Progress: serious about winning

By Hopi Sen / @hopisen

How do we win next time? This question that underlay every discussion at the Progress Political weekend which bought around two hundred Labour activists and trade unionists to the NUT's Stoke Rochford Hall.

In some ways, the next general election seems far distant. The coalition agreement extends to 2015, and even if the Lib Dems split over some Tory outrage to Liberal values, a significant group of Lib Dem MPs appear so tied to the coalition they would not desert it at any price.

We face Scottish, Welsh, Local, European and London elections first. There's the referendum on the alternative vote. There's the battles to be fought to protect the NHS, to defend public services, to challene the governments economic policies. There's the relentless daily combat of the media cycle.

In other words, we know we need to win, we desperately want to win, but we don't often get to talk about how we're going to do it. The Progress political weekend spent much of it's time examining that challenge.

If I had to sum up the thrust of the speakers message, it is that Labour must go where the voters are. (Well, aside from Andrew Adonis, who wanted us to go to Birmingham). As Douglas put it:

"We need to reach a place where the public know what a Labour Britain would look like for them, and judge it a credible and attractive alternative"

Everyone's starting point was a recognition that voters were disappointed with what we gave them last time. This isn't some internal factional point. It's not new versus old, or Tony versus Gordon. There is more than enough voter disappointment to be apportioned to every wing, branch, faction or ideological strand of the Labour Party. In other words, we're all in this together. 

Now, this may seem like a truism, (We lost, so obviously we know the voters were disillussioned with us) but as Douglas Alexander pointed out, the history of the Labour Party after electoral rejection does not inspire confidence. In 1931, 1951 and 1979, Labour responded to defeat by turning in on ourselves, forming a circular firing squad so devastatingly effective that it took a decade and a half before the survivors were able to lead the Labour Party back into government.

Not this time.

Perhaps it was the leadership contest, a change in the nature of the party, or the discipline the "next generation" are showing to support Ed Miliband's leadership (a flurry of "Edrightlypointsout" and "as-ed-has-saids" were to be found in each speech, whether designed to be press released or not). Whatever the cause, the aftermath of this defeat is different to the past. We are looking outward to the criticism the electorate had for us, not inward, poring over our critiques of each other.

As a result, there is pride in the achievments of New Labour in government, but there's no attempt to defend the old verities blindly. Conversely, the tribunes of Progress, whether councillors, activists, old hands or young enthusiasts seem pleased, and perhaps even a little surprised, at how few bitter accusations of betrayal and ideological turncoatery are being hurled at them. 

There are differences of emphasis and analysis, but the whole party seems to agree that the voters did not mistake their intent by throwing us out, and since we are not loved, we must alter when we such alteration find. 

Further, as Jim Murphy's opening speech emphasised, this alteration can't be some straightforward restatement of New Labour:

"Celebrating New Labour's achievements is not the same as trying to relaunch New Labour. Times and people change and it's compulsory that Labour changes, or better still leads the change.... ...The challenge is to anticipate and lead the direction of reform. Both oppositionalism and the policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are incapable of achieving that."

Or as Douglas Alexander said:

"new times demand not old dogmas, but new approaches." 

There's broad agreement too about where the voters are now, or might be in 2015.

Liam Byrne, talking from the perspective of leading the Labour policy review, set out the insecurities faced by electorate, and the common belief that the economic model Labour relied on from 1997, of using the proceeds of financial services based growth to redistribute in favour of working families, education and the NHS was unrepeatable after the economic crash.

Jim Murphy pointed our that:

"in 2015 the prevailing attitude will either be relief or anger. People might feel relief that the worst is over. That for all the collective pessimism things didn't turn out as bad for them and their family as they feared. The alternative aggregate sentiment is anger. They will feel anger at cuts, but many will remain uncertain about who should shoulder the blame."

Building on this theme,  Douglas Alexander identified one of the challenges for all parties - how to connect with an electorate where:

"the overriding sentiment people felt about the future (in his recent visits to workplaces) was fear. What will the cuts mean for our local schools? How will my son get a job? Will the bank cancel my business' line of credit? How much more will I have to pay, and how much longer will I have to work before I can retire? Public service workers - from teachers to social workers and Police officers - all felt they were paying the price for a banking crisis and resultant economic crash that they had no hand in at all."

"Those people I talked with on Friday night - and the millions like them across the country - are anxious and angry. And they want us to be their voice - to speak up and stand up for them in the face of a Government agenda that fills them with incomprehension and apprehension in equal measure."

Caroline Flint emphasised the impotance of aspiration  - of the desire to see your home improved, your community safe, your children given a strong start in life, all aspirations Tory policies were damaging through their cuts to EMA, Housing, Trust Funds, Schools and local councils, but which would do Labour little good unless we engaged carefully with how we would offer something both believable and better.

Do these Labour figures think that and their leader have all the answers now?

They'd reject the premise, I think. Given the consistent stress on both listending and credibility, the conclusion is logically that shouldn't try to propose a 2015 agenda in 2011, but instead make sure we ask the hard questions about what the electorate want from a Labour government, listen carefully to the answers and develop strong, credible policies that meet those priorities. As Douglas Alexander said:

"Our challenge over a parliament is to become a powerful voice, and then over time become the popular choice."

This is why Liam Byrne's policy review is so essential for Labour, and why he put so much emphasis in his contribution on how much we needed to change the way we did politics as a party. 

It appears jobs, growth, crime, community, schools and hospitals will be key parts of that agenda - and it was striking how often contributions from the floor focused on industrial policy, infrastructure spend, how best to use limited funds and people's living standards. But those elements must come from what voters tell us will make a difference, not what we assert matter to us.

If we're going to win, we need to turn the outrage so many feel at the action of the government in 2011 into support for a Labour alternative in 2015*. So my conclusion from Progress in 2011 is that we need clarity about what voters want, credibility in everything we offer and a relentless focus on the aspirations people have for their families and their communities.

That's an agenda for victory the whole Labour Party can engage in.


*Or whenever, should the Coalition fall apart.