There is one reason above all others that the left keeps losing elections. It’s an alarmingly simple reason, actually If you want to tell the simplest story about 21st century politics so far, it’s that the right has gone further to the right and yet managed to generally win elections, while the left has gone further to the left and usually lost elections. Obviously, this doesn’t hold up everywhere in every election, but it seems like the general pattern.
What NT writes here is right, but I don' think that it's the whole story. Go into any supermarket and what will you see? Ranks of Mails/Suns/Expresses with simplistic headlines which every passer-by reads, even when the majority don't take the paper. Listen to the BBC and what you hear is a kind of default conservatism - it's not that all BBC presenters are raving Tories, but that there's a subliminal assumption that the Tories are the natural party of government, that the hierarchical nature of British (particularly English) society, from the royals downwards is the natural order of things and that to argue for change is rather like being the dodgy drunken uncle at a wedding which I think NT used as an image a post or two ago. I mean, in what other country is "you're being political" a put-down? I recall fondly the Brexit voter who said that he was voting Leave because the EU was "political". It's a brilliant piece of leger-de-main which the establishment in this country has used to keep everything going for their benefit since... well since 1066 maybe...
All true, but this just makes what Nick states even more true. You can't change the external environment, at least not until you get power and can do sorting about appropriate regulation, so you have to go with it. That includes writing articles for The Sun, or partnering with The Express as the environmental campaigner and Ecotricity founder Dale Vince has done, both of which have been seen as traitorous by the left. The BBC tend to be pro-government, so get into power first and then use the newfound exposure to change the narrative and progress your causes. Countering the RW press is hard and disillusioning at times, but Starmer demonstrates that it can be done. For example, the press would love to paint Starmer as a rejoiner, so he has had to go harder on the denials than I suspect he'd have liked, but there is nothing for the press to get their teeth into and this does show in the increasingly desperate ways that they try to attach him to rejoin (see the reaction to his comments about liking Ode to Joy!). It is uncomfortable, but given rejoining either EU or SM/CU requires a proper debate and so it is practically unachievable to promise or deliver, then why not make the most political gain from it?
Nick has a point about protest movements on the left and you can include the dreadful and failed Corbyn within that student politics, but not Starmer, Milliband, Brown or Blair. In fact Starmer is doing the Blair playbook so accurately and with such closely comparable results so far, that it is spooky.
Blair was so appealing to the public in leadership and moderate centrist in policy that at the time you thought that Labour would never drop this new broad consensus and return to failing with Michael Foot or even the fraught wranglings of a Wilson. But like the Tories, First Past the Post makes Labour a very broad church and the mid left and hard left are always there, attempting to capture the party for their faction. So when Milliband foolishly allowed £3 new members to immediately vote for a leadership candidate, Corbynites put the membership form on his website and every ex trotskyist, communist and Clause 4 supporter came out of the woodwork and swamped the existing membership.
Corbyn was unable to debate, do interviews properly, engage with his party, maintain niceties toward Jewish people, or to have a clue about policy and his speeches were all virtually identical. Reading out emails in PMQs and losing against a unique open goal in 2017 against the non campaigning Mrs May with unpopular inheritance tax and social care policies, did not stop Labour giving Corbyn another chance to fail bigger in 2019. While Corbyn was policy free, he attracted a classic old Stalinist fave, to take over the commanding heights of the economy, probably, or at least in stages. The unelectable government in waiting were to be putting up Corporation Tax, which was fair enough. But that was not enough. They were to nationalise 10% of company profits on top, with most going to the government and some crumbs for the union/workforce. Even this was not enough. Would they put a worker representative on the board? Although controversial as a compulsory idea, this may be not a bad idea in the company's real long term interests you might say? But no, this was far too sensible. They would make it compulsory to have 1/3 of company boards as workers without management roles. One wonders what they would all talk about on board meetings? Football, holidays, or what's been on the telly possibly? How long would it have been before the worker director numbers were expanded to becoming a majority, with affiliated Union "leadership" ? Otherwise what would have been the point of them?
No amount of electoral success by Starmer will prevent Labour's hard left from attacking him more viciously than the Tories and repeating their failed Foot/Corbyn playbooks. But when Blair took over in '97, we had an expanding economy and a charismatic leader, with public services less run down and borrowing and taxation at lower levels than today. The public are highly dissatisfied and volatile. A big Starmer win will not ensure long enough terms to give him even a chance to turn this mess around and he's ruled out joining the Single Market or even the easy one. That would be joining the Customs Union and dumping those dodgy trade deals due to wipe out domestic food production outside of organic and niches. It would happen. Subsidy has been largely ended, many farmers are working at or below cost now and many are near retirement age. They could never compete with hormone injected cattle feed lots or giant herds of semi wild livestock in the Australian outback. We could import 80% of our food as before WW1, boost all the air miles and grant more planning agreements to golf courses, with 80 odd applications in Essex alone.
Has economic growth in western Europe largely ended in our fast ageing societies? Can Starmer turn around this galloping catastrophe sufficiently to cling to office and continue the work in 2028-9? Or will the right wing press and whatever comes after out of the net and AI, work it's evil magic on the British public and they surge towards the next populist chancer wielding a chainsaw or pint of fizzy bitter? God help us.
Give us PR voting and the worst of this nasty right wing politics as expressed through the Tory party majoritarianism will no longer be able to govern, at least not normally without moderating coalitions.
Having grown up in a two bed flat with no heating, the local golf courses were our eagerly looked forward to recreational green lung. (I sometimes wonder if that is why now (at nearly seventy) I can walk all day - while many others hobble about with dodgy knees and mobility impairments.)
Before just concreting our green lungs - how about some proper research and analysis on the extent of existing empty and mainly empty properties in this country ? If Brexit has taught us anything - it's look before you leap !
The house I grew up in was freezing in winter, with curtain's frozen against damp windows and had a few years like that in my 30's. Golf courses are not green except in appearance. They are covered in chemicals which wash off into our waterways
This piece seems to confuse protest and campaigning with seeking votes as an organised political party.
Shouting at a protest is an emotional, perhaps frustrated, outburst. A protest is, by definition, self selecting. No one knows if members of a political party are there unless they ask. It's not designed to win an election.
A campaign, such as saving wildlife or supporting the building of wind farms is not specifically directed at the left or a specific electoral result.
If by campaign, you mean party political campaigns, then few involve shouting. Mostly it's delivering leaflets and having a street stall. Usually single subject. Even doorstep canvassing doesn't involve converting people to a party. It tends to be about indentifying where support lies and encouraging supporters to vote.
The question on why the Conservatives win is much bigger and swing voters have very little to do with it in general. Most voters barely think about politics. They get impressions from media and social media. The so called "newspaper review" segments on 24 hour news have the inevitable consequence of highlighting right wing talking points. They rarely "review" the papers and explore the accuracy or truth.
Conservatives don't win in Scotland. They don't win in Wales. They do win in England. Usually outside large cities. A traditional and almost nostalgic appeal for continuity.
There are only two election campaigns.
Steady as you go don't let the other side ruin it.
Time for a change.
There are usually 100 or so constituencies that change at elections. Only those voters opinions are important. The national polls are good for the media. It makes them pay attention to the opposition.
Labour will run a "time for a change" election. The Conservatives will say the good times are just round the corner. Look we have tax cuts for you.
1. They constantly appeal to "common sense" - which is a particularly potent ingredient of populist ideology (witness the recent appointment of Esther McVey as "minister for common sense" and the existence of the Common Sense Group of hard-right ideologues and obsessives).
2. They tell their core supporters exactly what they want to hear, quite regardless of whether or not it's true - for example, "we're going to send all the 'illegal migrants' to Rwanda and withdraw from the ECHR".
3. Both of these tactics benefit from huge support from the right-wing press and are not challenged by a cowed, and frankly subverted, BBC (viz the neutering of Newsnight). The point about the press has been ably made by others here, but it's also important to point out that much of its "journalism" percolates straight into the online world, and especially social media, since it's explicitly designed as clickbait.
4. Given the above, First Past the Post plays straight into the hands of the Tories, who use these tactics relentlessly to appeal to their core voters in the crucial swing constituencies.
The left also tell their supporters what they want to hear. Everything always seems to be the fault of "corporate greed" - as if we all don't want to seek the best possible returns on our investments.
Nick, however you frame it, right wing campaigning isn't so different. They do just as much shouting about their own beliefs. Notably on immigration, which is relentlessly and repeatedly demonised until more moderate people start to be drawn in by the flawed logic.
As for the pro-Palestinian marches, they have been almost entirely peaceful, non-disruptive and non-confrontational. However, mainstream media and politicians have characterised any opposition to Israel's actions as antisemitic and pro Hamas terrorism. Thereby successfully undermining and sidelining the protests. Extreme right counter protests were violent in contrast and inadvertently destroyed the position taken by Braverman and her supporters. Yet being pro-Palestinian is still not seen as a respectable position.
Absolutely spot on. And I day that as someone broadly sympathetic with the left intents - to see people who I agree with just shooting ourselves in the foot is immensely frustrating. A couple of additional points. Firstly, not all votes are equal, which makes this especially important. One former Tory voter coming over to Labour is worth two votes (Tories down one, Labour up one), so losing one lefty vote to the greens is still a good outcome. Winning one Tory voter over in Bury and losing Labour voter to the Lib Dems in Cheltenham is win-win (well, lose-lose for the Tories at least). Secondly, I include a good portion of the rejoin community in this. Particularly those calling for Starmer to back rejoining the EU or just the SM/CU before it is politically wise to do so. Thirdly, this isn't just a problem for the left. The extreme right are trying to ape the tactics of the left, which is why they are coming up short against Starmer. When they come up against the left they are given an easier ride and a greater willingness to lie (see levelling up) can tip the balance. (I'm all good a greater amount of honesty in politics, but you at least don't need to shout your most unpopular policies, for swing voters, from the rooftops!)
you've obviously never read 'Manufacturing Consent' by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky. Then you will understand the real reason the left keeps losing elections. Go on, open your mind
What NT writes here is right, but I don' think that it's the whole story. Go into any supermarket and what will you see? Ranks of Mails/Suns/Expresses with simplistic headlines which every passer-by reads, even when the majority don't take the paper. Listen to the BBC and what you hear is a kind of default conservatism - it's not that all BBC presenters are raving Tories, but that there's a subliminal assumption that the Tories are the natural party of government, that the hierarchical nature of British (particularly English) society, from the royals downwards is the natural order of things and that to argue for change is rather like being the dodgy drunken uncle at a wedding which I think NT used as an image a post or two ago. I mean, in what other country is "you're being political" a put-down? I recall fondly the Brexit voter who said that he was voting Leave because the EU was "political". It's a brilliant piece of leger-de-main which the establishment in this country has used to keep everything going for their benefit since... well since 1066 maybe...
All true, but this just makes what Nick states even more true. You can't change the external environment, at least not until you get power and can do sorting about appropriate regulation, so you have to go with it. That includes writing articles for The Sun, or partnering with The Express as the environmental campaigner and Ecotricity founder Dale Vince has done, both of which have been seen as traitorous by the left. The BBC tend to be pro-government, so get into power first and then use the newfound exposure to change the narrative and progress your causes. Countering the RW press is hard and disillusioning at times, but Starmer demonstrates that it can be done. For example, the press would love to paint Starmer as a rejoiner, so he has had to go harder on the denials than I suspect he'd have liked, but there is nothing for the press to get their teeth into and this does show in the increasingly desperate ways that they try to attach him to rejoin (see the reaction to his comments about liking Ode to Joy!). It is uncomfortable, but given rejoining either EU or SM/CU requires a proper debate and so it is practically unachievable to promise or deliver, then why not make the most political gain from it?
Nick has a point about protest movements on the left and you can include the dreadful and failed Corbyn within that student politics, but not Starmer, Milliband, Brown or Blair. In fact Starmer is doing the Blair playbook so accurately and with such closely comparable results so far, that it is spooky.
Blair was so appealing to the public in leadership and moderate centrist in policy that at the time you thought that Labour would never drop this new broad consensus and return to failing with Michael Foot or even the fraught wranglings of a Wilson. But like the Tories, First Past the Post makes Labour a very broad church and the mid left and hard left are always there, attempting to capture the party for their faction. So when Milliband foolishly allowed £3 new members to immediately vote for a leadership candidate, Corbynites put the membership form on his website and every ex trotskyist, communist and Clause 4 supporter came out of the woodwork and swamped the existing membership.
Corbyn was unable to debate, do interviews properly, engage with his party, maintain niceties toward Jewish people, or to have a clue about policy and his speeches were all virtually identical. Reading out emails in PMQs and losing against a unique open goal in 2017 against the non campaigning Mrs May with unpopular inheritance tax and social care policies, did not stop Labour giving Corbyn another chance to fail bigger in 2019. While Corbyn was policy free, he attracted a classic old Stalinist fave, to take over the commanding heights of the economy, probably, or at least in stages. The unelectable government in waiting were to be putting up Corporation Tax, which was fair enough. But that was not enough. They were to nationalise 10% of company profits on top, with most going to the government and some crumbs for the union/workforce. Even this was not enough. Would they put a worker representative on the board? Although controversial as a compulsory idea, this may be not a bad idea in the company's real long term interests you might say? But no, this was far too sensible. They would make it compulsory to have 1/3 of company boards as workers without management roles. One wonders what they would all talk about on board meetings? Football, holidays, or what's been on the telly possibly? How long would it have been before the worker director numbers were expanded to becoming a majority, with affiliated Union "leadership" ? Otherwise what would have been the point of them?
No amount of electoral success by Starmer will prevent Labour's hard left from attacking him more viciously than the Tories and repeating their failed Foot/Corbyn playbooks. But when Blair took over in '97, we had an expanding economy and a charismatic leader, with public services less run down and borrowing and taxation at lower levels than today. The public are highly dissatisfied and volatile. A big Starmer win will not ensure long enough terms to give him even a chance to turn this mess around and he's ruled out joining the Single Market or even the easy one. That would be joining the Customs Union and dumping those dodgy trade deals due to wipe out domestic food production outside of organic and niches. It would happen. Subsidy has been largely ended, many farmers are working at or below cost now and many are near retirement age. They could never compete with hormone injected cattle feed lots or giant herds of semi wild livestock in the Australian outback. We could import 80% of our food as before WW1, boost all the air miles and grant more planning agreements to golf courses, with 80 odd applications in Essex alone.
Has economic growth in western Europe largely ended in our fast ageing societies? Can Starmer turn around this galloping catastrophe sufficiently to cling to office and continue the work in 2028-9? Or will the right wing press and whatever comes after out of the net and AI, work it's evil magic on the British public and they surge towards the next populist chancer wielding a chainsaw or pint of fizzy bitter? God help us.
Give us PR voting and the worst of this nasty right wing politics as expressed through the Tory party majoritarianism will no longer be able to govern, at least not normally without moderating coalitions.
Having grown up in a two bed flat with no heating, the local golf courses were our eagerly looked forward to recreational green lung. (I sometimes wonder if that is why now (at nearly seventy) I can walk all day - while many others hobble about with dodgy knees and mobility impairments.)
Before just concreting our green lungs - how about some proper research and analysis on the extent of existing empty and mainly empty properties in this country ? If Brexit has taught us anything - it's look before you leap !
The house I grew up in was freezing in winter, with curtain's frozen against damp windows and had a few years like that in my 30's. Golf courses are not green except in appearance. They are covered in chemicals which wash off into our waterways
This piece seems to confuse protest and campaigning with seeking votes as an organised political party.
Shouting at a protest is an emotional, perhaps frustrated, outburst. A protest is, by definition, self selecting. No one knows if members of a political party are there unless they ask. It's not designed to win an election.
A campaign, such as saving wildlife or supporting the building of wind farms is not specifically directed at the left or a specific electoral result.
If by campaign, you mean party political campaigns, then few involve shouting. Mostly it's delivering leaflets and having a street stall. Usually single subject. Even doorstep canvassing doesn't involve converting people to a party. It tends to be about indentifying where support lies and encouraging supporters to vote.
The question on why the Conservatives win is much bigger and swing voters have very little to do with it in general. Most voters barely think about politics. They get impressions from media and social media. The so called "newspaper review" segments on 24 hour news have the inevitable consequence of highlighting right wing talking points. They rarely "review" the papers and explore the accuracy or truth.
Conservatives don't win in Scotland. They don't win in Wales. They do win in England. Usually outside large cities. A traditional and almost nostalgic appeal for continuity.
There are only two election campaigns.
Steady as you go don't let the other side ruin it.
Time for a change.
There are usually 100 or so constituencies that change at elections. Only those voters opinions are important. The national polls are good for the media. It makes them pay attention to the opposition.
Labour will run a "time for a change" election. The Conservatives will say the good times are just round the corner. Look we have tax cuts for you.
The first past the post system distorts it all.
Other reasons why the Right succeeds:
1. They constantly appeal to "common sense" - which is a particularly potent ingredient of populist ideology (witness the recent appointment of Esther McVey as "minister for common sense" and the existence of the Common Sense Group of hard-right ideologues and obsessives).
2. They tell their core supporters exactly what they want to hear, quite regardless of whether or not it's true - for example, "we're going to send all the 'illegal migrants' to Rwanda and withdraw from the ECHR".
3. Both of these tactics benefit from huge support from the right-wing press and are not challenged by a cowed, and frankly subverted, BBC (viz the neutering of Newsnight). The point about the press has been ably made by others here, but it's also important to point out that much of its "journalism" percolates straight into the online world, and especially social media, since it's explicitly designed as clickbait.
4. Given the above, First Past the Post plays straight into the hands of the Tories, who use these tactics relentlessly to appeal to their core voters in the crucial swing constituencies.
The left also tell their supporters what they want to hear. Everything always seems to be the fault of "corporate greed" - as if we all don't want to seek the best possible returns on our investments.
Nick, however you frame it, right wing campaigning isn't so different. They do just as much shouting about their own beliefs. Notably on immigration, which is relentlessly and repeatedly demonised until more moderate people start to be drawn in by the flawed logic.
As for the pro-Palestinian marches, they have been almost entirely peaceful, non-disruptive and non-confrontational. However, mainstream media and politicians have characterised any opposition to Israel's actions as antisemitic and pro Hamas terrorism. Thereby successfully undermining and sidelining the protests. Extreme right counter protests were violent in contrast and inadvertently destroyed the position taken by Braverman and her supporters. Yet being pro-Palestinian is still not seen as a respectable position.
Of course, lies are much easier to sell than truths. That has always helped the right as much as anything.
Absolutely spot on. And I day that as someone broadly sympathetic with the left intents - to see people who I agree with just shooting ourselves in the foot is immensely frustrating. A couple of additional points. Firstly, not all votes are equal, which makes this especially important. One former Tory voter coming over to Labour is worth two votes (Tories down one, Labour up one), so losing one lefty vote to the greens is still a good outcome. Winning one Tory voter over in Bury and losing Labour voter to the Lib Dems in Cheltenham is win-win (well, lose-lose for the Tories at least). Secondly, I include a good portion of the rejoin community in this. Particularly those calling for Starmer to back rejoining the EU or just the SM/CU before it is politically wise to do so. Thirdly, this isn't just a problem for the left. The extreme right are trying to ape the tactics of the left, which is why they are coming up short against Starmer. When they come up against the left they are given an easier ride and a greater willingness to lie (see levelling up) can tip the balance. (I'm all good a greater amount of honesty in politics, but you at least don't need to shout your most unpopular policies, for swing voters, from the rooftops!)
Sorry for the typos. *I'm all _for_ greater honesty!
There’s an element of the hard left that prefers being in permanent opposition to the right I think
Very good and perceptive. Shouting doesn’t change minds. Sympathising doesn’t mean acceptance or methods employed.
Hi Nick,
you've obviously never read 'Manufacturing Consent' by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky. Then you will understand the real reason the left keeps losing elections. Go on, open your mind