Exposing the myth that appealing to Middle England is the key to electoral victory by Dr Eoin Clarke

[Percentage of voters [net] added to the Labour tally in each of their terms as leaders].

In each of their respective times leading the parties, Kinnock gained the party (net) 3.1million voters, Blair lost the part 2 million voters, and Gordon Brown lost the party 1 million voters. All in all, Old Labour gained 3.1  million, and New Labour lost a similar amount. Thus, Kinnock's recovery from Michael Foot was extremely impressive but was undone by later leaders. To put it another way, 7% of the total electorate flocked to Labour under Kinnock. But under New Labour 8.1% 'flocked' away. Tony Blair lost Labour two thirds of Kinnock's voters, whilst Brown lost a third. These calculation are both a) in raw million of voters and b) as a percentage of the electorate eligible to vote. The raw figures mask a further 1.4% drop as a result of the increased electorate under New Labour. With a bigger pond to fish from they still came up short.

[The numbers of voters in millions who voted Labour at each election]

Now that net assessment of the gains made by respective leaders, does not tell the full picture. You can that Blair had a flurry in 1997 actually growing the Labour base by nearly 2 million voters. Thus from the depths of Michael Foot's defeat Labour managed to gain 5million voters, and two fifths of those were gained by Tony Blair! Bravo! Except that snippet of good news makes what followed afterwards even worse. From his high point of 13.51, Tony Blair actually lost 4million voters in 8years. Gordon Brown lost a further million. 80% of the voters lost since 1997 lie at the responsibility of Tony Blair, with the remaining 20% the handiwork of Gordon Brown. But I think we should cut Tony some slack, after all he did gain us 2 million to begin with meaning that he only inflicted net losses on the party of 2 million voters, not the 4 million as some would claim. Brown though is categorically unequivocally not the reason Labour lost in 2010. They were up a creek without a paddle long before he got his mitts on the keys to Number Ten.

[The percentage of the overall electorate voting for Labour at each election]

Let's look at their performances as a percentage of the total eligible to vote choosing Labour. Kinnock attracted 23% from Foot's low point of 20%, and he added in 1992 a further 4% to that. Hence the net 7% figure you heard earlier.  Blair added 4% of the total electorate to Labour in 1997, before losing 7% of it in 2001 and a further 2.4% in 2005. Blair lost a total of 9.4% of the UK electorate in 8 years. Don't excuse Brown either, he added a further 2.6% to that. 

[The net gain/loss of voters as a percentage of the overall electorate at each election]

To sum up then. Kinnock added the most voters to Labour both in raw terms and as a percentage of the electorate. Blair lost the most voters from Labour both in raw terms and as a percentage of the electorate. Gordon Brown was a non event. Blair achieved the highest percentage of voters, and in raw terms the highest number of voters. But he inherited the best scenario. Both Kinnock and Brown inherited a party that was shedding voters.

My verdict?

1. Kinnock did not appeal to middle England, but he did well in increasing the Labour vote.
2. Blair did well to capitalize in 1997 but frankly it was a procession from day one.
3. Once in power, Tony Blair delivered a voters equivalent of the rocky horror show.
4. Gordon Brown was unwise to go for the job as he clearly made no impact.  In fact he simply confirmed what voters had already decided. New Labour was dead.
5. Brown attracted less of the electorate to vote Labour than Michael Foot did.

Don't let purple bookers feed you the line that Blair won three elections by appealing to Middle England. It was a lot more complicated than that.

Projected vote tally is in millions]

There are a dozen headlines to be made from above but let me first explain what the table is. I have taken each raw number of votes recorded by each of the two parties at each of the last six election. Looking at the turnout differences between 2010 and each of the other 6 elections, it is possible to say how many votes they would have each gotten in 2010. I also took into account the growing electorate. So for example in 1983 the electorate was smaller than it is today so each party's performance in 1983, needed to be upgraded to take account of the 3 million odd new voters. But in saying that, the turnout was higher in 1983 so each of the parties needed to be deducted some votes to get them back down to 2010's turnout. So all things being equal  on turnout and electorate sizes this is how the parties would have done.

             Now there are of course caveats. None of this takes account of the strength of the third largest party. None of this takes account of the competing personalities. We don't know whose personality or leadership the voters would have preferred when we take two separate characters from two separate periods of time. Thus, this is an academic exercise. But there are some nuggets to be gained from it.

      Immediately what stands out is that Tony Blair amassed that much popular appeal that he would have beaten Thatcher in her hey day. Of course there is every chance that he may not have, this is just maths.  What is very interesting is that Major's 1992 vote re-calibrated comes up higher than Blair's 2001 recording. There is every chance in 2001 that Major and Blair could have been a close contest in different circumstances. That both Major's 1992 showing and Blair's 2001 showing were both incumbency performances makes it hard to be clear about this. Another point of interest is that Cameron's 2010 performance may well have beaten Blair in 2005, denying him a third term in office. In fact other than Blair's first term neither of his second and third are by any means guaranteed.  What is also interesting to note is that Neil Kinnock would have beaten Michael Howard and William Hague and won for Labour two consecutive terms. In fact, it is not altogether certain that Kinnock could not have won a straight three terms himself. We'll never know if Kinnock could have beaten Major in 1997, but on this data he could have beaten Howard and Hague and Major in 1997. We can also see from the chart that Gordon Brown was that unpopular its possible that under any circumstances he might never have won an election for Labour.  Remember the caveats folks, these are different people from different periods. The most interesting statistics was Cameron's showing could have stood up well in 2005, and that Blair at his best was unbeatable.

This chart shows what each of the respective elections would have delivered Labour in terms of votes all things being equal. That means that all are calculated on a turnout of 65.1%, and all are calculated with an electorate of c.45 million. The net result of this is that it makes Kinnock's performances look worse than the raw data and it makes Blair's look much better. In particularly the graph assumes that the very low turnouts under Blair were down to the fact that the electorate knew the outcome of the election and so voted in smaller numbers. This is a reasonable assumption to make. Form his peak Blair only lost the party 2.4million voters, and Brown actually instead of being liable for the 1 million that the raw data shows can actually be credited with costing Labour 1.8million voters, if we assume those that stayed at home in 2005 would have on this turnout voted Labour. Blair's 10.4 million would not have been enough to beat Cameron in 2010, nor would it have been enough to win in 1992 against Major.  This is evidence I think that Blair at his best was the best probably that this country will ever see. After 18 years of Tory rule he must have seemed like a Camelot knight to so many. But Blair's three election victories were down to a unique set of circumstances. Kinnock's 1992 showing would have won all three elections that Blair won.

Part 1 On Policy for Education

 

Every Child has Special Needs 
by Pam F

Competition between schools divides the schools and divides the nation. Labour’s future policy should ensure that all schools are working together to improve the life prospects for all children, and are not obsessed by the status of the school. Learning is life-long and helps to bond communities. Labour’s policy should speak loudly and clearly. “Everyone matters!”  

The principles of Labour’s policy of Every Child Matters, was sound, as was Labour’s Sure Start policy. However, successful inclusion of vulnerable young people was hindered by a national obsession with SATS, school league tables, and the publication of students’ performance in external exams throughout the media.  

Inter-school competition has resulted in schools’ focus being directed predominantly at academic achievement; that is where they have been measured, and where many leading educationalists perceive their emphasis should lie. More recently, secondary schools are queuing up to become Academy Schools, increasing the inter-school competition and its negative effects on the vulnerable in our society. 

There are many winners of such a policy which encourages competition, exam boards who try to tempt schools with easier exams, software developers who bombard teachers with more and more expensive resources, and yet it is the vulnerable who remain losers, young and old. These are the very people who need Labour’s future education policy to focus on the needs of individuals, and to build self-esteem and motivation, rather than leave them anxious, disaffected, illiterate, excluded and depressed.  

Everyone starts out in life wanting to learn. Everyone is entitled to an education that suits their needs and enriches their lives.  

Individuals who miss out on a fair chance at education and may be excluded from life’s opportunities include: 

• Those who have long term illnesses such as CFS/ME (chronic fatigue syndrome)  
• Those exhibiting EBSR (emotionally based school refusal) 
• Young mothers, and pregnant young people 
• Children living in poverty 
• Children with special educational needs 
• Children with dyslexia struggling with the wider curriculum 
• Children who are bullied for being different, whether it is race, sexual orientation, obesity, creed or gender 
• Adults with language or learning difficulties 
• Physically disabled, deaf and blind 
• Children with mental health difficulties 

I would like to see Labour develop an education system which focuses on the needs of everyone, young and old. It should be of high quality, and flexible to suit a variety of individuals’ needs. Life and learning is not about a race to pass more and more exams. It is about discovery of new skills and talents, sharing knowledge and working together. It’s about being a part of society and about everyone having something to give. 

All children should feel welcome in school. If an ill child can only attend for an hour a week, that is still worthwhile to see their friends and teachers. Anxious children often need smaller schools to be provided where they can learn and socialise in a happy environment. Children struggling with basic skills may need 1:1 support, but still need to feel successful and to enjoy being part of a happy school environment. 

We need to ensure everyone can access education. Young mothers need access to childcare to allow them to attend their mainstream school or college.  Students and their families should be able to access resources free on-line, and not have to buy into expensive software and Internet schemes. Our libraries should be expanded and modernised and be a central part of our education system with participation in reading groups and play from the very young. Access to educational resources should not be about haves and have-nots.  

Education should be inspiring and motivating, and schools should be places where children want to go. Learning should be a positive experience for all. 

That will come about by co-operation and flexibility, not by competition and market forces. 

Useful documents 

1. The Labour government’s “Every Child Matters”, September 2003. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/17/first-choice-secondary-school-places 

2. The reality of parental choice. The Guardian, March 2011 

3. Centrepiece, 2006, 2007 

The educational impact of parental choice and school competition 

by Stephen Gibbons, Stephen Machin and Olmo Silva 

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002128.htm 

4. A study on inter-school competition Nick Adnett* and Peter Davies,
Institute for Education Policy Research, Staffordshire University, September 2002

Ed Miliband, the Coalition and Climate change

by Dr Sue Davies

At a point when Ed Miliband is somewhat under attack, presumably over the SLab results ...  and the coalition cabinet are split over whether to adopt the recommendations of the UK's internationally admired Committee on Climate Change (CCC), it is appropriate to contrast Ed's record as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change with that of both the coalition and his uber-blairite predecessor John Hutton, who now advises the government on public pensions.

 Ed Miliband was the first Labour Minister to really begin to understand the crucial importance of acting immediately to avert the worst impacts of climate warming.  In October 2008, he announced that the British government would legislate to oblige itself to cut 80% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  In contrast David Cameron, within the next few weeks, is facing the decision of whether to reject the lesser target of 60% by 2030 recommended by the CCC and opposed by Vince Cable's Department of Innovation and Skills, together with the Department of Transport.  In the words of Meg Hillier, the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

It is scarcely credible that ministers are considering rejecting the advice.  To fail to act now on climate change will secure their place in history as the least green government of our times.

And frankly given the fine words but lack of action by the Blair government, the charge of being less green is a serious one ... but essentially confirmed by Jonathan Porritt of Friends of the Earth.  He described the liklihood of the Coalition living up their green promises as "vanishingly remote".  Of  77 green promises, there has been little or no progress in more than 75%.

Two policies introduced by Ed Miliband are particularly noteworthy.  The feed-in tarifs for solar produced electricity....no mean task given the Thatcher government's legislation to block energy production other than by the privatised providers...  legislation not repealed by previous Labour ministers;  and the legislation to prevent new coal fired power stations unless they could capture and bury 25% of its emissions immediately, and 100% by 2025.  This decision came after talking to and being persuaded by the Kingsnorth power station demonstrators.  The power station plans were shelved.   In contrast, John Hutton had been content to wave an unmodified power station through planning consent, without conditions of any sort.  

When elected, Ed Miliband stressed that tackling climate change was a central task for Britain and the World.  The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is expected to publish a report shortly on renewable energy that will show that the world can avoid dangerous levels of global warming by investing now in renewable energy sources.  The LP should adopt  (and hopefully will under EM) a programme of investment in reducing energy consumption and increasing a mix of renewable energy sources ... a programme which would create jobs, reduce fuel poverty, protect the environment and reduce climate warming.

Renewing the Labour Party - Garry Kitchin

1.0 Introduction

The grass roots of the Labour Party is fundamentally defined by the structure of Branches and
Constituency parties.

For too long a gap has been growing between the party membership and the leadership. Instead of
being a bottom up organisation, it has become top down. Members feel like their views are not
listened to, and are just leafleters and canvassers at election time.

Branch Labour parties (BLPs) and Constituency Labour parties (CLPs) are very often barely
functional. They suffer from a low turn out to meetings, despite the fact that since May membership
has increased. Participation is largely restricted to the same stalwarts, year in, year out.

Labour has forgotten why people join. They join for a number of reasons:

They believe that more is achieved by working together as a society than as individuals.

They believe that the individualism and greed promoted by the free-market damages society
for everybody.

They believe Labour values represent what is best for ordinary people. They want to help
promote these values through the Labour movement in our communities.

They want to fight against the values promoted by the Conservative-led coalition.They want
to keep the NHS out of private sector control, and maintain funding for the services that the
least well off in society rely on.

They want to debate the issues that affect their lives, and play a part in forming the ideas
that a Labour party would put into practice in Local and National Government. People want
Labour hear their views and represent them.


BLP and CLP meetings often run along the same old agenda. You could close your eyes, listen to
the proceedings, and find it hard to tell the difference from a meeting held one, five or ten years
ago.

Instead of engaging with the core motivations of it's members, people get bored listening to long
debates about the way affiliate organisations pay their fees for example, and extended Councillor
reports. Debate is heavily restricted and often confined to five or ten minutes at the end. Any
debate, idea or resolution never seems to make a difference to the National party

Members want to come along, be engaged and be listened to, but end up feeling unsatisfied. Is it
any wonder that many do not bother to return?

In short, the renewal of the Labour Party must begin with the reform of BLPs and CLPs.

The question is not what members can do for the leadership, but what can the leadership do for the
members.

2.0 Proposals for improving Branches

2.1 Branch members should be focused on being community activists. Each Ward will have
a number of smaller issues such as poorly maintained pavements, pot holes, dangerous
road crossings and so on. Each branch should identify a range of problems that could be
improved for the benefit of the community.

2.2 Branch members should ensure they practice good communication, all year round, with
both electors and other community groups that operate in the area. These groups would
include Church groups, Residents Associations and so on. Communication should not
just occur during election time. The advent of home computers and the easy production
of cheap and effective campaign literature means that promotional material can
generated quickly and locally.

2.3 Branch members should facilitate community action by working with local groups and
electors. This could be initiated through leaflets or petitions, for example. Local
campaigns could involve lobbying local Councillors and MPs, and using local media
channels.

2.4 Branch structures should be very flexible and focused on action, not tied to bureaucratic
agendas.

2.5 Branch members working locally should practice politics with a small 'p'. Local action
doesn't not rely on deep ideologies, but a practical hands-on approach to improve the
local area.

2.6 Branch meetings should also be the starting point for discussions on the big issues and
national politics. Resolutions regarding discussion subjects should be forwarded to the
CLP.

3.0 Proposals for improving Constituencies

3.1 Minor Constituency administrative and business matters should be dealt with by the
Officers on an ad hoc basis. This activity should only be reported to the Constituency
party periodically and briefly.

3.2 The Constituency should alternate it's meetings between:

3.2.1 Policy Reviews – These should be dedicated to one area of policy such as Health
or Law and Order, and take into account the resolutions submitted by BLPs. This would
involve policy experts leading debates, resulting in a formal document that would be
forwarded to the Labour Party policy making process.

3.2.2 Social Meetings – These should be socially orientated. They should have an
invited speaker of note, such as a Shadow Minister. The emphasis should be on
entertainment and getting to know party members who do not normally come to
meetings. They should also be opportunities for fund raising.

3.2.3 Business Meetings – These should pull together the activities from Branches,
follow progress of the Branch campaigns, and set out the direction of the next three
months.

4.0 The Outcome of the Reforms

These reforms would transform the roles members play from being on the sidelines to being
Labour's fighting front on the doorstep. The engagement of the electorate and other third sector
organisations would root the party into every community. This would deliver real improvements to
Labour's representation in both Councils and in Parliament.

Another benefit would be the increased contact with the party by the electorate. This stream of
communication would ensure that Labour never lost contact with the country again.

Organogram