic game? It will seem backward looking and so will come a repository for a protest vote and little more. Parties who look like the past rather than the future do not win elections. If there is a basic rule of British politics, that is it for me. The new leader may transform this but in the meantime, let’s not be under any illusions and indulge ourselves: Labour faces an enormous strategic challenge.
July 15th, 2010 at 12:25
I agree about the scale of the strategic challenge and the psychological wrench needed to go from defending the previous govt’s record to providing effective opposition. But I do think that hammering the Libs for their collusion in what is effectively a Thatcherite administration is sound and could yield electoral dividends. This message is aimed not so much at those within the Lib Dem party (who are more than happy to cash in their principles for a sniff of power), but more at the voters who saw the Libs as an anti-Tory proposition.
I still feel that this leadership contest has yet to become wholly alive and strike a chord beyond the Party. On the evidence of the one hustings event I’ve been to so far, this is not solely the fault of the candidates but also the wider membership. Far too many questions on why/where/what/how the candidates disagreed with Gordon, and too few on the economy. More focus required all round! This article an excellent starting point to concentrate the mind.
July 15th, 2010 at 16:49
The more I read your stuff the more I think you should do a tour of local Labour party groups giving a talk about this stuff.
Your right, I think but I can see some sympathy in the view that the really have a proper debate would mean saying things in public that the media would love to chew on.
It seems there’s a desire to go further in being frank about where next for the Labour party but it’s curtailed by not wanting to spark an arms race of comments about the past and plans for the future which could be used against the party…