What does Labour need to do to get back into government?

[MrPants]

As many may well know, I?m no fan of Labour. However, the coalition is making far too many mistakes for my liking and needs to sharpen up their act too. The main thing which allows the coalition to get away with so much is, in my opinion, the woeful state of the opposition. Put simply, Labour need some good ideas and they need to come out fighting. The problem is that many, possibly most, voters hold Labour responsible for much of the country?s current economic woes, and, in any case, there is no money left for the traditional Labour solution of firehosing money at every problem in sight. Nevertheless, arguably ?New? Labours greatest and most durable successes were zero or low cost ideas ? ideas like sorting out Northern Ireland, introducing Civil Partnerships and free entry to museums. They need a whole load more ideas like that to have any hope of returning to government any time soon.

I hope this doesn?t turn into another ?Ed is crap? thread ? I?m looking for sensible, vaguely costed solutions that you think might just get the coalition worried and show that the next election isn?t a foregone conclusion.

Here?s my starter for ten.

1. Abolish Corporation Tax for UK businesses opening, or foreign businesses relocating, to the 25 worst employment black-spots in the UK. This will undercut our European competitors and provide many much needed jobs and regeneration directly into our most blighted constituencies. That these places will probably already be Labour strongholds makes it all the more unbelievable that they haven?t tried this already. This is an affordable idea because it applies to businesses that may not have chosen to set up at all ? the cost saving comes from the reduced welfare bill of employing new workers who would have otherwise remained workless.
2. Suggest areas where spending cuts could be made, rather than a ?yah-boo-it-sucks-to-be-you? style battle every time the coalition try to shred a ha?penny off some obscure budget. For example, all of those diversity co-ordinators and non-jobs that proliferated throughout the Labour years, are ?all? of them strictly necessary?
3. Simplify the tax code by merging all personal taxation (income tax, Nat Insurance, Cap Gains etc) into one ?super-income? tax whereby any income, regardless of how it is ?earned? (whether it is by wages, dividends, interest payments etc.) is taxed at the same flat rate (somewhere around the 35-40% mark so that no-one, irrespective of where they are on the pay scale will end up paying more) with a larger, more generous personal allowance of, for example, £15k. The advantage of this is that huge swathes of the poorest are completely removed from paying tax at all, the marginal tax rate of coming off benefits is far less and the system is significantly simplified.
4. Rather than pay child allowance, or various other in-work benefits, simply raise the parents? personal allowance instead. This has the twin effect of removing bureaucracy and it would no longer be seen as a state handout. That?s my starter. I accept that none of these ideas will win an election in their own right ? however, Labour?s strategy has to be simple enough. They must find a way to maximise private sector jobs, build growth, reduce spending and try and keep the Unions together (both the Trades Unions and the Union of England and Scotland) to even have a hope of winning an election.

I think all Labour really need to do is start looking like something other than Tory lite.

The problem with all your ideas (all good ideas) is that they are conservative ones, not socialist ones.

1. Do you remember the Enterprise Zones of the 80s? This is essentially exactly that idea.

1. Labour is the party of diversity co-ordinators and non-jobs. Red Ed doesn't exactly strike me as the triangulating type.

1. Simplifying taxes has (essentially) been a right-wing notion over the various decades - the left has invented complicated schemes like tax credits, national insurance, etc.

1. This is a old liberal/conservative idea, and one that is essentially being put into practice with the £10000 personal allowance, funded in part by scrapping various benefits.

I agree that the way for Labour to get into power is to be a centrist party again, but you forget: the Labour party is now a party which boos Tony Blair, its 3 time election winner, at conference.

MrPants, all good ideas there but probably more traditional Tory ideas than Labour.

The problem is that Labour voters traditionally are the working class and disenfranchised poor who have virtually no clue about economics. So your first idea would simply be seen by many of their voters as letting the rich get richer.

Right now Labour sound completely ridiculous. Up until last week they opposed every cut whilst claiming they'd equally tackle the deficit. Now they are shouting from the rooftops how they agree with the cuts which are proposed (eg. wage freeze, schools building program).

Labour also need to move away from Union control. Ultimately they are still utterly dependent upon Trade Union funding. The problem is that the trade unions are simply seen by most of us as out of touch with reality.

So right now it's clearly obvious that we need to shrink the size of our public sector and address the public pensions problem. But Labour cannot say that for fear of upsetting the unions. Until they can say what's right instead of what's popular, they'll never win trust back.

In many ways, it isn't always worthwhile coming up with any original policy ideas unless an election is imminent because the opposing parties often end up just "nicking" them. It happened to the Tories when they were in opposition and it will happen to Labour now.

Labour's best hope is surely to get a credible leadership team in place. At the moment, I don't think the two Eds cut it and can't see this improving any time soon.

At first I didn't think that this 'blue Labour' idea of Lord Glasman was a good thing, as it seemed to go against what Labour used to stand for. But now I am beginning to think that it is the right thing for Labour to do in order to win power again. Many of the 'squeezed middle' and Middle England Daily Mail readers don't trust Labour because they think that Labour is not on their side, that they will carry on 'squeezing' them, abandonong them and being hostile to them. But if Labour can convince them that they are on their side, that they are the party of the people and the party of the 'squeezed middle', then many of the 'squeezed middle' will turn to Labour.

This seems to be what Labour are starting to do with many speeches supporting the 'squeezed middle' and the middle classes. If they can get rid of their ideological hostility to the 'squeezed middle' they will gain support, because the 'squeezde middle' are not in favour of fat cats and casino capitalism and lavish banker bonuses, because it is always the 'squeezed middle' that ends up bearing the brunt of the cost.

I think they will try to do this. But the big question is will the 'squeezed middle' trust them and believe that they are for real or will they think that this is just more New Labour spin and a socialist stunt too far.

The thing is claig, it's the traditional socialist voters that are deserting the Labour Party in droves.

A bit more of the socialist and a bit less of the "We agree with the Tories but we'll be gentler" may find their traditional working class base returning to the ballot box.

I don't think there ar eenough of teh traditional socialist voters to swing an election. It is the 'squeezed middle' and the centre that swings election. It was those people who voted for Blair and kept Labour in. The traditional socialist voters don't have much of an effective alternative to voting Labour if they want a left wing government.

What wins elections is emotion not reason. The people have to trust the party they vote for and believe that they are on the side of the people. It is little things that win elections, not big things. The minutiae of macroeconomic policy is frankly irrelevant and above teh heads of most of teh electorate - that's OK for Newsnight and keen politicos, but the public don't make decisions based on that.

You have to read the Daily Mail to feel the pulse of the public. It is little things like not placing punitive fines on the public for putting their bins out on teh wrong day or clamping down on these cowboy clampers who fine the public exorbitant amounts for parking somewhere for too long. It is the public being ripped off that angers the public and shows them that no one is on their side. These huge parking fees for parking in hospital car parks etc. Governments need to stand with the people, with the 'squeezed middle', they need to care and provide populist policies that stop the people being penalised.

Clamp down on fat cats and casino capitalism and rip off Britain. Force energy companies to lower their prices. Put a levy on them. Show the public that there is someone who is with them. It's very simple stuff, but it requires the leaders to understand the people and actually care about the people. The Tories have scrapped the £1000 bin fines. They understand these things, because they read the Daily Mail and know it is in tune with the 'squeezed middle'.

The public vote on emotion. That's how Blair got in in teh first place, due to the disgust of the sleaze of teh Tory party at that time. The public has to believe that teh party they vote for is on their side and I now think that teh 'blue Labour' thing is an attempt to show teh public that Labour is not against teh 'squeezed middle'. It will upset doctrinaire socialists, but if they don't appeal to the 'squeezed middle', then Labour won't get back in again.

The rocketing train prices, the ever increasing exorbitant energy prices, the ever increasing taxes - all of these things affect all of the people - the socialists and the 'squeezed middle'. There should be no divide between the working class and the 'squeezed middle', they are all in the same boat, they are all struggling and being ripped off in the same way.

None of them are rolling in it, they are all people being squeezed. Any party that can unite them will win an election hands down.

The public has to a great extent lost faith in the parties, it thinks "they are all the same". The public knows that none of them are going to wave a magic wand and put the big things right overnight. The public accept that. But that is precisely why the little things count so much. Any party that doesn't stand with the public and can't even put the little things right will have no chance of putting the big things right.

Slug - 'The thing is claig, it's the traditional socialist voters that are deserting the Labour Party in droves. '

But where are they going? Who are they going to vote for next time? When it comes to the crunch won't they vote Labour like they always have?

No. They won't vote.

If lots of people have realised that all the main parties are standing on the same platform, it can only be a good thing.

I'd like a complete apology about the Iraq war and TBH I would like to see Tony Blair in prison. I would maybe consider voting Labour again.

Ed Milliband is crap and he will have to go.

Perhaps he should avoid saying that public sector workers should take a pay cut.

Well from what i've seen he's not actually said those words....just skirted around the subject and let people read it how they want. Typical politician I guess.

The uncomfortable truth is that the public sector has expanded past the point where the private sector can support it. So now we need to make cutbacks.

And there's only really two ways to do this. Make people redundant. Or pay everyone less money. Sure we can tinker around the edges looking for "efficiency savings" but the size of the deficit is too high for a nip tuck here and there. We need a fundamental rethink about what the state provides for.

Thanks for your comments so far people, this has sparked an interesting little debate. I think that those who say that the battle for the next election is amongst the middle ground are dead right - hence why I didn't even consider the traditional left / right bias in the four suggestions I made in my opening post. After all, Blair out-toried Major's Tories in matters such as law and order back in 1997 and continued to hold those positions until Brown took over, for Milliband to win he will need to perform a similar trick IMO. One thing is looking more certain though and that is that apathy will become more and more prevalent. The more the political parties converge on the middle classes, the less relevance they have for the rest of society.

Going back to Labour's predicament though, many commentators on the right are looking at the financial crisis' across Europe, one that has been caused (to varying degrees) by high spending socialist, or socialist leaning, governments, and they are predicting the end of the left wing movement completely. I'm not sure that that is the case. Similar things were said shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union yet the left wing parties across Western Europe reinvented themselves along a more social democratic line. For our current generation of left wingers where is their new high ground? I believe the answer is in increasing the number of private sector jobs - particularly within manufacturing - and boosting growth as much as possible. How you achieve that whilst retaining both their traditional support base and regaining the middle classes which deserted them at the last election is not easy to answer.

Sorry, I should have added 'without breaking the bank' somewhere in my last sentance - i'll let you put it in wherever you think best!

I'm not sure where the traditional labour voters will go. At one point they would vote Lib Dem in protest, but the Lib Dems have completely shot themselves in the foot in that respect lately. My friends on the left think the Socialist party and their ilk will rise to fill the void but I suspect that's wishful thinking at best.

I also reject the idea that the Daily Mail is the beating heart of public opinion that claig insists it is. the fact is, their circulation has been dropping for years to the point where it can no longer claim to voice the opinion of the even a significant minority.

And, despite what the Fail and the propaganda in the Right wing press suggests, the public sector does create wealth for the nation. We pay taxes too you know.

I (was) a teacher. I created wealth for the nation by providing an educated workforce capable of filling the jobs private industry created.

DH worked in the NHS. He created wealth for the nation by keeping the workforce healthy and capable of working.

We both pay taxes (higher rate in my instance) as does the entire Public Sector workforce. By cutting these jobs and by cutting pay, the govt is lowering it's tax intake which it needs in order to support the private sector. It's a false economy, much like the removing of benefits from the disabled thereby making them unable to work and contribute to the tax intake of the nation.

What happens if you cut the Public sector jobs or make the pay so low as to make it uneconomical for people to work in them? What happens if you make the cost of gaining the qualifications required in order to gain a job that pays barely above the minimum? As far as I can see the following is going to happen. Our talented young people are going to reject careers in the Public Service. All those potential teachers, nurses and even doctors are going to weigh up the pay of the potential jobs against the student debt and decide it's not worth it. And those working, especially part time in public sector jobs with shrinking incomes are going to realize that they will be better off on benefits. First there will be increased immigration. We will have to import the teachers/nurses/doctors from abroad, leaving our country underskilled and uncompetitive, and secondly the public purse will be stretched even more by the non-tax paying people (especially women) who cannot work because the low wages offered would all be swallowed up in childcare fees.

"Efficiency Savings" as proposed by the Tories is, in fact, quite the opposite.

So who will the disenfranchised labour voters vote for? your guess is as good as mine.

Yeah right like a fat kid needs cake they do

They had their turn and they spent all the money labour had healthy books

Then they just went mad and spent all the money went on a bender like Whitney and never really got their mojo back

The other thing is they go on about Tory toffs labour hasn't represented the working class since god knows when

Even the union bosses bob brow and others are on mad money

When do you reckon ED had to shop at primark

'When do you reckon ED had to shop at primark'

When the spin doctors told him to?

I don't think he is too bad. He is not arrogant, he seems alright.

After all the damage they did over the past 13 years, I can't believe anybody would want a Labour government ever again.

Yeah, all those children lifted out of poverty, all those NHS waiting lists cut down to the minimum, all those disability discrimination laws, all them gays who can now get married, not to mention those evil women and their insistence on not only maternity leave, but the right to go back to their own job afterwards. That building schools programme was a disgrace. Why on earth would you want children taught in schools with watertight roofs and no mould? We obviously don't nned the excessive police force, that can go, along with the Sure Start programme. Libraries!!! What a waste.

Who'd want to go back to that?

And, despite what the Fail and the propaganda in the Right wing press suggests, the public sector does create wealth for the nation. We pay taxes too you know.
Not in any real way. Taxes pay your wages. Then you give a bit of it back. Pointless really, it'd be easier just to pay public sector people less and not bother taxing them.

"I (was) a teacher. I created wealth for the nation by providing an educated workforce capable of filling the jobs private industry created."
But there are record numbers of NEETs. More and more children are leaving school unable to do fairly basic things. Something HAS to be done about it.