Is there a new Ed Miliband coalition?
New polling shows that Labour supporters are more liberal on issues such as immigration than in 2010.
By Anthony Painter Published 17 September 2012 10:06
Much of the autopsy on Labour’s 2010 general election performance has focused on the "traditional" supporter and their apparent drift from the identity and values of the party over the last decade or so – especially on immigration. The Gillian Duffy demographic has become the party’s preoccupation.
However, new polling data suggests that Labour has been successful in attracting a rather different voter in the last two years – the liberal centrist. Should the party now aggressively seek to appeal to working-class conservative support as some advocate, the liberal centrist may be repelled. These liberal centrists are, like their culturally conservative opposites, "values" voters. A populist agenda on immigration, culture and Europe may not be the one-way street that is often supposed. What’s more, an Ed Miliband coalition that doesn’t rely on such populism is one potential route to a majority for Labour.
In 2008, Barack Obama was able to win the presidency by assembling a coalition of support tapping into new sources of political energy ignited by demographic and social change. Unable to reverse the Democrats’ deficit amongst white voters or even significantly improve his vote in that demographic, he relied on Hispanic, young, and professional voters. With the obvious exception of Hispanics, the question is whether such a new coalition could be an option for Labour? A new poll hints that it could be a possibility.
Respondents were asked in the YouGov poll commissioned by Extremis Project whether they were more or less likely to vote for parties pursuing a particular agenda based loosely around populist themes such as concern about political and financial elites, nationhood, immigration and culture. The shift amongst Labour supporters from 2010 was very striking. Conservative support showed no such shift.
In 2010, Labour voters were "more likely" to vote for a party that pledged to stop immigration into the UK by 36% to 31%. That figure has now reversed with 36% to 32% "less likely" to vote for such a party. The poll asked the same question of a party pledging to reduce the "numbers of Muslims/presence of Islam in society". Again, we see a reverse. Thirty four per cent to 25% of Labour voters were "more likely" to vote for a party with such a pledge in 2010. It is now 31%-29% in favour of "less likely."
By comparison, the Conservative figure on the same question is 50%-15% in favour of "more likely", which is almost identical to the figure for its 2010 support. The overall figure is 37% to 23%. The likely explanation would appear to be Labour’s success in wooing Liberal Democrat supporters and young voters since 2010. The poll shows a clear generational divide between younger and older voters.
A new Ed Miliband coalition would combine liberal centrists, young voters, those in the public sector as well as the more traditional working and lower middle-class support who are concerned about whether the Conservatives speak for them.
The values voter Miliband seems to be attracting is more, not less liberal on immigration, more, not less accepting of other cultures, and less prone to muscular articulations of national identity. Would he really want to reverse these gains in a populist race that he would find very difficult, if not impossible, to win?
Again, the echoes of Obama’s strategy are striking. The president has embraced gay rights, the green agenda and pitches at both young and professional, college educated support through improving access to higher education (Liberal Democrats take note) and an emphasis on investment in science. He pitches towards both the Hispanic and more liberal audiences with a commitment to immigration reform: better managed borders combined with pathways to earned citizenship.
A critical aspect of this strategy is the frame. So Obama’s pitch is not open borders instead of closed borders. It’s managed immigration versus inaction. It’s not renewable energy instead of oil and gas. The frame is rather pitched around energy security and economic growth. On gay rights, a choice has been made but the articulation is around committed relationships and a contribution to society.
The issues that Miliband faces in political terms are slightly different, but the strategy of pitting pragmatism against ideology and incompetence is instructive. While the default position on immigration is anxiety and scepticism, a majority of people are pragmatic when it comes to certain migrant groups – a failure of the Conservative immigration cap will help his cause. It is to this pragmatism that Miliband could appeal to.
The same goes for Europe, green issues, and potentially even welfare as long as there is an understanding of the deep concern with the welfare state as it is. Given that the Coalition is heading in a distinctively Thatcherite direction – blue collar populism has taken over from progressive conservatism – on these issues, that leaves the pragmatic centre open to Miliband should he wish to take it.
What’s the catch? Most critically, the economy is not going away and a perceived failure of the coalition to turn things around will not be enough for people to invest their faith in Labour. A credible approach to the economy and the deficit is critical. Just as important is the leadership question. If Miliband is not seen as a convincing and competent alternative to David Cameron he will equally struggle to maintain this new-found support. Obama passed both these tests.
Further research is needed to understand how this coalition works on a seat-by-seat basis – could it be too metropolitan? Moreover, this strategy certainly doesn’t mean that Labour should not concern itself with the very serious under-currents of cultural antagonism that exist in British society as poll after poll – including the Extremis Project/YouGov poll - has demonstrated. This is real and in, many ways, frightening.
More broadly, this strategy involves a very fine balancing act. An authentic emotional engagement with nationhood and a sense of national values is critical. See Michelle Obama’s speech where she emphasised that her husband "knows the American dream because he’s lived it". Equally, it involves clawing back assumptions both within the Labour Party and the wider media establishment that these cultural issues can only be dealt with in a discordant way.
With these caveats in mind, embracing and motivating this new coalition nonetheless seems like a more natural fit for Miliband than something more traditional and conservative. Avoiding over-adjustment in addressing Labour’s electoral weaknesses in 2010 is smart politics too. Labour now needs to look forward. Crafting a workable centre-left pragmatism is sound politics. Constructing a solid policy agenda is very different set of questions. For Labour, though, an Ed Miliband coalition of voters could be available to it – and it is one that could have the potential to see it into office.
Extremis Project is a new platform for news, analysis, data and research on extremism across the globe co-founded by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Anthony Painter. Anthony Painter writes in a personal capacity.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















10 comments
This is a dishonest piece of work. Anthony Painter knows very well that the 2010 LibDem voters who have returned to Labour since the election are not "Liberal Centrists" at all. They are, by and large "Liberal Leftists"; voters who deserted New Labour for the LDs (because New Labour was too rightist), and are now returning to Labour, (because the LDs are too rightist).
Painter ignores that obvious fact because he wants to say that Labour should appeal to "young professionals" - presumably in the SE of England. This is, of course, the Sacred Creed of the New Labour and the "Progress! Cult, of which Painter is an enthusiastic devotee.
I regularly get asked for my views in opinion polls, and I'm ever conscious that the way the questions are phrased (and who sponsored them) matters much more than the result. Even if the questions were identical to 2010, was the sampling the same? What was on the news that week? ... and did that influence when the questions were put?
As Richard Nixon would have told you, the most efficient political suicide is to plan strategy based on opinion polls.
Having said all that, few would disagree that the Lib Dems (for now, at least), have surrendered much of their traditional base, and it's very obvious that despite the Lib Dem's benign influence (!) the Tories are zooming to the right, closely followed by Mr Cameron.
It is also fairly non-controversial to argue that public faith in politicians is currently low, and high-brow 'principles' will win few votes; pragmatism and honesty might.
So while unimpressed by his starting point, I feel the author makes some good points.
However, there are other pitfalls for Labour - they have to stop knee jerk opposition, U-turning every time Government does, so that they oppose things they argued for at the last election and vice versa (eg Lords reform, Heathrow and HS2). It's easy to portray the Tories as a bunch of public schoolboys; why is Labour so intent on being seen as petulant teenagers?
Even in the public sector, labour is hardly pragmatic; while appearing to support every demonstration (however misguided), but never to the extent of raising a head over the parapet, Labour alienates much of the electorate AND the traditional left simultaneously. Quite a feat!
I long ago stopped expecting statesmanship from politicians - but I have a right to expect maturity. And I don't see that in the current labour party - so far.
IF YOU CANNOT BEAT THE SYSTEM THEN KEEP IT GOING.
(BANKERS PRE-AMBLE TO THE THREE WISE (NOT) MONKEYS.)
YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL A WESTMINSTER POLITICIAN OF ANY COLOUR - THEIR POCKETS SO FULL OF GOLD THAT THEY DRAG THEIR KNUCKLES WHEN WALKING WITH THE WEIGHT.
i have met quite a lot of working class centrist liberals you know. they may not use the same language as middle class centrist liberals but there are many reasonable liberal minded working class people, you know.
i suspect a lot of people are put off by the divisiveness of the tories, as they were by thatcher, and given the lack of success cameron is having on the economy it is probably very easy to create a coalition of reasonableness.
so rather than chasing voters based on stereotypes, better to create policies that work.
So, apart from chasing opinion polls, spin, winning power for small elite and apeasing the public sector unions in the process, what actually are these Labour's values?
These are hardly the kind of figures to make the Labour party consider changing course.
The Party will always be more liberal minded then the Conservatives on immigration, and the liberal voters that it has attracted since 2010 will stay with Labour, however, by becoming more liberal on immigration the party is in effect alienating its core white working class vote even further, which i would imagine would further embolden the likes of the BNP/EDL.
I am naturally a Lib Dem supporter and voted for them again in 2010. However, I feel badly let down by them on a variety of fronts since them. Nick Clegg has particularly disappointed with his U-turns and excuses. Unless Vince Cable takes over as leader (unlikely) I won't vote for the Lib Dems again, unless it is the only way to keep the Tories out in my constituency.
I would far prefer to see a lib-lab coalition at the next election. While I remain forever a centrist 'free thinking and independent' liberal, I see myself being drawn to the ideas expressed in this article. If that means supporting Ed Miliband and Labour, so be it.
I'm the centrist liberal this article speaks of, and I will indeed most likely be switching from the Lib Dems to Labour at the next election. The main reason is that I don't want the Tories to be in government and I live in a seat that only Labour and the Tories can win.
I will probably vote Labour regardless of what road they choose to go down, but I'm not a fan of the whole Blue Labour thing and not having a nuanced view on things like immigration, welfare claimants and crime etc.
At the end of the day you don't just vote according to what you believe in but also what you don't believe in and many in the Tory party are extremely radical and more thatcherite than Thatcher herself was so I'm simply wanting the Tories out, but would be good if the Labour party was a half decent vote also.
"In 2010, Labour voters were "more likely" to vote for a party that pledged to stop immigration into the UK by 36% to 31%. That figure has now reversed with 36% to 32% "less likely" to vote for such a party. The poll asked the same question of a party pledging to reduce the "numbers of Muslims/presence of Islam in society". Again, we see a reverse. Thirty four per cent to 25% of Labour voters were "more likely" to vote for a party with such a pledge in 2010. It is now 31%-29% in favour of "less likely."
The changes in the figures are statistically insignificant. It is laughable that Painter even puts any faith by them, let alone turns them into an entire thesis.
Desperate times call for grasping at straws.