For all that Labour have been accused of undermining the institution of marriage by allowing civil partnerships for gay couples, their voters are in fact the most likely to be married, with 56 per cent having tied the knot, and the least likely to be co-habiting outside of marriage, at just 12 per cent. (src)I think the party is out of step with its electorate in a number of ways. Whether this is enough to propel Labour voters away from Labour is another matter: being married doesn't necessarily make one supportive of recognising marriage in the taxation system, or make one think that coshing single parents is a good idea. But it does make me wonder whether Labour is hæmorrhaging goodwill. If it is perceived as not caring about even the people who vote for it, then it starts to lose its credibility as people ask what the party is really for. It could be as long a wilderness for the red corner as it has been for the blue corner, before they make themselves electable again.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Social conservatism and the Labour party
There was an interesting discussion about a possible shift among evangelical Christians in their political allegiance at John H's blog over the weekend (link). One of the facts I 'prayed in aid' was that Labour has had a history of social conservatism (and that is personal conservatism, not moral authoritarianism). I would say that stems from its roots in the chapels, especially in Wales. As someone once commented, the Labour party owed 'more to Methodism than to Marx.' Here is another piece of evidence supporting my thesis that the Harman agenda is something of an aberration when it comes to Labour's history and profile:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This goes back to one of the key issues the Labour party has: its estrangement from the working classes; its transformation into the "Professional Graduate Party". The big problem this has caused is pushing many people towards the BNP.
As for how long it'll take Labour to become electable: an awful lot depends on how close the election result is. Hung parliament/small Tory majority, offering the possibility of a return to power in five years could help keep the show on the road. (Decade-long governments with collapsing oppositions is not an eternal pattern in British politics...)
As for "the Harman agenda", though, I'm not sure this is necessarily the exclusively middle-class concern that it is often portrayed as. Even calling it "the Harman agenda" is somewhat loaded (ten years ago it was "the Prescott agenda", but no-one called it that), carrying the somewhat patronising implication that equality is a "women's issue", something to keep the sisters quiet while the men get on with the real work of government. (Whereas in fact it's something to keep the deputy leader busy while the other politicians of both genders get on with the real work of government :-).)
Decade-long governments with collapsing oppositions is not an eternal pattern in British politics
Two decades, in the case of the last bout of the Tories. Some people are concerned it could be the 'new normal', though. I don't like the sound of that.
calling it "the Harman agenda" is … somewhat patronising
I don't intend it to be patronising: more a description of the fact that it is associated, in most people's minds, with a single member of the government, who has been busying herself with no small amount of zeal on the matter. Trust me, if I wanted to be patronising you would have known about it!
Yeah, sorry, didn't mean that to sound like a swipe at you. Was general observation. And at least you didn't call her "Hattie" or use the words "Lord", "Longford" or "niece". ;-)
I think a highly likely outcome of the election in May is... an election in October. And then a change of government in five years. Could be wrong, but it doesn't feel like the electorate is about to hand the Tories a landslide.
The other possibility: a narrow Labour win (with or without Lib Dem support) is painful to contemplate. On the one hand, I really don't want to see the Tories get in (as you might have noticed...). On the other: the long-term outcome of a Labour "victory" almost certainly would be a Tory landslide in 2015. I suspect a lot of Tories would, with the benefit of hindsight, be happy to turn the clock back to 1992 and lose that one.
So: good outcome = 1974. Bad outcome = 1992. Not exactly a choice to set the blood racing, is it?
And at least you didn't call her "Hattie"
Not this time. ;-) 'The Mad Hattie' is, you have admit, quite funny.
Look, we're not allowed an election in October, we've got to get it sorted this time round. Depending on the next few months, I might not be in the UK to watch it happen. Not fair!
Also, a marginal government would be extremely bad news. We have a couple of hundred billion in debt to roll over in the course of the next five years, and a weak result would almost certainly result in a downgrade on the bond markets. Good luck with the economy and the public finances if *that* happens.
Larry Elliott suggested that a hung parliament may not imply weak economic policies. Reducing the deficit as the economy recovers is something all parties agree on.
Perhaps the worst thing that could happen would be for one party to be able to really get the bit between its teeth and impose its agenda - whether that's George Osborne slashing public spending (throwing hundreds of thousands of public sector workers onto the dole queues and shutting down hundreds of private businesses that are dependent on public sector contracts, especially in a downturn) or Gordon Brown insisting on "investment, not Tory cuts". Perhaps what's needed is something a bit more muddled, but still heading in the right overall direction...
Post a Comment