Labour's real southern discomfort
Late last year Patrick Diamond and Giles Radice returned to take another look at Labour’s electoral fortunes in the South of England, when they published Southern Discomfort One Year On. The survey confirms something already widely understood – that Labour has a lot more to do to get itself back into a position where electoral success in the south can be realised.
In general, southern voters seem much clearer about what the Conservatives stand for than Labour, with 61% of them clear about what the Conservatives stand for set against only 37% for Labour. Voters in the south believe that Conservatives are more likely than Labour to “ensure value for money in the provision of public services such as schools and hospitals” (34% to 22%).
It’s not headline grabbing news to unearth that the south believes the Conservatives are better at Value for Money than Labour (indeed, the research didn’t grab any headlines). In fact, it would be surprising to learn that the public in any part of the UK saw Labour as guardians of thrift when it comes to spending public funds. Fairly or not, that is how Labour is viewed now. The cost of losing our economic credibility has been considerable.
The north/south divide is pertinent only in that it highlights the fact that obtaining value for money matters more in the south. Labour activists who have been on the doorstep talking to voters don’t need polls to tell them that we are less supported, and our policy platform less appreciated, in the south.
So a more interesting question to answer might be: is it possible for Labour to remain anchored in public sector dependent communities of our heartlands while at the same time regaining economic credibility in the south? It is; but only if we talk about everyday values and eschew the expensive policy solutions whose ability to tangibly improve ordinary lives seems to be a bit too hit and miss. It is for that reason that we should welcome Liam Byrne's recent Guardian article in which he talks about "something for something" welfare reform.
Is there really that much difference in the values of the a median income family from a traditional Labour heartland and a similar family living in a Surrey or Kent commuter town that hasn’t ever elected a Labour MP? One identifies their values with Labour and one sees us as standing in opposition to them. Surely this is Labour’s real Southern Discomfort?
The whole problem with Liam Byrne's approach is that it's based on ignorance rather than any real facts. Why should there be a division between categories of people made up by the Daily Mail? Or between a public sector dependent community in the north and the south (is this division real anyway? I know there are a large number of public sector jobs here in Ipswich, for example).
ReplyDeleteAs a Labour party member I'm fed up with this fearful, focus group approach. If we can't represent the interests of those people who are going to suffer from coalition cuts (and that includes increasing numbers of working and unemployed people) then what is the point of joining the party?
As far as I can see he's simply pandering to a common prejudice that will reveal itself in research and focus groups; i.e. I'm working long hours for little money while they're sponging off me. As we've given up on full employment this is patently untrue, especially in the current economic climate, but it plays on the natural enough fear we who earn £18-30,000 a year have about our jobs, and the squeeze on our income. If we need to find a way to communicate an alternative view in the south then fine, but we shouldn't simply try to out-Tory the Tories.
The more obvious division is between high earners who are not paying an extra penny in income tax and those who are getting hit by low pay, cuts in benefits and higher unemployment in order to pay off the budget deficit.