It's time for Ed Miliband to move beyond his party's "heartland" comfort zone. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour neglects English marginal seats at its peril – it can't just appeal to its "heartlands"

Labour does best in places worst hit by the recession, but it has to branch out to enlarge its electoral base.

To have a hope of outright victory in 2015, Labour has to significantly improve its position in the southern and Midlands marginals, articulating a new economic narrative about the politics of production and supply-side modernisation.

This has been the case since Labour’s dismal 2010 election result: Labour governments were elected in 1945, 1964-6 and 1997 by amassing a broad coalition of support across regions and social classes. But there is an even greater urgency today: in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum and the growing threat posed by the UK Independence Party, Labour cannot rely on increasing its share of parliamentary seats in its "northern and Celtic heartlands".

Last week’s by-election in Rochester and Strood was always likely to be tough for Labour, squeezed between the Conservative party and Ukip. Yet this was a seat Labour held from 1997 to 2010: when previously in government, the party invariably wins here. Labour neglects the English marginal seats at its peril.

Labour and the marginals

Recent polls in the marginals commissioned by Michael Ashcroft are not all bad news for Ed Miliband. The party has maintained a lead on aggregate voting intention, while fundamentally more voters fear a "Conservative-led" government to a "Labour-led" government.

In the 11 swing constituencies Ashcroft surveyed in the past month, Labour is on course to win 10, although the general election is undoubtedly on a knife edge: in a seat such as Halesowen and Rowley Regis, the party has a lead of 1 per cent on constituency voting intention. In Nuneaton and Hove and Portslade, the leads are 3 per cent. If the election were held today, Labour would lose Gloucester by 1 per cent. The party has little room for manoeuvre: Labour urgently needs to lock in its existing support while enlarging its electoral base.

What is striking about Ashcroft’s polls is the extent of growing economic optimism in the marginal constituencies. When asked how they believed the British economy would fare in the year ahead in terms of wages, prices, jobs, taxes, and interest rates, 60 per cent of voters think the economy will do "well" for the country (63 per cent for their own family), while 36 per cent fear it will perform "badly" (34 per cent for their own family). Not surprisingly, Conservative voters are relatively optimistic, whereas Labour voters are more economically insecure. Labour is generally doing better in the marginal seats where economic pessimism is most pronounced.

However, given the trend towards an improved outlook following a protracted and painful recession, appealing to a pessimistic narrative about the economy that is unremittingly depressing and downbeat will produce limited gains for Labour. Yes, many voters have suffered as a consequence of the recession, although real wages have been severely compressed since the early 2000s. A recent Resolution Foundation report found that the number of workers earning less than the living wage has increased from 3.4m to 4.9m over the last decade.

Low-wage Britain is characterised by a culture of permanently insecure and low-paid work, combined with a higher risk of unemployment. Those who come to rely on working-age benefits are at greater risk of a life of permanent economic marginalisation and poverty, which, a recent book by Professor John Hills, Good Times, Bad Times: The Welfare Myth of Them and Us, demonstrates, are more likely than ever to be transmitted between generations. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has revealed that those on low incomes have been disproportionately hit by rising prices. There is also significant volatility and instability in the international economy with the potential to damage UK growth, having suffered the most protracted downturn since the great depression of the Thirties.

But voters do not necessarily view their situation wholly through the prism of austerity and Labour’s story of a "cost-of-living crisis"; moreover, they are sceptical about government’s capacity to arrest the decline in wages and living standards. The focus on the cost-of-living agenda has enabled Labour to expose the paucity of the coalition’s so-called recovery, as GDP growth and real living standards have become disconnected. But as circumstances change, Labour needs to adapt and refine its message for a new context. The party cannot construct an electoral majority appealing only to those hardest hit since the crisis.

Patrick Diamond is vice-chair of Policy Network, lecturer in public policy at Queen Mary, University of London and a former adviser to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. You can find his paper on Labour and the marginals here.

Getty
Show Hide image

No, the Brexit vote wasn't just about immigration

The data shows that most voters want a fairer society. Labour must fight for this in the Brexit negotiations. 

The result of the UK referendum to leave the European Union has shaken the political establishment to its core. As I have argued since then, it should be a wakeup call to all political parties.

Some have also argued that the referendum result is having international repercussions, with the election of Donald Trump to the White House cited as "Brexit Plus Plus". With the imminent election in France, and Germany’s later this year, responsible analysts are trying to understand why people voted the way they did and what this means. Too often, there are knee jerk explanations without any evidentiary justification to back them up. 

Analysis of who voted to leave shows the majority of people who voted to leave live in the South of England, and 59 per cent were from the middle classes (A, B, C1). Only 21 per cent of people in the lowest income groups voted to leave.

Analysis of why people voted as they did is more complex. This includes an increase in Euroscepticism particularly from older, middle class voters; concerns about globalisation and the impact on jobs; inequalities and being left behind; and new voters who didn’t vote in the 2015 General Election, for whom immigration was a concern. When this analysis is overlaid on analysis of that election, some themes emerge. The attitudes and values of the majority of the British public are firmly rooted in the desire for a fairer society, based on principles of equality and social justice. Although immigration played a part in the election and referendum results, perceived competence, being "left behind" and disillusionment with the direction of change were the key drivers.

Whether people voted to remain or leave, they did so because they believed that they and their families would be better off, and the majority who voted believed they would be better off if we leave the EU. Labour accepts and respects this. We have said that we will vote for Article 50, but we intend to hold this Tory government to account to ensure we get the best possible deal for the country.

In his speech last week, Jeremy Corbyn set out the issues that Labour will hold the government to account on. We have been absolutely clear that we want tariff-free access to the single market, to ensure that Britain continues to trade openly with our European neighbours, and to protect the cost of living for families struggling to get by. Getting the best deal for the UK means that we must continue to have a strong relationship with our EU neighbours.

Under my work and pensions portfolio, for example, we know that 40 per cent of pension funds are invested outside of the UK. If we want to guarantee a dignified and secure retirement for our pensioners, we must ensure that savers can get the best returns for the investments they make.

We also know that many of the protections that have until now been offered by the European Union must continue to be guaranteed when we leave. Provisions that secure the rights of disabled people, or that protect worker’s rights are an essential part of British society, enhanced by the EU. These cannot be torn up by the Tories.

Defending these rights is also at the heart of our approach to immigration. The dire anti-migrant rhetoric from some parts of the media and certain politicians, is reprehensible. I reject this scapegoating, which has fear and blame at its heart, because it is not true. Blaming migrants for nearly seven wasted years of Tory austerity when they are net contributors of over £2bn a year to the economy is perverse.

Of course we need to respond when public services are coming under pressure from local population increases. That’s why Labour wants to reinstate the Migration Impact Fund that the Tories abolished. We also need to ensure new members of communities get to know their new neighbours and what’s expected of them.

We believe that migrants’ broader contribution to British society has too often been obscured by the actions of unscrupulous employers, who have exploited new arrivals at the expense of local labour. A vast network of recruitment and employment agencies has developed in this country. It is worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Last year over 1.3m people were employed in the UK by these agencies. In 2007, 1 in 7 of these people came from the EU. We should ask how many are recruited directly from the EU now, and offered precarious work on very low wages whilst undercutting local labour. Labour will put an end to this practice, in order to protect both those who come here to work and those that grew up here.

Importantly, however, we cannot let our exit from the EU leave us with skill shortages in our economy. Our current workforce planning is woeful, particularly for the long-term. We need to reduce our need for migrant labour by ensuring our young, and our not so young, are trained for the jobs of the future, from carers to coders. Again, the Conservatives have undermined people’s chances of getting on by cutting college funding and the adult skills budget.

Unlike the government, Labour will not shirk from our responsibilities to the nation. Our plans for Brexit will respect the referendum result, whilst holding the Government to account and delivering a better future for all our people, not just the privileged few.

Debbie Abrahams is shadow work and pensions secretary.