« | Home | »

Labour’s Future

Tags: |

That Scottish independence or anything which seriously reduced Scottish representation in the House of Commons could be fatal for Labour is now the common coin of politics. Labour is heavily dependent on its Scottish and Welsh heartlands. It has won a majority of English seats only five times – 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 – but these were exceptional results partly dependent on a distribution of seats in England which favoured Labour and which the Tories are now busily ‘correcting’. Wales is already losing 10 of its 40 seats under existing legislation, and Scotland will lose more seats under almost any new political arrangement. Under independence, of course, it would have no representation in the House of Commons.

Even if the Scots vote against full independence (which is likely) but vote for ‘devo-max’, the Tories will probably seize the opportunity to further reduce Scottish representation. That all this was a possibility has been known for a long time yet Labour has done nothing about it. What would make these changes not fatal to Labour is electoral reform, for that, almost alone, would deprive the Tories of their ‘natural’ majority in England. We know what Labour thought of this when it was put to them. They thought nothing of it in the 13 years they had to introduce electoral reform. Blair is primarily to blame, but many others in the Labour Party share responsibility for it, as they do for the failure of the referendum last May. A party that is not prepared to take elementary steps to protect itself scarcely deserves office; and is unlikely to get it.

Ed Miliband supported electoral reform and did so for high-minded reasons – that anything is more democratic than first part the post – but many of the people who opposed electoral reform are now doing their best to destroy him. The attacks on him both within the Labour Party and the neo-Blairite media have frequently been contemptible and are largely made by people who have never forgiven him for winning the leadership. Yet the opinion polls have been perfectly respectable as has Labour’s performance in by-elections. Furthermore, opposition leaders are always more unpopular than prime ministers: Wilson was more popular than Heath in 1970 and Callaghan more popular than Thatcher in 1979. It did neither Wilson nor Callaghan any good. But the attacks have done their work. Miliband and Balls have now lost their confidence and agreed to policies designed to show that Labour is ‘sound’ on the economy. This is a bad mistake.

Balls had developed a perfectly coherent and well-argued critique of the government’s policies, the correctness of which is demonstrated every passing day. So what if Labour is thought unsound? There are three more years before an election is held and nothing suggests that the government’s promises about recovery will be fulfilled. All the new Miliband-Balls policy does is to suggest that the Labour Party is opportunist and unprincipled – unlike Cameron, who might be wrong, but at least sticks to his principles. Sooner or later Miliband will have to take courage and tell his critics within the Labour Party to shut up or get out.

Comments on “Labour’s Future”

  1. Doomlord says:

    Nice piece, though I don’t think Miliband and Balls have conceded anything like as much as you suggest. It just, alas, looks that way – which is the worst of both worlds.

    Meanwhile, a question: assuming the Scots do get independence (a big assume), and England does become a Tory enclave – for how long could that last? Wouldn’t a new form of tactical voting emerge? To be sure, we could be a long time waiting for it, but something would happen, no? Electorates don’t like hegemony, after all.

  2. spout says:

    Interesting article.

    You assume that Labour are a plausible alternative to the Tories in England – although their right-wing drift and warmongering perhaps show that this is not the case.

    “Even if the Scots vote against full independence (which is likely)”:
    That the polls are between thirty & forty percent in the face of years of disinformation from a staunchly Unionist media (including the BBC) is remarkable. We shall see – but perhaps some of the ongoing debate (which is taking place outwith London) needs to be sampled by commentators.

    You may be surprised & heartened.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement