Labour - too left, or not left enough?

[Seffina]

I heard something earlier in the week, someone saying that Labour lost because they have gone too far to the left, and I wondered if people agreed.

Do you think Labour is too left, or is it not left enough?

I don't think even Labour know what they believe anymore.

I don't know, it's an interesting question. People are saying that they weren't left enough for Scotland, but I still think we have issues in understanding what motivates people to vote.

My personal opinion is that the 'left' and 'right' of traditional politics is becoming less and less relevant. People often find themselves sitting somewhere in the middle or being socially left but economically to the right. I actually wonder whether that this is why the conservatives won this time. Circumstances meant that the economy won out, but a lot of voters would consider themselves to be socially more to the left.

I think, my personal issues aside, it's why UKIP got so many votes. They're a right wing party in most ways, but they happily threw in some lefty policies when they thought it would appeal.

Most voters don't identify with those defined ideologies, they just want common sense to prevail. (Now I sound like NF )

"Circumstances meant that the economy won out"

Yes, rightly or wrongly, the voters believed that the Tories were in a better position to 'fix the economy'.

I don't have enough knowledge of economics to know which is the better option personally, and I don't trust the politicians to tell me the truth! But I think the Tories were in a much better position to argue that Labour would screw everything up (again, rightly or wrongly - I don't know).

If we go simple, and say Labour is on the left, with the Tories on the right and the Lib Dems in the middle (ignoring everyone else for now) - were Labour perhaps trying to gain Lib Dem voters, many of whom they knew would be looking for a new option.

"I don't think even Labour know what they believe anymore."

I agree. I think there's been a split for a long while, which is why Ed became leader rather than his brother, who was supported by the MPs at the top of Labour.

Thinking it about a little more, Labour are still propping up the austerity myth so I would say they aren't really left wing.

The Lib Dems aren't middle though, they are decidedly right wing and have been for quite a lot of years. I guess people who didn't know this were surprised at their votes going blue.

I don't think LDs are right wing, they are liberals. They may have some right of centre policies, but they have left of centre ones too. So many voters going over to the conservatives was more a byproduct of the coalition I think.

I don't always agree with her but I thought this by Zoe Williams was spot onwww.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/labour-missing-soul-burnham-umunna-cooper-disconnected-values'

'Left' has no objective meaning and what is the centre ground changes all the time.

I think too much is made of people being left or right wing. People that post on political threads on here seem to be more politically aware and engaged than most people I know in real life.
In my view the average person on the street sees Labour as tarnished at the moment - Rightly or wrongly they are blamed for wrecking our economy but there has never been any sort of acknowledgement of that by politicians - a Labour spokesman actually saying "yes we did some things wrong and we will do it differently this time" would go a long way.
I know for my age group the other thing that people struggle to forget is Tony Blair taking us in to a war that shouldn't have happened.
Most people don't read full manifesto's of each party and their decision to vote is generally based on one or two big issue that stick in their mind.

Well, technically, I would put all three of those parties on the right now, but it was mainly for simplicity.

I think 5 years ago, there were a lot of voters who voted LD as a 'middle' alternative, but I would say that in the coalition the things they had to compromise on were generally their more social policies - tuition fees being the example mainly discussed.

What I meant was that as it was obvious the LDs were going to lose seats, did Labour try and focus on gaining those seats by trying to appeal to LD voters and in the process lose themselves a whole load of more left wing voters?

"yes we did some things wrong and we will do it differently this time"

Didn't Miliband say that though? Or was that about something other than the economy?

Yes, Labour said that a lot. Too much. They didn't focus on what they did well I think. And that bloody note in the Treasury - there was no money because the whole world was in a recession (that wasn't caused by Labour). It's amazing that Labour didn't manage to get over to people that the Coalition increased the deficit. But they didn't try to get over much tbh further than remedial notions such as Labour = good and Tories = bad.

i don't think labour lost it because they were left or too left - they lost it because they had a crap leader and a crap campaign. I think they are too disconnected from normal people but wont admit this nor address it. I also believe they behave in a manner that is "do as I say not as I do" - an example is miliband and his family with regards tax and inheritance - instead of standing up and saying yes we did x/y/z to minimise our tax bill he tried to shift the blame on to his mum and said its her fault.

hes a despicable person and not someone who should be in power.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/labour-missing-soul-burnham-umunna-cooper-disconnected-values

Clicky link of the interesting article that dotty linked to

I did wonder why more was not made about the fact that we can't blame Gordon Brown for a global recession. And also that the real value of wages is declining - doesn't really fit with the whole 'hard working families' line.

I think the fact that Labour are desperately searching for reasons why they lost in fact sums up why they lost - it's as if they can't believe that they are at fault.

I didn't vote Labour because my local candidate made far too much mention of "why you shouldn't vote Tory/LD" rather than "this is why you should vote for me".

Most of the criticisms I hear re Labour are:

they are as bad as the Tories, all the same
they are the party of people on welfare who don't want to work
they took us into war
they bankrupt the country

These themes over and over. Many people I know didn't vote as thy didn't get a strong message from labour or they couldn't be bothered and have become disengaged but their values are left/labour and NOT Tory.

I personally strongly agree about their stance on Bedroom Tax and Zero hours but there is no doubt not everyone has such sympathy nor are these vote winner issues. Sadly people are quite selfish when it comes to looking after poorer people and I have read many comments such as 'just downsize' or 'get a better job' 'I can't afford it why should you' etc etc.

The Tories banged on about the economy and about getting tough on welfare which is the message that won. If Labour bang on about the NHS and compassionate but (what is perceived as) fairer welfare then they may do better next time.

I agree with all of that jellybeans. It does suggest that at least some people see Labour as 'not left enough' and it's especially interesting if they are choosing not to vote at all.

I think there was a proportion of 'protest votes' too, people who wanted to vote for anyone who wasn't one of the 'big 3' - or maybe that is wishful thinking that not all of those UKIP votes can have come from people who actually agree with UKIP's policies.

As for welfare, the stories about the 'undeserving' are more prominent than those about the 'deserving'. It is a tricky issue though, and it gets linked to the issue of the economy and what 'taxpayer money' (a phrase I hate, but it's a great soundbite) can and cannot be used for.

Out of a few posters here, we quickly seem to have come up with a list of important issues that Labour didn't seem to have an answer to, or things which may have at least helped them to win more votes (which seemed to be the main focus of the election, rather than actual policies).

IMO, they need to realise that Ed wasn't the real problem.

And that bloody note in the Treasury - there was no money because the whole world was in a recession (that wasn't caused by Labour).

As a former Labour voter, the painful truth is that they didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining.

In fact, they didn't bother with the roof at all because Gordon had "put an end to boom and bust". As soon as it started to rain, we got wet. We should gave been better prepared.

It's amazing that Labour didn't manage to get over to people that the Coalition increased the deficit.

I think that was inevitable to some extent and people saw through that argument from Labour.

If you had a credit card bill of £10,000 with interest to pay on it, an income of £1,000 per month and outgoings of £1,200 per month the deficit would keep increasing even if you managed to get the outgoings down by £100.

I don't think Labour can win in terms of moving further left or further right. Whichever way they go they will win some people back and lose others.

Much as I REALLY didn't want to see Labour in government in their current guise, we certainly need a strong opposition and a party with a real chance of challenging for the next GE.

Agree with peggy, too, regarding Miliband and his own behaviour.

The mansion tax was a bit of a bullet to the foot for him really.

Yes, he stood up and said he was happy to pay it himself (good job) but it seemed to be lost on him and his campaign team that, out of all the party leaders, he was going to be the only one paying the 'tax on the richest people in this country', as I believe he described it.

The electorate aren't stupid enough to miss that link point.

I think the beginning of the end for the Labour campaign was when Ed Miliband said that he did not think that Labour had overspent during their time in government. That was a massive home goal. Add to that the pink bus and the Ed stone... What a campaign!! Also Labour did not put anything aside during the good years but continued to spent under Gordon Brown's "No more boom and bust" plan?? Add to that billions spent on an NHS computer system that was never used and the gold that was sold at bargain basement prices. Had that gold still been there today then perhaps the cuts would have been less severe. Blaming the banks alone for the crisis does not seem totally right imo. I believe that the impact of the banking crisis could have been a lot less severe had the Labour government been less reckless with the countries finances.

The reality is that the global financial crisis would have overwhelmed the UK economy regardless of whether Labour had spent a bit less.

We would have been in the same situation if the Tories had been in government in 2008.
As for austerity, Britain's deficit in 09/10 was still a good deal lower than for the majority of the 20th century; We didn't need austerity then and we don't now.

The amount this country has borrowed has grown under the coalition. We do need to reduce it because our children and their children will be forever paying it back!!! Why does anyone want to do that to future generations?
The deficit is the interest we pay on the borrowings. As a country we want everything but are prepared to pay for very little and moan all the time.

Labour are in a bit of a no win situation. 50 Labour seats in Scotland have gone. I believe they now need to win back 94 (?) in England. Disaffected Labour is now voting UKIP in England. Some Tory votes went to them, but the "working" classes who blaming the EEC and immigrants for their perceived problems voted UKIP. An old "trades union" style of Labour Party cannot get enough votes. There are not enough left leaning people in these constituencies to get Labour back in.

By the way, it was the Liberals who fought for the £10,000 threshold before income tax is paid. This ludicrous fuss about tuition fees is a complete red herring. Most people with students in the family know it is their additional living costs that crucify!!! 50% of students will not pay back the tuition fees and the university applications are up! What was Nick Clegg supposed to do in 2010? Even a Lab/Lib coalition would not have mustered enough seats!! He was the minority party in the coalition. That means he does not get his way every time!!! Everyone forgot about the Tory reorganisation of the NHS that cost billions. It just shows how some adverse publicity sticks while some politicians and their policies never get punished. The reorganisation of the NHS was not in the Tory manifesto so reading that won't have helped much last time.

People also voted Tory to keep out the Scot Nats. Lab/SNP coalition was more unacceptable than Ed's policies. When is that scenario going to change? If it doesn't, it won't matter what Labour come up with.

I think Labour was both/neither too left nor too right. They tried to win the 'centre ground' - but that's old politics.

That strategy may have worked in previous decades, but people are willing to vote for other parties now.

They were clearly not left enough for Scotland, and many former Labour voters voted Green this time around. Many of their core voters have abandoned them because they don't stick up for the working class enough. Many liberals abandoned them because they don't stick up for the poor and vulnerable.

They were clearly not right wing enough for the City, the shires, and the affluent middle who didn't see enough messages aimed at how voting Labour would improve their lives.

So in the end, they were the party for nobody - except maybe the tribal Labour voters and those who would vote for them to keep the Tory scum out at any cost.