First, an apology. For the last two weeks I have been on holiday, and taking a break from blogging. So an incredible two weeks, featuring not just the election, but a terrorist attack in a place that I frequent, and the Grenfell Tower disaster, has passed without comment. Never mind the continued ascent of Emmanuel Macron in France and the scarcely believable goings on in America. I like my blog to be reflective rather than provide an instant reaction, but this has been taking it a bit far! I must start the catch-up by taking a first look at that British election.
The Conservative campaign was constructed, initially anyway, by their adviser Lynton Crosby, who achieved hero status after the unexpected success of his campaign in 2015. It was a plan based heavily on what has happened in previous elections, and, doubtless, informed about current voter feelings through focus groups and opinion polls. In the usual modern language, this was very “evidence-based”. People expected it to do very well based on two bits of received wisdom. First was that most people have already made up their minds at the start of a campaign, so the Tory lead of over 20% in the opinion polls would not change that much. Second was that perceptions of party leaders heavily influence election outcomes: and Theresa May showed an apparently unassailable leader over Jeremy Corbyn. What could possibly go wrong? It looked a perfectly sound decision to me.
Both of those bits of wisdom, for all the evidence backing them up, proved wrong. And so Mr Crosby’s reputation has probably been trashed. The more reflective will point out that this is jumping to conclusions. The Tory campaign secured a huge Conservative vote – 42% on an increased turnout, a figure that barely moved as the campaign progressed. The problem was that they failed to contain Labour. And that was not all Mr Crosby’s fault.
How did Labour do so well? They increased their share of the vote by about 15% as the campaign progressed to reach an astonishing 40%. This increase seems to have had three sources, of roughly equal importance. First was from Lib Dem and Green voters, who took a strong dislike to the Conservative campaign, and saw voting Labour as the best way of stopping them. Second was Ukip voters; Ukip collapsed by about 11% since 2015. The early evidence, from local elections in May in particular, was that this was overwhelmingly in favour of the Tories. That may have been the case initially, but as the campaign progressed, Labour seems to have picked up a sizable chunk of that vote too (perhaps 5% of the 11% in the end). And the third factor was that Labour brought out a sizeable number of new, younger voters. All three of these factors was unexpected at the start of the campaign – not least by me.
Labour were rewarded for breaking with conventional wisdom, and putting together a genuinely innovative campaign. They were helped by two Tory miscalculations. One was at the heart of Mr Crosby’s strategy, which was to give Labour all the rope it needed to hang itself. They did not want to demean the Conservative brand, and Mrs May’s personal one, by tangling too closely with Labour. In particular they stood back from the leadership debates. They wanted to contrast the “strong and stable” government with the “coalition of chaos” opposing them. This seemed to be working when Labour Home Affairs lead, Diane Abbott, showed a complete lack of grip on her portfolio early in the campaign. But Labour were able to shake themselves free of that and move the campaign onto the issues they wanted to talk about – which was anything except Brexit.
The second miscalculation was the Conservative manifesto; this one cannot be put down to Mr Crosby, but to Mrs May herself, and her close cabal of advisers. They made the fatal mistake of believing their own propaganda, as published faithfully by supportive newspapers like the Daily Mail. The manifesto was a challenging one, designed to let Mrs May exploit her expected majority to maximum effect, to put her stamp permanently on British society. Notoriously this included rowing back on automatic increases to the state pension (the “triple lock”), including homes in the wealth assessments for personal care costs (referred to by opponents as “dementia tax”), and means-testing winter fuel payment to the elderly. There were minor concessions on schools funding, but there were a series of other ideas, hateful to liberals, such as the return of academic selection for state schools, and undoing advances in electoral reform (that one particularly annoyed me). And behind this was talking up the prospects of Brexit, with the bizarre slogan that “no deal would be better than a bad deal”. Remain voters are slowly coming round to Brexit, but rubbing their noses in the humiliation of it all is not sensible politics. I suspect that this manifesto was so tough because its authors felt that Tony Blair, the previous prime minister who was blessed with landslide victories, did not ask for enough, and that this hobbled his programme of public service reform. But the result was a small, but probably decisive, loss of support from older voters. This may have helped to push Ukip voters to Labour, for example; other potential Conservative voters may have stayed at home. And, of course, it helped rally opponents to back the one party that seemed capable of warding off the awful prospect of a big Conservative majority.
There is more I want to say about Labour’s successful campaign, which has really changed things. But for now I want to reflect on the remarkable return of two-party politics. In 2010 Labour and the Conservatives managed 65% of the vote between them; the share was similar in 2015, as though the Lib Dem vote collapsed, Ukip, SNP and the Greens rose. But this time the two big parties took over 82% between them. Many politicians from the main parties, and many others too in the media and in the establishment generally, have lamented the rise of third parties, complicating the choices presented to people. And yet Labour and the Conservatives are finding that it makes life no easier. In 2015 Labour’s big idea was to destroy the Lib Dems and win a majority with just 35% of the vote. But as they succeeded with the first part of this aim, other Lib Dem voters flocked to the Tories in horror. Something like that seems to have happened to Ukip voters this time. Pushing out the third parties just raises the bar to parliamentary success higher, making it yet harder to put together a winning coalition of voters.
Not so long ago the idea of two-party politics looked fragile. Both the Conservatives and Labour looked about to fall apart. Those tensions will surely re-emerge. But right now it does not look as if either the Lib Dems will revive soon, nor that a new political force will arise, as it has in France. That will probably take a national disaster. But it is easy enough to predict what that national disaster might be: Brexit. But that’s another story.
I’d agree with most of this. Except:
“All three of these factors was unexpected at the start of the campaign – not least by me.”
I’d agree that many remainers such Lib Dems and Greens surprisingly showed an inclination to vote Labour. Harold Wilson was fond of saying that you had to be able to ride two horses at the same time or you shouldn’t be in the circus. JC and his team did show a surprising level of ability to not fall off, or fall out with, either horse in this respect.
The point about Labour picking up UKIP votes was much less surprising. Life long Labour voters may well vote UKIP, at EU elections and as a protest in by-elections, but, generally speaking, they aren’t going to vote Tory. That’s a step too far for most. There’s too much tribalism involved for that. My opinion is based on knowledge of mainly Labour’s Northern working class base which is probably not quite as anti Corbyn as many believe. Sure they’d have preferred someone like Andy Burnham or even Yvette Cooper but when push comes shove most know whose side they are on. I think many did warm to Corbyn during the campaign, even if they had some disagreements, when it was obvious to everyone he was putting his heart and soul into it.
The Labour Party has been working on the young vote since Jeremy Corbyn became leader. The idea has been that Labour can’t win by picking up disgruntled Tories. That would mean moving too far to the right which is obviously not what the party and the membership wants. But there’s lots of progress which can be made by encouraging the young previous none voters to vote and also getting them to register in the first place.
The early election caught everyone on the hop. The younger voters didn’t think there was going to be an election until 2020 so they didn’t see the need to register. But we did see a big surge in registrations in the last few days and there will be continued campaigning especially through social media to get them signed up well in time for the next election. It’s important that they do even if they don’t vote the way we might agree with.
My friends on social media are a mixed bunch. It was quite noticeable how the Tories and even the Lib Dems were very quiet politically. Nearly all the political stuff I saw from friends was pro-Labour. The day before the election, I struck up a conversation in the pub with a young guy who had voted Labour in the past but wasn’t sure this time. He’d started work after uni and noticed how much tax was removed from his pay packet! I said something like “welcome to the real world!” But had a bit of a go at me because I’d never had to pay for my education which was fair enough.
He agreed with me that nearly all the FB posts he’d seen were pro-Labour. The young don’t read newspapers any longer. So their world view is going to be of the radical left for the foreseeable future.
I did sense that the pollsters had probably got it wrong with the younger vote. They would have adjusted their weightings to their raw data to get the answer right for 2015. But the 2017 campaign was very different. The 2015 Labour manifesto was boringly insipid. The young don’t do boring very well! So, whilst I didn’t know for sure, I’m not surprised that Labour did much better this time with the youth vote. It’s all part of the general strategy.
Finally I don’t really understand why anyone has a problem with the “No deal is better than a bad deal” phrase. It’s surely not that difficult to think up a really bad deal with huge costs involved. We can’t make the EU offer a good deal. What they offer is entirely their choosing. If it’s punitively bad we won’t have any choice but to refuse it.
PS. I meant to comment on this:
…….nor that a new political force will arise, as it has in France. ??
Macron and his En Marche party aren’t really a new political force. It’s just a lot of old “mouton” dressed up as “agneau”. If EM is to make any significant difference he’ll have to take on Angela Merkel and her Ordoliberal allies and demand significant changes to the hideously misnamed Stability and Growth Pact.
He is a technocratic centrist though, who’s very unlikely do do that. Instead he’ll try to strike up an alliance with them. At the same time he’ll fiddle around with a few supply side reforms which won’t get anywhere near to the root of the problem, but they will possibly be enough to cause significant social unrest.
He’s in his honeymoon period at the moment and many EU-ophiles are optimistic about his prospects. But it won’t last more than a couple of years. I’m breaking my own rule on not breaking predictions! Anyway let’s see what happens in the next couple of years.
I’m almost sorry to rake it up but under a previous posting
MUST DEMOCRATICALLY-RUN POLITICAL PARTIES BE LOUSY AT ELECTIONS?
You wrote:
“What the party must avoid is the trap that Labour members have fallen into: the feeling that like-minded people are natural majority, and that elections can be won by motivating this group rather than challenging it. That’s for the future. Meanwhile the catastrophe that is engulfing the Labour Party should be warning to all political activists.”
Which could have been written by Tony Blair of course. I know the Labour Party didn’t win but they did what the membership wanted which was to run on a socialist platform. Surprise surprise there was no catastrophe.
The lesson is really just the opposite of the one you were urging us to learn just a month ago. All parties would do themselves a lot of good, and the democratic system generally, if they stood up and argued for what they believe in. Politics shouldn’t be about tailoring a manifesto to suit the measured opinions of focus groups. That’s what’s brought politics into disrepute. People aren’t stupid. They know when they are being offered no choice at all. “They’re all the same”. How many times have we heard that?
I’d say your party the Lib Dems should do the same. Decide what you believe in. Explain the differences between yourselves and the other parties. Then campaign on a manifesto which reflects those beliefs. So you might lose. So what? What’s the point of winning anyway, if you have put together a mish-mash of policies designed to do nothing more that win the acceptance of those you don’t really agree with?