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'd start with

1. Pick up and run with Cameron's flirtation with mutualism. Starting with substantial tax breaks, and lots of other assistance for new employee controlled companies and businesses shifting to worker control. That could be traditional small workers' co-ops where the workers run the business themselves, or in the case of larger businesses its more likely that the workers will employ managers to run the business on their behalf.

2. Continuing in the same vein, rework the old Thatcher idea of employees owning shares in their company. It got lost in the whole privatisation-get-rich-quick 80s thing, but it has lots of potential to tie businesses and workers together.

3. Think long and hard and come up with some creative new suggestions for long term secure finance for small to medium sized businesses

4. Serious re-regulation of the financial sector along the lines suggested by Nouriel Roubini

I could go on. . .

So the problem with this thread and perhaps the reason it has attracted very little input from "old labour" types or from those that would identify themselves as socialist is that we do not want labour unless it once again starts to speak for the non white middle class, daily mail reading working poor, and non working poor.

It is and always has been the middle class that right wing parties have had to court in order to hold power, those that support capitalism by buying in to all the crap that makes them more selfish and narrow minded and thus easier to by with votes, or scare shitless with stories about the underclass and those who are such a drain on the resources of the society.

Old labour voters have given up any hope or indeed do not want labour to be electable if all they do is parrot neo liberal capitalist crap. Look to Scotland to see what the Labour party is having to do, it is going through a period of change that might bring Labour back to the left. If it does not it will always be outflanked by the SNP who despite being exactly the same as every other political party in it's belief in the discredited capitalist system still manages to sell it's self as more socialist and the thing is the people are voting for it.

Thinking more seriously:

Start talking long and hard about inequality. Point out how much more unequal we are than other EU countries. Talk about how inequality affects everyone, even the rich, talk about the insecurity, stress, and family breakdown that it causes.

Talk about capitalism, and the ways in which predatory US style free market capitalism can be brought under control

Talk about the 1970s - look at the problems of monolithic state owned enterprises, and think about how ordinary people can control the means of production in different ways. (Hence talking about mutualism above.)

When you're talking about the 70s, talk about the 80s as well. Talk about the fact that what saved the UK's bacon in the early 80s was the cash from North Sea Oil - not Conservative policies (but admit that Labour back then were also hanging on for the cash to come through, rather than tackling industrial decline, thinking of creative ways to finance businesses securely and all these other things that the Germans and the Scandis do so well). Talk about what Norway did with their North Sea oil money.

Talk about industrial relations - the fact that unions are important, that they can be a serious force for good.

hmm, must do some work :)

I agree Labour haven't represented the working class in a long time. I have to laugh when people think the Tories are better with money. A lot of their cuts will actually cost more in the long run. I despair of all the parties.

Taver some interesting stuff there. My gut feeling is that Labour will have to find a way of making capitalism relevant to the common man - perhaps mutual?s are part of the solution but, just to play devil's advocate, if giving your workers a share of the company profits is good (as happens at John Lewis for example), why is giving your workers a share of the company profits bad if they are bank bonuses? (My opinion (FWIW) is that, unless it's a nationalised bank, it's none of our damn business!)

Despite this anomaly, I think you are on the right lines.

If Labour were to push inequality as a major plank of their social policy, in my mind that is tied up with such ideas as meritocracy and social mobility - are there any policies which Labour could come up with to deliver this? Free and better educations seems like the obvious answers but are they affordable, or even achievable? Enough time and treasure was spent on schools under Labour last time around and the general consensus is that educational standards have slipped.

As for talking about oil - I think Thatcher does owe a lot of thanks to the oil boom, but this is just water under the bridge now - the money has long been spent. Besides, if the benefits of oil are talked up too much, we jeopardise the union with Scotland and in any case, that particular cash cow is mooing its last. We are passed peak production from the North Sea - if the experts are to be believed, it's only a matter of time before the wells run dry. We do have the exciting prospect of shale gas, but in these ecologically aware days would a leading politician dare pin their hopes on a big fossil fuel discovery?

One thing?s for sure, I wouldn't want Ed's job for all the tea in China.

Great posts/ideas from both Mr Pants in his OP and Takver.

I'm an Old Labour voter (as opposed to an old Labour voter ) but I have no problems with Mr Pants ideas - they seem v sensible. Esp no 4 - I hate tax credits ie giving back with one hand what you took with the other minus all the costs in admin/fraud etc - totally pointless. Plus the low paid should be better paid by their employers, not by the state chipping in.

Also love Takver's ref to mutualism, which I'm a big fan of - the more coops we have and the less Philip Greens at the top etc creaming off their billions and salting them away in some tax haven somewhere, the better. (Except for the Philip Greens themselves, and Tory party coffers. ButI can cope with them being a bit poorer.)

Re who would Old Labour voters vote for intead - easy. In my household, me and DH refused to vote Labour so in the end, I voted Green - as do a lot of effed off Labour voters (and I did this primarily for their general policies, not specifically for 'green' reason; the environment etc is on my list of areas I look at, but a long way from the top). DH voted Lib Dem - ha ha - well, he'll never make that mistake again - they're dead in the water.

claig - you'e simply wrong to say that Labour lost the last election because they were deserted by centrist voters - they werent particularly. Research after the election showed it was actually the traditional Labour 'core' vote that deserted them in droves.

Certainly, experience in other countries shows you cannot write off socialist parties - they have come back from electoral wipeout in a number of countries over the last couple of decades.

My preferred policychanges to ensure I vote Labour again? Here they are:

1. Apologise for ballsing up over the last decade. Esp re housing - allowing house prices to get so out ofcontrol, not building enough, and more generally, encouraging a credit boom). Also re allowing and encouraging lax regulation of the the banks etc - that wastotally their fault - Mandelson's comments about being 'totally relaxed about the filthy rich' kid of sum it upfor me. Also maybe about Iraq - doesn't bother me personally but really matters to some people.

1. Defend the NHS with all guns blazing. Popular with almost all voters - I have yet to meet anyone who is not a Tory MP who wants the reorganisation of the NHS to go ahead. A bit like Labour's ID cards plan - everyone thinks it's shit.

1. Recant the stupid anti-public sector pay claptrap - easy way to lose most of their core vote in one go. (NB - their core vote is NOT Daily Mail readers or Telegraph readers - if they get miffed, well, oh dear.)

1. Policy to build loads more houses thus in one fell swoop both solving the housing and unemployment problems. Plus accidentally having the knock-on effect of lowering huse prices thus improving everyone's quality of life (except for BTL landlords, but again, I'll cope), as people don't need to spend so much on housing costs and can spend on other stuff, thus improving the economy generally.

Loads more ideas but will leave it there.

I don't think pandering to the public sector is the way for Labour to get back into power. Most people, even people working within it, know it needs to be reformed and that many people working within it are overpaid for what they actually do.

Labour need to make a complete and unreserved apology for the New Labour era, and completely purge the party of anyone even tangentially connected with that regime. So Millibands, gone. Balls, gone. Fielding, gone. Harman, gone. They need to draw new MPs from working-class people, not the entitled middle-class that has taken control of the party over the last 20 years.

Well, I guess I am just an old Labour voter :)

I'd be very happy with your list, breadandbutterfly.

MrPants, a few thoughts:

" why is giving your workers a share of the company profits bad if they are bank bonuses?" I don't think it is, per se, although you have to be extremely careful about the incentives that you create in this sector because of the potential for one sided risk taking and the mobility of the workers. Although I don't always agree with Nouriel Roubini and I would say he mostly comes from a relatively right wing perspective I think his writing on regulation of bank remuneration is sensible and his proposals perfectly workable.

My support for mutualism is though much more about worker control rather than just a distribution of profits. Obviously it depends on the industry, but to generalise massively the tendency is for lower level workers to value stability, long term employment and reliable ongoing acceptable performance over and above short term high profits. Whereas you can see at the top level in businesses that high level employees come in, generate high profits for a few years, then leave with a good pay off. Often of course leaving the business burdened with debt or otherwise in a much worse long term position.

"meritocracy and social mobility " TBH, I think social mobility is a massive red herring at this point in Britain's history. I've discussed this a lot with my Mum (who is an even older labour voter ). The social mobility that we saw post war and through to the 1970s was basically an illusion. There were very few people going down the social scale, what was happening was a massive expansion of the middle classes because of the way the economy was developing (similar to what is happening in China now). As it happens both my parents and especially my mum were beneficiaries of that expansion which the State facilitated through for example the opening of the grammar schools too working class children.

In addition, we have such an unequal society that anyone at a higher level is going to cling on like grim death to their position and make sure that their children are setting out with a head start - hence all the angst over schooling, getting in to the 'best' school, getting the best possible exam results. In a society where, for example, care workers were paid a decent wage and didn't need to rely on state benefits to survive, people wouldn't worry half so much about where there children ended up on the social scale. At that point you might see more genuine social mobility where people move into jobs that are suited to their abilities and talents.

"in these ecologically aware days would a leading politician dare pin their hopes on a big fossil fuel discovery?" No, you're right, the oil days are long gone. But I think it is still important in that a lot of people see the problems of the 70s and don't fully understand the relevance of oil in both creating those problems (the oil price shock) and getting us out of them (north sea oil).

On the other hand here in Wales I see a massive opportunity for Welsh politicians to exploit the potential for renewable energy and to tie that into the engineering skills that still exist in the Valleys (and the fact that as an industrial landscape in great need of jobs there is likely to be much less opposition to windfarms et al). An old fashioned active industrial policy could go a long way here IMO.

sorry, to working class children

breadandbutterfly, you are right. I didn't realise that Labour had lost so many working class voters as opposed to middle class voters. I realised taht lots of voters were turned off by Labour but didn't realise the real breakdown.

The green policies don't really play to ordinary working people who are very sceptical of the intelligentsia's claims. They never understood why they had to endure £1000 bin fines to 'save the planet'. Sustainability didn't play to them - they thought it was about sustaining Labour in power and they couldn't see the benefit of that.

This article from the Independent explains it well and talks about teh 'Blue Labour' policy to try to regain teh lost working class votes.

'The problem Blue Labour tries to address is this. Labour has lost around 4 million working-class voters since 1997, and at the last general election, for the first time, Labour's middle-class vote (in the ABC1 sense) was higher than its working-class (C2DE) vote. To win an election, Labour needs to win back lots of those blue-collar voters; the trouble is that Labour's middle-class voters, especially the liberal graduates among them, have increasingly divergent values and interests.

Academics call this the liberal versus communitarian value divide. Broadly speaking, middle-class liberals place most stress on individual rights and cultural openness. They are highly mobile and pro-diversity and pro-immigration. They are softish on criminals and green on the environment. They are comfortable with globalisation and benefit from it both economically and culturally. At the more extreme end they are universalists, who feel no greater obligation to someone in Birmingham than to someone in Burundi.

Working-class communitarians, by contrast, have a more collectivist view of rights, and place great stress on community membership. They worry about welfare free-riding, they value the familiar and the local, and are sceptical about mobility and mass immigration. They are draconian on crime and not very green. They are uncomfortable with globalisation, and tend not to benefit from it economically or culturally. At the more extreme end, they shade into racists.'

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-goodhart-labour-can-have-its-own-coalition-too-2246971.html

The articlle shows how out of touch the 'middle class liberals' are with the mass of the working class. The 'middle class liberals' are 'I'm alright Jacks' who are miles apart from the majority. Thatcher was closer to the working class 'Blue Labour' than the middle class liberal 'Champagne Labour'.

The voice of the working class and 'Blue Labour' has had very little influence in the higher echelons of New Labour for many years. Maybe this will change, but will the change be for real or will it be spin?

Interesting analysis, claig, though reading it I suspect it's one of those bits of analysis that looks really good on paper but doesn't actually stand up when faced with real human beings rather than theoretical models.

I am definitely middle class and would flatter myself I sort of fall into the 'intelligentsia' category - but I actually find myself kind of agreeing with both your supposedly liberal and supposedly communitarian ideas above, if anything the latter more than the former. I suppose I see Labour as ideally representing the core 'British' values of tolerance, decency, hard work etc - some bits of which fit into your 'liberal' definition and some into your 'communitarian' category - but actually they meld together very nicely in practice and always have done, and are at the heart of what it means to be British.

You could apply your definitions just as easily to the Tory party - that too has plenty of people who favour globalisation versus Little Englanders etc.

So not sure the analysis is that helpful.

'I see Labour as ideally representing the core 'British' values of tolerance, decency, hard work etc'

Agree , but they are aklso traditional Tory values.

Yes these categories are generalisations, but there is also some truth to them. You yourself didn't vote Labour because they did not treat some of the things you believe in seriously enough. I think that was also true of the working class who turned away from Labour, they didn't feel their voice and interests were being heard.

I think it comes down to how much people care about certain issues. Labour and the Tories were both all for globalisation and for the environment etc., but I don't think that many working class voters were.

To woo teh working class 'Blue Labour', New Labour may have to change some of their priorities and policies and speeches. I think the 'Blue Labour' policies are a move in that direction. However, this may upset some of 'Champagne Labour' and some left wing activists, both of whom often ignored the voice of the people and thought that they knew what was best for them.

A classic example of Labour's disregard and distance from some of their core lifelong supporters was the Mrs Duffy incident. She was a lifelong Labour supporter and thankfully she still is.

You're right claig, in much of what you say.

And yet... rereading your 'communitarian' description, it reads as a perfect fit for your average Daily Telegraph reader - read it yourself and try - do you see?

I know I'm a bit biased here, but to me Labour is the party with morality on its side ie the party of the Decent Brit as described above. Whilst the Tory party is the party of I'm Alright Jack aka THe Nasty Party.

I want the abour Party to stop trying to get in with the nasty kids by being mean to the poor kids and become nice again. :)

Then I'll vote for them. :)

Simples.

abour Party = Labour Party. But you probably guessed that.

'Working-class communitarians, by contrast, have a more collectivist view of rights, and place great stress on community membership. They worry about welfare free-riding, they value the familiar and the local, and are sceptical about mobility and mass immigration. They are draconian on crime and not very green. They are uncomfortable with globalisation, and tend not to benefit from it economically or culturally. At the more extreme end, they shade into racists.'

Yes they are more conservative than the middle class liberals. That is why many admired and voted for Thatcher. There are millions of them and they are not "alright Jack". They are the majority and they don't read the newspapers that the intelligentsia read. Sustainability is not at the top of their list of priorities. They know that the 'I'm Alright Jacks" have fooled them and taken their vote for granted.

They don't fall for the tricks of the "I'm Alright Jacks" who call the opposition childish names like the 'Nasty Party'. They don't believe the 'I'm Alright Jacks' who flipped their homes and tried to scare them about the Tory boogieman.
They didn't fall for the empty rhetoric of the patronising "I'm Alright Jacks" whom they had never seen for 13 years until they nocked on their doors asking for their votes, telling them about that other "Nasty Party". They were too sophisticated for that, they were 'Blue Labour', not Tim Dim But Nice and they made New Labour pay the price.

knocked

Labour needs to find a fairer and cheaper way to manage child benefit/ tax credits. I like the idea of a bigger personal allowance for people with children. I also think that a SAHM parent of a child under seven should be allowed to transfer some of his/her personal allowance to a working partner. It would also be a good way of supporting single parents.

I feel its unfair that some groups in society have been left untouched. Like childless high income tax payers and wealthier pensions.I would like the tax system take money more money from wealthy pensioners through income tax. I suggest that pensioners should start paying higher rates of income tax at 25K. Such people usually own property with no mortgage and have no dependents. I would tax relief on those who have to pay rent and do not own property.

Not all pensioners are poor, some pensioners with large final salary pension schemes have pensions that are more than some families.. A wealthy pensioner pays no national insurance and will pay less VAT as they tend to spend less. Wealthy pensioners also get free bus passes, winter fuel allowance and a free TV licence (if over 75).

As far as uni fees go. I think that unis need to take some of the financial risk of setting high fees. There is no disintentive not to charge 9K a year for a crap English course. I think that future funding of a university should depend on what percentage of the student loans have been paid back within 5 years.

If an OU course costs 15K and the average student has paid back 5K after 5 years then that is an excellent return. If a crappy media course costs 60K and average student has only paid off 1K after 5 years then that is poor value of money. I feel that unis that give poor value for money should be fined and the sucessful unis should be given a bigger teaching grant. It would focus unis on keeping costs down and making their students employable. Unis would be more moviated to be flexible and offer two year degrees or part time degrees to fit in with working.

"Labour needs to find a fairer and cheaper way to manage child benefit/ tax credits. I like the idea of a bigger personal allowance for people with children. I also think that a SAHM parent of a child under seven should be allowed to transfer some of his/her personal allowance to a working partner. It would also be a good way of supporting single parents."

What a I mean is a single parent could be given a bigger tax allowance than a single parent without kids. Life is tougher for a single mother on 45K than a two parent family with both parents earning 40K (joint income 80K).

Like those ideas reallytired though I think that your university fees one is not really workable - it would act as a major disincentive to any university offering arts or humanities courses at all, where graduates tend to earn less, or to a v successful uni where large numbers of graduates go into academia and so earn less - rather counter-productive. I think it is fundamentally misconstrued because it starts from the assumption that the value of an education can be measured in £ and p, which is something I strongly disagree with.

claig, I doubt most members of your so-called intelligentsia flipped homes or are alright jack, actually. I think they are up in arms with their brethren who work in factories rather than factories of the mind about the huge corruption both at the top of society as well as the culture of entitlement at the bottom. Don't forget, the intelligentsia - by whom i assume you mean academics, teachers, etc - have all suffered hugely over the last decade; by example, a v close friend, a Cambridge don, had to give up working as an academic and become a consultant because on an academic's salary she couldn't afford to even buy a flat in Cambridge.

The people who are alright Jack and have been flipping homes etc are not the intelligentsia (unless you extend the definition to include MPs? - not sure they fit), but capitalists - all those who Peter Mandelson effed off the left by saying he was totally relaxed about.

I can assure you, both middle class and working class left wingers are united in not being terribly relaxed about this - has the expression 'the squeezed middle' passed you by, or do you still imagine that everyone has does not do manual labour actually has a really cushy life??

breadandbutterfy, I agree with you.

By intelligentsia, I don't mean academics and intellectuals, I really mean the political opinion formers, the spinners who try to spin their line to the public.

By the "I'm Alright Jacks", I really mean the political spinners and opinon formers who ignore the opinion of the public.

I agree about the 'squeezed middle' who have been ignored for so long by the Labour "I'm Alright Jacks". They are not just left wing.

"Like those ideas reallytired though I think that your university fees one is not really workable - it would act as a major disincentive to any university offering arts or humanities courses at all, where graduates tend to earn less, or to a v successful uni where large numbers of graduates go into academia and so earn less - rather counter-productive"

I have no objection to the existance of arts/ humanties courses, but should they REALLY be charged at 9K a year and unis able to expand these courses without consequence. There are only so many jobs in academia. I would like humanties students to be encouraged to take a minor in something useful. Ie. English with legal studies or Politics with personal management or French with accountancy.

"I think it is fundamentally misconstrued because it starts from the assumption that the value of an education can be measured in £ and p, which is something I strongly disagree with."

Why? Do you honestly think an English degree with 5 lectures a week and one tutorial should be charged at 9K a year? Unless you have a rich daddy who can support you for life most people NEED to earn their living. My mortgage is measured in £ and p.

The nhs needs reforming it cannot go on in its present form, simples.