What lessons might be taken from these contests? For 2019, the Labour right are happy to acknowledge the Corbyn factor, and related to this is the manifesto. Despite its being fully costed (despite what the front bench now say), they see it as too expensive and too expansive. It didn't pass the sniff test of believability. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson's Tories entered the fray with a minimalist manifesto subordinated entirely to getting Brexit done. And they won. In Australia, Labor's ambitious policy agenda was met with a Coalition document that said very little. That ensured the entire election was spent wrangling and nitpicking over Labor policy, and they lost. Fast forward to its sequel Labor's policy menu was more meagre, and the Coalition and their media allies had little to hang their criticisms on. Instead, they went to the country with a culture war prospectus and were decisively rejected. Though enthusiasm for Labor wasn't exactly brimming over. It won fewer votes than the Coalition did, but a win is a win is a win.
Looking at what Labour is doing right now looks like a cut and paste from down under. And this is something of a problem, a point which New Labour doyen Philip Collins also acknowledges. It's not that the party hasn't got policies, it's that "all of it is dull." More than that, too much of what the party is offering won't do it any good in the long run. But what worries Collins particularly is a retreat from its flagship motifs. He rightly says "Opposition parties are always defined by their most famous policies which are taken to stand as a metaphorical representation of the whole. The precise problem for Labour is that it is in retreat from its own most well-known policies." The green agenda, for instance, has been subject to scaling back since Rachel Reeves gave her big speech on the economy. This was underlined by narrowly losing out to the Tories in Uxbridge, which (as forecast) become Keir Starmer's excuse to double down on the politics of offering nothing.
Despite the thrust of his argument, Collins concludes that saying less is more. Where Labour avows a commitment to Trappist politics it wins. Where it stands for something, it loses. There is a logic to that I suppose, but the politics it puts forward does little to cohere the vote. The big lead Labour enjoys is thanks to the mess the Tories have left the country in. By saying nothing, Labour becomes the reflex anti-Tory option. The question is had Starmer not dumped his 10 leadership pledges and the party was indeed pushing a Corbyn-lite agenda whether it would be worse off, electorally speaking. And the answer is unlikely. Doing nothing avoids right wing media attacks, whereas Starmer might have received a drip, drip of beer gate-style stories and other nonsense. But given the state the place is in, would restoring child benefit to families with more than two children, offering to pay NHS workers more, and pushing harder on the green agenda prove electoral bromides? I doubt it.
Starmer's retreat from his promises is more than simple cowardice. It's true, he doesn't know how to debate politically. Making a case and persuading people of its merits is a peculiar absence when lawyering was his stock-in-trade. But it's a trait he shares with his shadcab bedfellows and the Labour right generally. Why struggle politically when you can simply avoid it, or smear opponents, or slap proscriptions on them? But Starmer's real deficit is that he's simply uninterested in a transformative politics. His idea of making things better, as we've seen time and again, is fixing the British state and restoring its popular authority. If living standards improve, public sector wages get better, trade unions are recognised, and the attacks on social security cease, it's a by-product of his project, not its objective.
Electorally, refusing to say much is not going to harm Labour's chances ahead of the next election. But by not positing anything substantial, any vote it assembles will be soft and motivated by 'againstism' as opposed to being cohered as a positive choice. And that's a problem because when the difficulties of government start mounting, there's not going to be a Tony Blair-style honeymoon to fall back on. Any benefit of the doubt will get used up in short order and Starmer will find his victory is founded on nothing but sand.
Image Credit
9 comments:
«Despite its being fully costed (despite what the front bench now say), they see it as too expensive and too expansive. It didn't pass the sniff test of believability. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson's Tories entered the fray with a minimalist manifesto subordinated entirely to getting Brexit done. And they won. In Australia, Labor's ambitious policy agenda was met with a Coalition document that said very little. That ensured the entire election was spent wrangling and nitpicking over Labor policy, and they lost.»
That is quite close to the "spatial" theory of voting, which is that voters evaluate the party manifestos and vote for the party with the manifesto closest on average to their list of preferences, or at least against the manifesto furthest from their list of preferences. I prefer the "one vote one issue" theory, which is that voters spend their one vote on their "vote moving" top issue. Tony Blair said perceptively:
http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=202
“You see, people judge us on their instincts about what they believe our instincts to be”
For me those "instincts" are not about a weighted average of the manifesto policies, but about their top, "vote moving", material interest, and for the middle class that means *property* both in the UK and Australia. In both countries "communism" means "lower property profits".
Keir Starmer has made clear in both hints and words that his instincts are thatcherite, on the side of property owners and finance businesses, and the rest does not need saying because it does not matter.
«Where it stands for something, it loses. There is a logic to that I suppose, but the politics it puts forward does little to cohere the vote.»
But Keir Starmer has been pretty loud on some key points: authoritarianism, anti-Russia and anti-China, NIMBY-ism, "get brexit done", fiscal squeeze, anti-"scroungers", all signalling to voters to trust that his instincts are as thatcherite as the Conservatives (even if "woke") and thus on the side of property and finance interests.
«The big lead Labour enjoys is thanks to»
Thanks to a fairly long campaign by the right-wing press against the Conservative leadership, which has pushed an unusually large number of right-wing voters to abstain from voting, rather than switching to New New Labour.
«the mess the Tories have left the country in.»
There are two countries: one (mostly southern) for people who matter, finance and property beneficiaries, which has been booming for 40 years, and another (mostly northern) for "losers" and "scroungers", who don't matter, and how messy is their country is not relevant.
«His idea of making things better, as we've seen time and again, is fixing the British state and restoring its popular authority.»
Perhaps in the depth of his heart, but he has been campaigning for kipper and thatcherite politics, not "apolitical" managerialism of the state. He is campaigning on keeping things the same, that is rather good, for finance and property beneficiaries, just with a more serious thatcherite B-team than the Conservative thatcherite A-team. A change of personalities, not of policies.
Odd how they didn't learn from the 2017 election - or I suppose they did and, as you say, they made sure 2019 had to be a worse result.
That's the real problem - they do not want to change the lives of the majority for the better. Starmer is the Trojan horse, he never was honest and shows no sign of changing his ways. We are in for a bad spell under an incoming Labour government. For many years I hoped for a Labour government but as the aphorism says - be careful what you wish for.
In a nutshell, @blissex, you are (as always) saying that everything - and you seem to mean almost literally everything - boils down to property. Nobody votes on any other issue, ever. All that matters to anyone is property.
Presumably, therefore, there ought to be a correlation between the % of people owning their homes and the % vote the party most vociferous about supporting home ownership gets. Although in truth it would be difficult to recall an election which focused on this issue and where the parties clearly disagreed. So, if both main parties offer the same on this, then, it must be that elections are actually won and lost on something else. Which means that your thesis fails. People can't be just voting on property. They must, in fact, take other issues into consideration.
By the way, the current %age owning their own homes is the lowest it has been since 1987. It peaked at 69.2% in 2002 and has since fallen to 63%.
«In a nutshell, @blissex, you are (as always) saying that everything - and you seem to mean almost literally everything - boils down to property. Nobody votes on any other issue, ever. All that matters to anyone is property.»
I am not responsible for such silly fantasies...
But let me try again:
* Most voters are well aware that they have only one vote, and have a single issue that is their "vote moving issue", which for them is a "must have", not a "nice to have".
* For most people with property this is the profitability of their property because it has an enormous impact on their wallet, and most are not stupid:
** It usually is by far the largest investment they have.
** For recent buyers it often means they are in debt for a large multiple (typically 10 times) of their income.
** Their property doubles in price every 7-10 years if it is in the south-east.
** For those the yearly capital gain on a cheap £300,000 small flat can be (in the south) £20,000-£30,000, plus another £15,000 of not paying rent, all that tax-free, work-free, for people who earn a gross of £50,000 a year before tax.
** Those property gains effectively double or near-double the living standards of many of their owners, the more so the earlier the property was bought.
** That massive doubling or near-doubling of their after-tax income means they don't need to save, for a pension or otherwise, their property (that is the next buyer or the equity extraction lender) does that for them.
* People who don't have property usually vote on other issues, like a minority of property owners do, but given the fantastic costs of renting and buying many of them would vote on property, just the opposite way from property owners. Too bad no major party is willing to represent them.
* Political strategists value greatly one-vote-moving issue blocks of voters because by pandering to them they can flip a large block of votes.
BTW there are other blocks of voters that vote for thatcherite parties, for example small business owners (from dentists to plumbers), but as a a rule they are also property owners; if anything they vote on both lower wages and higher property profits, but I guess for most the vote-moving issue is the latter (many are self-employed).
«Although in truth it would be difficult to recall an election which focused on this issue and where the parties clearly disagreed.»
The only times where a governing past lost an election in the past 40+ years has been when after a property price crash, when a huge block of very angry property owners wanted to "throw the bums out".
«So, if both main parties offer the same on this, then, it must be that elections are actually won and lost on something else.»
That's pretty much Starmer's (and was Blair's) entire electoral strategy: since "There Is No Alternative" as to policies, get people to vote on personalities, and he is offering property-obsessed voters no change in policies, just himself as a more reliable thatcherite personality than the Conservatives leaders.
As I have written before, I am not bothered in which party wins elections, I just want my interests to be represented and ideally to win a majority. Whoever wins an elections in which all parties are equally likely to redistribute from me to their core constituencies is not something I care much about.
For people who care a lot how seats are divided among Conservative thatcherites, New New Labour thatcherites, LibDem thatcherites, of course personalities and gotchas are all-important.
«Which means that your thesis fails. People can't be just voting on property.»
The very fact that “both main parties offer the same on this” means that property-based voting is really a very big deal, because Conservatives, New New Labour, LibDems don't dare to challenge that, and indeed try to fight elections on secondary issues (culture wars, identity politics, personalities).
It has also some big consequences: one is that the large block of voters whose vote-moving issue is property profits care relatively little about "details" like wages, employee rights, labor unions, (also because many of them are retired or nearly so) or evenpensions, public services, foreign wars, social insurance, and therefore as long as their property makes them rich they don't object to any of that.
They embrace the "Blow you! I am alright" and "Don't make waves" principles.
The 2017 election instead showed that there is a large coalition of smaller blocks of voters who have interests different from and mostly opposed to those of southern property voters, but they are currently, like during 1997-2010, unrepresented.
«the current %age owning their own homes is the lowest it has been since 1987.»
And in 2017 and 2019 the Conservatives only got 40% of the vote, which was around 30% of the electorate, so there is no 1-to-1 match between Conservatives and property owners. But the block of voters whose vote-moving issue is property profits while being a minority is still big enough to determine elections, either by turning them into personality contests (when all parties have that minority as their core constituency), or by voting against governments that fail to deliver upward redistribution.
«It peaked at 69.2% in 2002 and has since fallen to 63%.»
The concentration of property ownership in fewer hands means that the voter block is shrinking, and that is the main aspect of our blogger's thesis on the long term decline of the thatcherite variant of the Conservative party. But they are still a big one.
I think what you are arguing is that the reason both parties offer the same is because that is what the key demographic (who actually vote and are spread out fairly evenly so as to ensure enough seats to win) want. Or, at least, they fear that what they have might be threatened by any change, so look for continuity.
So far, so obvious. The question then is what will it take to overcome this fear of change? What offer can be made, and believed, that might incline these people to vote for an alternative approach?
Mortgages becoming unaffordable?
Disposable income dropping relative to prices?
Essentials rising in cost?
Infrastructure crumbling?
A collapse in savings values?
The pricking of the property bubble?
We've had plague, we have war, all we need now is famine. Judging from the news on failing crops that could be on its way.
Fear is what stops people from wanting change. Fear it could make it worse. Until its so bad that fear fades, and is replaced by desperation for an alternative.
We are nearly there. But what alternative will be on offer? That's the real worry.
"Making a case and persuading people of its merits is a peculiar absence when lawyering was his stock-in-trade."
"Making a case and persuading people .. " often involves pointing out that what Rupert Murdoch has been saying is false. And, in the view of the present manifestation of the Labour Party, that makes you un-electable.
Brexit (a Hard Brexit) happened because Rupert Murdoch pumped out propaganda for over 20 years about the EU and the push-back from others (including the Labour Party) was inadequate (because they did not want to offend Murdoch). Denis MacShane wrote in International Affairs in late 2021 that, when he was Minister for Europe, he tried to get Blair to make positive speeches about the EU and Blair said that he couldn't because it would create friction with Murdoch. The only Labour MP who went against Murdoch and defended FoM was Corbyn. The present manifestation of the Labour Party isn't even going to defend membership of a trading bloc that the UK was in for 40 years, because that would risk losing Murdoch's support.
Guano
«The first group is northern property owners: the argument can be made to them that their properties are undervalued because Conservatives, New Labour, LibDems have been concentrating job-attracting investment in the south-East»
As to this it is a mystery for me why any northern property owner would rationally vote for Conservatives, New Labour, LibDems. My best guess is that they are irrationally afraid of "the communists" confiscating their undervalued properties, and therefore vote for those who keep them undervalued, as that's still better than confiscation.
As to that one of the stupidest political moves of the past century was Corbyn saying that Right To Buy for privately owned houses could happen. Too bad.
«What offer can be made, and believed, that might incline these people to vote for an alternative approach?»
That is indeed the big question. But before considering that question my aim has always been to make more people aware that there is a big block of voters who have property as their "vote moving issue", and that they have been doing very well for 40 years, and their perception is that the country (that is, themselves) never had "austerity" and that Thatcher, Blair, and their successors have been economic geniuses bringing the UK (that is, southern England) to ever greater prosperity. Without being aware of that (and the crucial role of scottish oil between 1982 and 2007) it is impossible to understand the politics of this country.
Now before giving my considerations to that question, there are some vital historical details:
* In the 1970s a right-wing think-tanks discovered that *at the same level of income/class/...* people who owned a car, house, shares, however small, were far more likely to vote for the right than people who used public transport, rented, had an occupational pension.
* The strategists ("deep state") in most western countries were worried how to finance the retirement of the core voting constituency, baby-boomers. Financing them through state pensions meant that not only The City and estate agents and builders would not get their due, it would also means financing them largely by taxes, and since most taxes are paid by affluent and rich voters, it was a night mare.
The solution to both problems was based on two notions:
* Most baby boomers had bought cheaply a lot of houses.
* If rents and house prices increased massively, the retirement of the baby boomers could be financed pretty much entirely by renters and buyers from the lower classes and from younger generation.
So the main political role of the property boom has been to buy the votes of baby boomers by offering them the security and comfort of a fat property-based pension, instead of the security of social insurance and the comfort of a good state based pension.
So my answer is roughly:
* 60-70% of UK voters are property owners, so in theory property interests will always be a majority.
* However property matters to most owners only if it generates reliably massive profits, else their savings are better invested in some more liquid and reliable assets.
* A certain percent of property owners are irreducible: they will always vote for massive rentier extraction from the lower classes, but there are two other groups.
* The first group is northern property owners: the argument can be made to them that their properties are undervalued because Conservatives, New Labour, LibDems have been concentrating job-attracting investment in the south-East, therefore pulling potential renters and buyers from every other part of the country to the south-East. Offering a spreading of productive investment across the country would greatly benefit them.
* The second group is those middle aged and older people who simply want a good secure retirement for themselves, and don't like being stuck to a property for that. Offering them good government-guaranteed pensions would address their concerns. For example by offering them a pension pot of GDP-linked pension pot.
* The last group to address is renters and buyers of course, with a "turnout" based strategy.
That is exactly the opposite of what the thatcherite parties are doing.
Given what happened in 2017 it would likely work electorally. The problem it is possible for opposing interests to compromise, one way or another, the leadership of most political parties.
Post a Comment