Nigel Farage addresses the press. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Look behind you: Ukip could do yet more damage to Labour

Labour could find themselves squeezed on both sides by Ukip and the Conservatives.

In the immediate aftermath of Labour’s disastrous general election performance, former colleagues have been right to complain about the Party’s failure to appeal to the political middle ground. They have understandably criticised Labour’s apparent determination to ignore the views of the business community. They have acknowledged that general elections in Britain cannot be won without support from across the board.

Those former colleagues have tended to put the solution in terms of a choice – that a new Labour Leader should choose to go back to the future in repositioning the party’s policies to appeal to the aspirational members of the working class as well as to those middle class voters concerned about wealth creation but also having a social conscience. Tony Blair’s appeal ran right across the traditional classes which is why the party he lead won three General Elections.

So far so obvious – but does the next Labour Leader really have the luxury of choice? Labour not only failed in its appeal to the aspirational; it also faced a formidable threat to its traditional working class vote – one that has not in fact suddenly materialised with the rapid growth of UKIP. Over very many years there has been a persistent decline in the turnout of what historically would have been described as traditional working class voters.

No-one has ever seriously suggested that I might be a Marxist – but there has been a fundamental change in the economic circumstances of the traditional working class that has produced a corresponding adjustment in their political decisions. References to the working class vote are now almost meaningless. The working class either includes nearly everyone – as David Cameron is seeking to demonstrate – or it describes what are today a rapidly reducing number of those engaged in manual labour.

The aspirational working class voter – those with skills and qualifications working in modern manufacturing - have attitudes and values little different from the traditional middle classes. They often live on the same suburban housing estates, travel to the same holiday destinations and have the same university ambitions for their children. Remember Neil Kinnock’s memorable speech at the Labour Party Conference after Labour’s defeat in 1987, where he supposedly quoted Ron Todd, then Leader of the Transport Union:

What do you say to a docker who... owns his house, a new car, a microwave and a video, as well as a small place near Marbella?”

“You don’t say... Let me take you out of your misery brother”.

The story of the skilled working class is one of success as their abilities are often in short supply meaning that they can usually get work and often at higher wages in globally competitive businesses.

That success was shared by many manual workers until towards the end of the twentieth century. Miners if they worked five shifts could be earning £40,000. They bought their own homes and went on holidays abroad. They were the aristocrats of the Labour movement; organised and disciplined, members of trade unions and mostly voting Labour.

But the collapse and virtual disappearance in Britain of the mining, shipbuilding and steel industries has massively reduced the demand for unskilled work. The unskilled sons of those who earned good money from manual labour have found it increasingly difficult to find anything other than short term minimum wage work. If they are lucky they work in warehouses or compete for traditionally female jobs in supermarkets. They are no longer in trade unions, they struggle to make ends meet and through the 1990s and into the 21st Century many of them stopped voting. To borrow another Marxist term, they were alienated – exactly the kind of voter on a council estate who would tell canvassers that “you’re all the same - you’re all as bad as each other”.

When I first stood for Parliament in Ashfield in 1992 in what was then still a traditional working class Labour constituency dominated by collieries and the textile trade, the General Election turnout was just over 80% and the Labour majority was almost 13,000. In the Labour landslide of 1997 the majority was over 22,000, although the turnout fell back to 70%. By 2010 with every colliery closed and the textile trade all but disappeared, the turnout had fallen to 57.3% and the Labour majority was just over 10,000. Not all of those not voting were traditional Labour supporters but clearly the great majority of them were.

Nevertheless Labour was still winning elections in its traditional areas and despite the abstention of many of its working class voters they were not taking their votes elsewhere. The low turnout explained why far fewer Labour votes were required to elect a Labour MP than MPs from other parties. – and indeed in 2015, Labour in its heartlands often increased its share of the vote as some former Liberal Democrat voters moved across or back. That is perhaps at least part of the explanation of what for some in 2015 was a ”core vote strategy”, assuming that Ukip would split the right, allowing Labour to win a parliamentary majority on a relatively small share of the popular vote.

Instead in 2015, Ukip appears to have done as much damage to Labour as to the Conservatives. Given the economic changes this cannot be seen as surprising. As manual jobs disappeared, Labour had little to offer those that struggled to find regular well paid work. For a man whose father and grandfather had had well paid jobs underground or in a steel works or shipyard, low paid temporary warehouse jobs, if they could get them were not a substitute for what was previously perceived as real work. Moreover in addition to the already difficult task of finding any job, an influx of highly skilled and  motivated East Europeans was the final straw. Low wages in Britain are still significantly higher than high wages in Poland.

The big change in 2015 was therefore that Ukip, previously seen as a fringe or protest party, was setting out exactly what the socially conservative unskilled working class wanted to hear. No more immigration, leave the EU, cut back on benefits for foreigners. Everyone who has ever knocked on doors for Labour has heard those views from Labour supporters at every election. But because in the past those voters had nowhere else to go politically those inconvenient opinions were essentially ignored. Now those voters have a voice: a political party precisely reflecting their views. And in Ashfield their vote increased by 19.55% to over 10,000, just short of the Tory vote which has always been at around that figure.

The Ashfield result was also significant in other respects. The Labour majority was over 8000, significantly better than in 2010 when Labour was run close by a hard working Liberal Democrat – but well short of what would be expected in what is a traditional Labour area. The combined Conservative and Ukip vote was greater than Labour’s total. But most significantly the turnout was above 60%; suggesting that some at least of those voters who abstained in the past turned out to vote Ukip.

And that is why the next Labour Leader has no choice about appealing to the middle ground. It is difficult to see how Labour could adjust its principles to appeal to some of the most conservative, nationalist views around. It is also difficult to see what economic policies can fundamentally change the economic position of the unskilled. In the modern economy the unskilled are virtually unemployable. Labour has no choice other than to go on highlighting the importance of education and training. That is the only way out of the problem – but in truth the percentage leaving school without any qualifications at all has remained stubbornly unaffected by successive initiatives from all governments.

The real nightmare for the next Labour Leader is that the Tories continue to push their centre ground appeal to the skilled working class and that increasingly for the unskilled Ukip becomes the party of choice. If Tory voters in safe Labour seats recognise that and start to vote tactically, Labour would be in even bigger trouble than it is in today.

Geoff Hoon was the Labour MP for Ashfield from 1992 to 2010.

Show Hide image

Testing migrant children’s teeth for their age is not only immoral – it doesn’t work

Ministers have flirted with this idea for over a decade. It’s bad policy, as well as poor ethics.

This week, the Home Office finally ruled out the use of x-rays to establish the age of childhood migrants.

It’s welcome news, but this story predates the dispersal of the Calais “Jungle” camp. 

For over ten years, ministers in Conservative and Labour governments have flirted with these tests. And it’s been up to us – the practitioners who’d be expected to administer them – to pick holes in a policy that’s a great way of securing headlines, but simply cannot deliver on the claims made by its cheerleaders.

It goes without saying dentists are health professionals, not border guards. But our objections run deeper than that. And it’s worth revisiting the arguments, just in case future governments start grasping for silver bullets.

It’s ineffective

We can talk about philosophy later, but let’s start with a pretty fundamental objection: dental x-rays are simply not a reliable way of establishing age.

No two mouths are alike. I’ll add my own to that list, as I still sport two of my baby teeth.

Children and young people mature at different rates, so the level of accuracy in these tests changes with time. And these x-rays can estimate age in younger children much more accurately than in adolescents. So as children mature at different rates, the potential margin of error gets ever larger with age.

For example, the third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth – the last permanent teeth to develop – can form any time between the ages of 16 and 23, and a small proportion of individuals never develop third molars at all (I’ll have to pop my name to that list too).

A 2010 study of 300 young people aged between 11 and 25, whose age was determined based on dental x-rays, showed this method of testing consistently over- or under-estimated age, with a two-year average difference between dental and known age.

So if you are searching for a litmus test that will tell you whether a subject is 17 or 19 years old you won’t find it here.

It’s inappropriate

A few MPs and pundits have found it hard to acknowledge the codes health practitioners sign up to, which make this test a no go.

We must always act in the best interest of our patients when providing a medical procedure. And it is beyond question that the process of radiography is a medical procedure that should be carried out only for medical purposes, and where the patient stands to benefit.

Now many people might not consider this test an invasive procedure. However, x-rays do carry a small risk of possible long-term physical impact, and current best practice in this area dictates that exposure to radiation should be kept as low as reasonably possible over a lifetime. They should be carried out sparingly and where there is a well-defined potential clinical benefit, which must always outweigh the potential clinical harm.

As taking x-rays to determine the age of an individual carries no clinical benefit, it frankly isn’t appropriate to expose a patient to the potential clinical harm it can cause.

It’s unethical

Our lawmakers cannot simply dispense with fundamentals like consent to show they are “taking action”.

It is a legal principle that before practitioners carry out any medical procedure, the recipient – or someone who can consent on their behalf – must be given a full understanding of the nature of the procedure, its significance, impact and potential consequences before signing up to it.

For the children arriving from Calais, this would be a difficult task without English as a first language. Consent may also be required from a suitable adult. Yes, these children may be unaccompanied, but it does not mean the need for valid consent and protecting the child’s best interests can simply be ignored.

The letter of the law might be inconvenient, but it is a requirement that can only be compromised where the urgency and necessity of the circumstances demand rapid action in a patient’s best interests. And even in these circumstances the validity of treatment has sometimes ended up being challenged in the courts.

Given that taking x-rays in order to determine age is not medically justifiable in the first place, the urgency justification really doesn’t come into play. And that means dental colleagues – in the absence of valid consent – could find themselves performing an act that constitutes a criminal battery.


In the past, ministers have debated whether there is a credible “public interest” case that might override these little legal or philosophical objections. But these practical and ethical concerns can’t really be separated.

But why bother constructing a case for a test that frankly isn’t much cop? Dentists can only hope the latest message from the Home Office marks the beginning of a consensus, which draws a line under a decade of wishful thinking.

Judith Husband, Chair of the British Dental Association’s Education, Ethics and the Dental Team Working Group.