Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Are Labour losing?

Last week, panic spread through the Labour Party as it had its own "Wobbly Thursday". So is the party underperforming in the marginals? Or is it just Labour's inferiority complex at work?

The Conservatives called it “Wobbly Thursday”; the Thursday before the 1987 election, when a poll – this was in the days when polls were few and far between, like rural buses – showed the Tory lead slipping to just four points.

Labour experienced its own Wobbly Thursday last week as panic spread through the party. Organisers in the “mainstays” – the seats the party held with narrow majorities in 2010 – began to sound the alarm.  The "promise" – the number of people contacted by the party who have said they would vote Labour – was not holding up like it should.  

The picture was worse in the party’s target seats. For most of the last year, when any two Labour staffers were gathered together, concerned has turned to the number of voters who didn’t know who they would vote for at the general election, who voted Labour in the council or European elections, but who said that the economy is growing. To make matters worse, canvassers were picking up Labour voters from 2010 who were now expressing doubts about Ed Miliband. “My expectation was that, thanks to the short campaign, those voters would be moving into our column,” one party strategist reports. Instead, they are moving away.

On Wobbly Thursday, the panic spread not just among the party’s staff in the field but also back to the upper echelons. Senior figures began talking to other MPs about the circumstances in which Miliband could stay on should the worst happen.

Word got back to the battlegrounds – “the numbers are bad at HQ too,” has become a constant refrain. Staff re-assignments only served to heighten the mood of worry.  Parliamentary staffers who have been working in Labour's Brewer’s Green headquarters and around the country over the course of the short campaign are now being sent out to what are being described as "super marginals" – seats at the low end of the party’s target list. Places like Stockton South and Broxtowe have received extra staff, suggesting the party’s central data is projecting a tougher fight than expected by the polls – while alarmingly, seats like Pudsey, Ipswich and Northampton North are receiving no extra visits. Without those gains, even a combined Labour-SNP bloc won’t be sufficient to oust David Cameron.

One organiser sent me a text that summed up the overall message: “Dude, where’s my swing?”

“The only way I can explain our promise,” said another, “is if there is barely any swing at all.”

That would explain both the sudden outbreak of fear among the party’s field staff and the moves to shore up Miliband at the centre. It would explain why Labour campaigners in the party’s targets are fretful and its organisers in the mainstays are still nervy. But it could also be that Labour’s own information is faulty.

Remember that the party’s high command was blindsided by the defeat to George Galloway in Bradford West and its narrow victory over Ukip in Heywood & Middleton. Changes to Labour’s data collection technique since the last election may be causing an unnecessary outbreak of nerves.

In 2010, Labour ranked its own supporters on a sliding scale from one to five. “L5s” were, in the words of one campaign veteran, “to be reserved for people who have posters in every window, a garden stake on the lawn and a close relationship with the candidate”, all the way down to “L1s”, mostly non-voters “or the sort of people who say ‘Yes’ to everyone who comes to the door”.

The optimistic explanation for the decline in the party’s pledge is that the new system – which assigns a binary voting intention alongside a series of other questions  has led to over-enthusiastic data collection in the past that is now being exposed during the Get Out The Vote operation. Under the old system, another insider explains, “I would assign people to the candidate, to phone canvassers, and so on. Then I’d get rid of anyone below an L3 [before starting get out the vote operations].”

It may simply be that the decline in Labour’s vote is not a new phenomenon but one that has been masked by the new system – campaigners in one London target believe that over-enthusiastic canvassing earlier in the parliament means they are talking to voters who were never in the Labour column anyway.

Remember too, that Labour expects to lose, not just this election but almost every election. “This is the time that people wobble,” one senior staffer remarked recently, “I don’t.” Last-minute panics are what Labour has done at every election since 1992 "I always think we'll lose, and I've been wrong three times," was one reaction. Yes, Labour is worried. But we don't know if those worries are justified, and simply won't until Friday. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

Getty
Show Hide image

The UK is dangerously close to breaking apart - there's one way to fix it

We must rethink our whole constitutional settlement. 

When the then-Labour leader John Smith set up a report on social justice for what would be the incoming government in 1997, he said we must stop wasting our most precious resource – "the extraordinary skills and talents of ordinary people".

It is one of our party’s greatest tragedies that he never had the chance to see that vision put into practice. 

At the time, it was clear that while our values of equality, solidarity and tolerance endured, the solutions we needed were not the same as those when Labour was last in power in the 1970s, and neither were they to be found in the policies of opposition from the 1980s. 

The Commission on Social Justice described a UK transformed by three revolutions:

  • an economic revolution brought about by increasing globalisation, innovation and a changing labour market
  • a social revolution that had seen the role of women in society transformed, the traditional family model change, inequality ingrained and relationships between people in our communities strained
  • a political revolution that challenged the centralisation of power, demanded more individual control and accepted a different role for government in society.

Two decades on, these three revolutions could equally be applied to the UK, and Scotland, today. 

Our economy, society and our politics have been transformed even further, but there is absolutely no consensus – no agreement – about the direction our country should take. 

What that has led to, in my view, is a society more dangerously divided than at any point in our recent history. 

The public reject the status quo but there is no settled will about the direction we should take. 

And instead of grappling with the complex messages that people are sending us, and trying to find the solutions in the shades of grey, politicians of all parties are attached to solutions that are black or white, dividing us further. 

Anyone in Labour, or any party, who claims that we can sit on the margins and wait for politics to “settle down” will rightly be consigned to history. 

The future shape of the UK, how we govern ourselves and how our economy and society should develop, is now the single biggest political question we face. 

Politics driven by nationalism and identity, which were for so long mostly confined to Scotland, have now taken their place firmly in the mainstream of all UK politics. 

Continuing to pull our country in these directions risks breaking the United Kingdom once and for all. 

I believe we need to reaffirm our belief in the UK for the 21st century. 

Over time, political power has become concentrated in too few hands. Power and wealth hoarded in one corner of our United Kingdom has not worked for the vast majority of people. 

That is why the time has come for the rest of the UK to follow where Scotland led in the 1980s and 1990s and establish a People’s Constitutional Convention to re-establish the UK for a new age. 

The convention should bring together groups to deliberate on the future of our country and propose a way forward that strengthens the UK and establishes a new political settlement for the whole of our country. 

After more than 300 years, it is time for a new Act of Union to safeguard our family of nations for generations to come.

This would mean a radical reshaping of our country along federal lines where every component part of the United Kingdom – Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions – take more responsibility for what happens in their own communities, but where we still maintain the protection of being part of a greater whole as the UK. 

The United Kingdom provides the redistribution of wealth that defines our entire Labour movement, and it provides the protection for public finance in Scotland that comes from being part of something larger, something good, and something worth fighting for. 

Kezia Dugdale is the leader of the Scottish Labour party.