Labour must face up to Cameron's popularity

The party needs to understand the emotional and symbolic nature of Cameron's appeal.

As Labour takes a one-point lead in the polls, it is faced with a problem it doesn't want to address: David Cameron. Despite his U-turns and policy disasters, Cameron has been having a good crisis and Labour has been unable to lay a glove on him. His NHS own goal looks like a golden opportunity. But is it?

There are only two issues that matter up to the election: leadership and the economy. Labour has to win credibility on both to win back people's trust. Cameron outshines Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband as the popular choice for prime minister. He is seen as determined, competent and ruthless. In the hierarchies of a Southern-dominated English national identity, Cameron is an Englishman at home. He projects a familiarity and a patrician authority that give him an aura of historical continuity with the past. He is natural in his surroundings and looks as at ease in government as he does amongst his family and friends. Cameron connects with people.

Labour, still encumbered by its overly rationalist view of politics, cannot grasp the emotional and symbolic nature of Cameron's appeal. It's just PR. It's all lies. But to take on Cameron and win Labour has to understand his popularity and face up to why it is failing to connect with the public.

As Labour seeks to restore its economic credibility it risks focusing on the deficit to the exclusion of a wider story about the kind of country it wants to build. Labour's policy detail has to be woven into a story of national renewal. England will be the battle ground of the future. The Tory right know this - further devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and the English regions will recast the Ynion and threaten Labour's position as a Unionist party. And yet Labour has not yet begun to tell its own nation-building story of England. It allows the image of a Conservative country to hold sway - with Cameron at its heart.

Cameron reinvented the Conservatives by stepping out of the Tory comfort zone and borrowing the language of ethical socialism. In a 2005 speech he set out the philosophy that put him on course to be Prime Minister. He had two core beliefs . The first is that, "the more power and responsibility people have over their own lives, the stronger they become, and the stronger society becomes". The second is "the conviction that there is not a single challenge we face that isn't best tackled by recognising the simple truth that we are all in this together." He went on to declare that, "our challenge must be to harness people's innate sense of duty, compassion and personal responsibility" - "there is more to life than money".

Cameron captured the mood of a country distrustful of Labour's impersonal, technocratic and statist politics. Labour refused to take his pro-social politics seriously. Seven years later and entangled in the compromises and mistakes of its time in government, Labour has neither seized hold of this politics nor exploited Cameron's failure to achieve it.

The economic revolution of Thatcherism that Cameron championed has ended in collapse. There is no Big Society because the Coalition defends the same failed short-termist, shareholder value economic model it condemns Labour for supporting. But Labour can't own up that it got the economy wrong and allowed too much licence to the City. Cameron is the bankers' friend, but Labour can't say that it made the same mistake. Cameron's time in office has contradicted his declaration that 'there is more to life than money', but what is Labour's ethics and philosophy of life after the bottom line? Cameron has no compelling story to tell about the future after the sacrifices of austerity. But neither has Labour.

Cameron's political skill and luck has secured him the centre ground. He has won, for the moment at least, public acceptance of his deficit reduction strategy. There has been a turn toward a more conservative sentiment in the country. And yet the Conservatives are not confident about winning the 2015 election. Despite Cameron's success, this is not a Conservative moment.

Neil O'Brien, Director of the Cameroon think-tank Policy Exchange is asked in an interview, "Where do the Conservatives still have to go?" His answer is the north. "The next big challenge is probably to go after a more working class kind of voter. The midlands and the north is where the next election will be decided." The coalition, however, has abandoned the north and the "working class kind of voter" to insecurity, unemployment and sinking wages. The working poor are paying the highest price for the recession. Even when the green shoots of recovery appear, as they might do this autumn, new jobs will not mean rising living standards. People will have to work hard just to stay afloat while the rich still take the lion's share of growth.

Cameron is not as good as he looks but Labour looks sunk in a state of suspended animation. Where's the brio? If Cameron can weather events and keep the coalition intact he has an opportunity to make Labour politically irrelevant. The Tories succeeded in achieving this in the last major economic crisis in the 1930s. The stakes are high. Labour needs to speak for the country not just the squeezed middle and yet attempts to frame a story of national renewal and a Labour England remain ghost-like. If Labour can't change the way it talks, it can't change what it wants to do. And it won't beat Cameron.

Jonathan Rutherford is editor of Soundings journal and professor of cultural studies at Middlesex University

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.