Labour has lost Hartlepool. A once-safe labour seat now has a Conservative majority of 25%.
And a variety of conflicting explanations are already forthcoming, including:
- the Labour Party still hasn’t recovered from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership;
- Sir Keir Starmer is not the leader the Labour Party needs – with over 150,000 dead from COVID in the UK and a hard Brexit still playing out, winning this by-election should have been automatic;
- Brexit has polarised the UK into two new tribes: Johnson gets it; the other party leaders don’t – Labour must ‘embrace Brexit values.’
Do these explanations make sense?
No: any convincing explanation must be systemic and explain some clear long-term trends:
- what happened yesterday in Hartlepool continues a trend from at least 2005;
- in the UK as a whole, there is a clear trend almost a quarter of a century long;
- explanations which rely on events taking place after 2010 are therefore likely to be missing some important factors.
The Hartlepool by-election continues a trend
At first glance, it looks as though Labour should have expected to hold Hartlepool.
The results appear to show a collapse from over 55% to around 35% in the Labour share of the votes cast for the two main parties. Surely something dramatic must have happened to one of these two parties to account for this change?
But when we take the other parties into account, this is the picture we see.
In 2005, over 80% of the votes in Hartlepool were cast for left or centre-ground political parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens) and only around 15% were cast for right-wing or far-right political parties (Conservatives, BNP, UKIP, Brexit). Since 2005, there has been a steady decline in the votes for the left or centre ground parties, and a steady increase in the proportion cast for right wing or far-right parties.
The change in Conservative votes since 2019 is the result of the disappearance of UKIP and the Brexit party rather than anything significant in the Labour Party.
Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in 2015; the Brexit referendum was in 2016; and Sir Keir Starmer has been leader of the Labour Party since 2020.
To understand Hartlepool, we need to understand at least the last 16 years, not just the last 5. None of the explanations above account for this medium-term trend in Hartlepool.
The UK has been drifting to the right for almost a quarter of a century
And Hartlepool is not alone. When we look at the history of UK elections since 1918, this is the picture.
In 1997, the Conservatives’ share of the vote reached its lowest level at 31%, and it has been increasing steadily ever since. Labour’s lowest point since the Second World War was in 2010 after the Global Financial Crisis, when only 29% of the votes cast were for Labour. In 2019, the Labour vote share was still below where it had been in 2005.
We must look for deeper explanations
Any plausible explanation of these trends, needs to go back at least until 2005 when the people of Hartlepool began to lose faith in the centre-left, and consider what might have impacted people’s lives and their perception of their lives since then.
Perhaps the most obvious factor which influences people’s lives is the state of their personal finances. If you are well-off, your finances are determined (on average) by the overall health of the economy. If you are not so well-off, then the level of government spending also has a direct effect on your quality of life.
The economy as a whole was performing well up until the Global Financial Crisis – the Governor of the Bank of England referred to the period from 1997 to 2007 as the NICE decade (non-inflationary, continuously expansionary). But the Global Financial Crisis, and the Great Recession which followed it dealt an enormous blow to the economy – and as we have written before, the damaging austerity which followed meant that we have seen very low growth in GDP per capita since that time. That is what has hit the better-off.
But the worse-off have been hit even harder, and for even longer. Most developed countries spend well over 40% of GDP on public services. In the UK, under Margaret Thatcher, that percentage fell sharply. It did rise under Labour, but not back to 40% and not for long: Labour had a spending slowdown that started in 2005.
Of course total government spending shot up after the Global Financial Crisis – but this was ‘emergency spending’ and did not add to the services on offer to citizens. And since 2010, we have experienced another round of austerity.
If you are not so well-off, the last 40 years has not been great. And your grumbles with Labour might begin around 2005.
The lower line on the graph – stripping out the emergency spending – is probably more reflective of how public spending has felt, especially to those on lower incomes. If you are not so well-off, you may have been feeling the pinch since 2005, and of course, most people in the UK are poorer today than they were in 2007.
So people have a reason to grumble. And they want to know who to blame.
In the case of Hartlepool, there have been numerous interviews with residents complaining about the running down of public services in the Town — and deciding that Labour should take the blame.
Most people’s perceptions, of course, are influenced by the media. And the UK media landscape, while not unique, is extremely unhealthy. In the picture below, “total brand reach” means the total number of readers reading each title in both print and online formats.
As you can see, our media landscape is dominated by a handful of media owners: Lord Rothermere, who owns the Mail, the Metro and the i; Reach plc which owns The Mirror, The Express and the Star; Rupert Murdoch whose companies own The Sun and The Times; Sir Frederick Barclay who runs the Telegraph and Lord Lebedev, who owns The Standard.
With the exception of Reach plc, these are billionaires who are domiciled outside the UK, avoid their taxes and promote a strongly right-wing agenda. Their personal interests are not closely aligned with those of the typical voter in Hartlepool – or anywhere else in the UK. The vast bulk of the press is under their control – and the BBC tends to follow their lead. Most of the titles they control have been pro-Brexit and pro-Tory at least since the Global Financial Crisis.
So, a more convincing explanation of the Hartlepool result, and of the overall rightward drift in the UK since 2005 is simply that people have been finding their lives increasingly difficult since that time, and (with a little bit of help from our right-wing media) have come to believe that it is the right-wing parties which care about their lives and will do something to improve them.
What conclusions should we draw? In essence, two simple points:
- many people have very solid ground for feeling dissatisfied with their lives – and any political party that does not recognise this and speak to their problems will lose;
- it is vital for progressive parties and other progressive organisations to ally to:
- combat the economic myths that many still believe (e.g. that Labour caused the Global Financial Crisis or the Tories are good at running the economy);
- develop a clear and positive vision for a future of the UK which addresses most people’s concerns about their lives;
- have a realistic prospect of coming to power in a reasonable timeframe.
If this matters to you, please do sign-up and join the 99% Organisation.
12 comments so far
As usual, some of the most insightful analysis with points the mainstream media pundits have missed. Thx.
Great analysis but there is still a very large elephant in the room and that is MSM which you addressed but wasn’t part of your way forward. Even a progressive policy such as that proposed in the 2017 election was lost due to the treatment of Corbyn. I’m no fan of Corbyn but it shows the challenges Labour in particular face. A progressive alliance and, once in power, a push for proportional representation and regulation of media ownership is the only way forward. Reshuffles etc are just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. I have seen a couple of interviews with Starmer where he shares a little bit of his background and values, more of this would also be helpful.
Good point about the need for a progessive alliance and the role of the media: there is more on that in this article. https://99-percent.org/saving-the-uk/
I agree with the analysis but I think the solution is very tough for the centre Left. The Tories have shown a willingness to break from long established principles of laissez-faire economics and start intervening directly in the British economy. This is no longer a Labour selling point (and let’s be honest, it was offered in 2019 and rejected). Labour’s smart ideas on Green new deal and redistribution of common goods (e.g. Broadband, rail) were dismissed by the IFS and yet will very probably be offered by the Tories in some form during this administration. Labour’s in a bind. It’s true that we have a wicked, self-interested media that is riding the growth of populism wherever it takes them but these elections have further confirmed that telling people ‘they’re being lied to’ and ‘they don’t understand the causes of their problems’ just isn’t going to work. I have reached the unpleasant and unpalatable conclusion (aided by reading Dominic Cumming’s May 7 thread) that Labour must offer some red blood to the socially conservative right. What does this mean? Unfortunately, it means talking about things like terrorism (small but emotionally salient issue), knife crime (problematic due to racial undertones), violent crime – and the big one: immigration. None of these issues is close to being as important as climate change and inequality and most of them are symptoms rather than causes of our current malaise. But if the Left don’t offer red blood on socially conservative issues, they will keep losing the chance to address climate change and remake the economy. Anyone who doubts that this is necessary should cast their eyes over to social democratic Europe where Macron is being pulled right by Le Pen, Denmark has banned the Burqa and removed citizenship status from Syrian refugees and Austria has declared war on ‘political Islam’. The Left does not want to offer any of these policies because they’re pointless, cruel and don’t address the real problems in the country. But if we don’t appease these fears with policy initiatives, the Tories will get another decade to extract wealth and rights from the British people and funnel them to their tax avoiding friends. The centre Left has got to wise up and understand that their vision of change must be gift-wrapped with unpleasant and cruel policies that appeal to the Right.
Much of this is true BUT the elephant in the room is still IMMIGRATION. Towns still largely blame immigration- particularly Middle Eastern immigrants for their problems. It’s therefore no surprise that Priti Patel is a major goal scorer for Tories in the towns. Xenophobia is rampant. Fuelled by Daily Express and Mail. Brexit has exacerbated it. No surprise either that cities with a more diverse population voted for Labour mayors. The “Red Wall” towns with relatively less diverse populations eg Grimsby. Hartlepool, have gone to right wing because England is not a well integrated society outside the cities.
Thank you, much food for thought. But I don’t see that the Tories ever bothered to offer the not-so-well-off much in the way of *economic* comfort? Rather Brexit – now swallowed whole by the Tories – offered an alternative narrative of renewed Imperial vigour, re-runs of WW2 against the Germans/EU, xenophobic/racist scapegoats. (Pretty much the same as Trump’s America: MAGA, immigrant and black scapegoats.) Obviously Labour must ‘develop a clear positive vision for a future of the UK’ etc, but is there not also room for a socialist agenda that vigorously targets the Tories as the party of the rich: poor Boris struggling to make ends meet on £160K salary, rampant cronyism, dodgy lobbying, etc? Surely it was the sleaze as much as anything else that did for Major’s govt?
Agreed. Undoubtedly the progressive parties need to attack the government on these points — as do other progressive organisations (and they have been doing so, eg 99%, Byline Times, Good Law project, etc, etc). But they also need to counter the Tories’ key argument that there is no alternative. Otherwise their argument is not much more than “we will do austerity more kindly.”
I’m not feeling sure about ‘The UK has been drifting to the right for almost a quarter of a century’. I’d agree that it’s the case for England (but I’d say it’s half a century) but is it the case for Wales and Scotland? It feels to me that if there is a difference between England on the one hand and Scotland and Wales on the other then this should be delved into.
For example, do the handful of media owners own as much of Scottish newspapers?
You say “The change in Conservative votes since 2019 is the result of the disappearance of UKIP and the Brexit party rather than anything significant in the Labour Party”. There is one significant unforced error the Labour Party made: The Leave vote there was nearly 70%; Paul Williams was a Remain supporter and lost credibility as a result see https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1432021/Brexit-news-hartlepool-election-Labour-Paul-Williams-Jill-mortimer-EU-vote-starmer; and we should not forget Starmer’s role in pushing the Labour Party towards a second referendum.
When talking about long trends you might include the transfer of wealth since the Reagan/ Thatcher days: see https://undoneolib.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/long-term-and-increasing-transfer-of-wealth-to-the-elite-1/
You say progressive parties should “combat the economic that many still believe” without any ideas as to how. Perhaps these will come.
So I suggest you read “Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.”
Some key takeaways:
There are 5 things the conservative forces do
* They think and plan long term
* They work together across the whole spectrum of their groups
* They agree a consistent set of values
* They consistently frame every issue so that it plays to their values eg tax relief
* They arrange for these frames to be repeated everywhere ad nauseaum so that they become conventional wisdom
To counter this we should
* Join up with a wide spectrum of left/ progressive groups
* Agree a consistent shared set of values – Lakoff proposes a starting point
* Create our framed messages that play to these values AND that don’t mention their frames
* Arrange for our framed messages to be repeated ad nauseaum everywhere
Can I suggest you read 99%?