co-op report - gareth thomas

8/4/2019 Co-op report - Gareth Thomas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/co-op-report-gareth-thomas 1/21

The Politics of

Anxiety

How commuterland holdsthe key to Labour’s revival

By Gareth Thomas

Polling analysis by Peter Kellner,YouGov



1

Introduction

Gareth Thomas MP

This pamphlet grew out of conversations between the authors after the defeat in the 2010election; about the challenges facing the Labour Party and about where the likely political

battleground will be in 2015. Under Ed Miliband Labour’s new generation of modernisers

are faced with the legacies - good and bad - of the Blair and Brown era and with few

centre-left Governments in Europe to look to for advice, it is perhaps tempting to turn to

the Obama Administration for inspiration.

Instead English Labour needs to look closer to home and remind itself of the lessons it

learnt in the tough years of Opposition to Margaret Thatcher and John Major. We can be

bolder, but understanding the fears, as well as the hopes and dreams of the electorate iskey. At this point on Labour’s journey the electorate appear wary of being wooed. Less

than 18 months after one of our worst ever defeats this should come as no surprise, but

now is the time to step up our efforts and prioritise our understanding of what the

electorate across the country, but particularly in the key battlegrounds, are thinking.

“Education, education, education” may have been the public message of New Labour's

most confident period, but privately, in the mid 1990’s, the recognition of the importance

of the South to Labour's electoral prospects and the need to tackle the 'southern

discomfort' with Labour's past, drove the ruthless focus to shift Labour back to the centre

ground. Ed Miliband has quite rightly recognised that recovering in the South is vital for a

future Labour victory too.

In the mid 1990’s the narrative that we developed then not only helped Labour to win

marginal seats in the South but crucially also made Labour better placed to win marginal

seats with similar characteristics right across the country.

The pamphlet argues that Labour needs to concentrate more of its resources and focus on

London’s commuter belt; outer London and those parts of the Home Counties in reach of

Central London. Whilst there are many marginal seats around the country, it is in

London’s commuter belt that Labour needs to win more marginal seats if it is to return to

power and where the battle for the hearts and minds of electors will be particularly tough.

The narrative that will help Labour win back the seats we lost in the commuter belt will be

similar to the messages that will help us win back marginal seats in other parts of the

country too. If we understand how London’s commuters are thinking, we will be better

placed to hone a message for other marginal seats across the UK, but particularly in

England.

Winning every vote that's possible regardless of location is every politicians ambition but

for Labour to be competitive at a time of constrained resources, building further our



2

organisational base in the commuter belt to challenge in council, regional and ultimately

general elections is a no brainer. Analysis from other sources notes too, the marked decline

in 2010 in our position in some commuter belt seats which we lost in 2005, some of which

we will certainly need to win back in 2015; which is why Ed Miliband’s decision to

identify candidates for a number of key seats even before new boundary changes have

been published is clearly sensible. It will allow candidates to begin to build the profile andorganisational base; the delivery rounds, canvassing teams etc. that are the lifeblood of

any election victory.

The electoral strategy for 2015 for the Conservative Party, and to an extent the electoral

strategy of the Liberal Democrats, is already ready pretty clear. Huge cuts in public

spending are being pushed through in the early years of this Government to a backdrop of

over-hyped claims about the size of the deficit and its potential impact. In turn we can

expect tax cuts and a populist bank share sell off to be offered in the last years of the

Coalition in an attempt to soften and sweeten the prospect of an outright ConservativeGovernment. Whilst there will be numerous other policy twists and turns to come, with no

doubt the Big Society re-launched yet more times, it is this fundamental economic strategy

that Labour will have to combat in order to bounce back.

The polling points to areas of concerns about the likely outcome of a Conservative victory

in 2015 which Labour can expand on. The polling and focus group analysis also points to

the areas where Labour has lost the confidence of voters. The numbers who think Labour

used to care for ‘people like me’ are not surprising, but nevertheless represent a powerful

challenge. The individual appetite for lower taxes, for better public services and crime

free neighbourhoods across the country is clear. National priorities too were clear: faster

economic growth, quality public services and control of immigration levels. What was also

clear was the lack of appetite for higher taxes, even if the Government could guarantee

that the revenue raised would be used for a particular purpose.

Many, but not all, of the concerns of voters in the commuter belt mirror the priorities of

the country at large. Indeed what leaps out from the polling analysis is the striking level of

concern about what the future holds; the ‘age of anxiety’ across the country and the

powerful sense that those polled and interviewed had that a good job and work life

balance was at risk.

Ed Miliband has rightly set out to overhaul party policy and his choice of key themes for

our Policy Review, notably the squeeze on middle income earners and the fear that the

next generation of voters’ families won’t do as well as they did, do create the opportunity

for future policy to resonate strongly with voters in the commuter belt and nationally.

The polling highlights important nuances between the concerns of commuter belt voters

and broader national concerns. Commuter belt voters are collectively slightly less in tune

with traditional left of centre interests, and similarly slightly more confident about thefuture and are more likely to feel that they have enough money to live comfortably

compared to the rest of the country. They are less likely to feel safe about going out and



3

slightly less likely to feel that they have access to high quality schools and hospitals. They

are more interested in public transport and are notably less sympathetic to what are

perceived to be some of Labour’s traditional causes such as social security and poverty,

and are definitely more sceptical about the value of trade unions.

One issue which will be particularly interesting for the coming Mayoral election is thegreater appetite amongst commuter belt voters; as compared to national opinion, for

cheaper fares on public transport. Given that Boris has pushed fares ever higher during his

Mayoral term in office this is a significant opportunity for Labour’s campaign in London.

Nevertheless this still ranks fourth in the priorities of commuter belt voters behind lower

taxes, a better health service and crucially crime free neighbourhoods.

Fourteen years on from that bright May morning when New Labour marched into

Downing Street and with over a thousand new trade union recognition agreements, since

then, Labour’s allies among the trade unions enjoy mixed levels of public support andaffection. Trade unions are a crucial part of the wider Labour Party and a fundamental

part of the infrastructure of the Labour movement, but we must recognise that they have

enjoyed an at times difficult relationship with New Labour which in turn reflected the

public’s often sceptical views of trade unions.

With trade unions facing challenges in recruiting and retaining members I have been

struck during conversations with constituents facing employment problems by how many

had not even considered joining a trade union. With the environment for trade unions set

to get even more challenging, how the public at large see unions will affect not only their

future relationship with the Labour Party but also offers clues as to the public’s future

appetite for membership of, interest in and engagement with trade unions.

Labour’s other great ally; the Co-op movement has been on a difficult journey back to the

business and political mainstream having reached its lowest point in the late 1980s. Then

the struggles of major co-operative businesses to compete with the new supermarket

giants and the spate of building societies rushing to demutualise were at their height. For

some, the co-operative was not a business model that appeared to offer the sense of

dynamism and modernity New Labour sought to project. As the Co-op has risen again,

championing a robust ethical approach alongside hard headed commercial realism so the

political 'wing' has enjoyed a revival in profile too.

Ironically David Cameron’s classic, but threadbare piece of political triangulation; the

Conservative Co-op movement (with its paltry 37 members) suggests the Co-op idea has

recovered broad party political appeal. Ed Miliband on the other hand has backed Co-op

policy initiatives, with his interest in the re-mutualisation of Northern Rock demonstrating

the wider potential for new co-operative and mutual ideas in Labour’s future policy offer.

Labour’s performance in this year’s May elections in England, though obscured by theScottish results, was better than many commentators would have us believe. In the

commuter belt however our performance was much more varied. Winning control of



4

Gravesend Council in Kent was a highlight. Our narrative over the last twelve months has

begun to resonate, but there is much more to do. We need to continue to champion the

interests of those across the London commuter belt, who are having their living standards

squeezed, who worry their children will find it harder to get on and for whom the

Conservatives are making life much harder.

Sharpening and strengthening this political discourse; that speaks to the anxiety those

polled feel about their and their families’ future and that continues to rebuild voters’ trust

in the Labour brand is now just as important as developing further Labour’s scrutiny of

the Coalition in Parliament. It is this work that is crucial to building our appeal first to

commuter belt voters but also as a result to other key groups of voters nationally as well.



5

What voters think

Peter Kellner, YouGov

In last year’s general election, Labour lost almost half the seats it was defending in

London’s commuter belt – the 45 seats in outer London, together with the 62 seats near theM25, officially classified as ‘outer Metropolitan area’. This was where Labour had suffered

badly in the 1980s and early 1990s, and made spectacular gains in 1997. In 2010, for the

second consecutive general election, Labour suffered proportionately greater losses in the

commuter belt than in Britain as a whole. Figure 1 provides the details.

Figure 1: London’s commuter belt

(a) Vote share

(b) Seats

Source: British General Election of… series; published by Palgrave



6

Two initial points should be made about these figures. The first is that voting behaviour in

the commuter belt has been more volatile in recent elections than in Britain as a whole – but

only slightly. In 1997 the average swing from Conservative to Labour in these seats was

12%, compared with 10% in Britain as a whole. In 2005 and 2010, the commuter-belt swings

back from Labour to Conservative were, respectively, 4.5% and 5.5%, compared with 3%

and 5% nationally.

The second point is that the commuter belt contains a higher share of marginal seats and a

far smaller share of safe Labour seats than in the rest of Britain. Therefore, any given swing

is bound to have a more dramatic impact on the number of Labour seats.

The essential reason why both main parties pay attention to the commuter belt is not that

its voters necessarily think differently than in the rest of the country, but that they are more

likely to live in seats that decide who governs Britain.

This report sets out the key findings from two parallel YouGov surveys conducted in early

June, 2011: one in London’s commuter belt, the other in Britain as a whole. The same

questions were asked in both surveys; both questioned samples of more than 2,000 electors.

We also conducted an online focus group of commuter-belt voters. The quantitative

findings can be allocated to two groups: those where commuter-belt voter have broadly

similar views to those in the rest of Britain, and those where their views differ. The first list

is substantially longer, and contains more fundamental lessons, than the second.

Key findings common to London’s commuter belt and Britain as a whole Most voters think Labour used to care about “people like me”, but only one in three

thinks Labour does so nowadays.

The issues that matter most to them at the moment are the economy, jobs and prices,

followed (some distance behind) by the NHS.

Clear majorities are satisfied with public services such as schools and hospitals in their

area.

There is, however, a palpable sense of insecurity: almost two-thirds are worried that

they personally “will find it hard to make ends meet in a year or two’s time”.

The top three things people say the government should do to make life better for their

family are: lower taxes, a better health service and act to reduce crime in their

neighbourhood.

One in three would ‘be prepared to pay higher taxes if there were a guarantee that the

extra money would be used to improve healthcare, increase benefits for retired peopleand provide more money for schools’. A large number, though not quite half the public,

would NOT be willing to pay higher taxes for such a guarantee.



7

The main fears about Labour returning to power are that red tape, taxes and

immigration would all increase.

Less than one in three think a Labour government would lead to higher livings

standards, more jobs, better public services or more criminals being caught.

The main fears of an outright Conservative victory at the next election are lower living

standards, higher taxes, fewer jobs and worse public services.

Half the public thinks trade unions provide a useful service to their members, while

one in four does not.

Key differences between commuter-belt voters and the rest of Britain

Commuter belt voters are less concerned than voters elsewhere about pensions, social

security and poverty, and more concerned about immigration and (not surprisingly)

public transport.

Cheaper fares are a higher priority for commuter-belt voters; they are less concerned to

see either the minimum wage go up or taxes on the rich go down.

Commuter belt voters are more likely to think trade unions wield too much power, and

to act in an extremist and disruptive manner



8

The age of anxiety

The mood of anxiety and insecurity is palpable. Unlike the Eighties, when recessions were

far more devastating for Britain’s industrial heartlands than England’s South-East, today’s

economic difficulties are felt throughout the country. And even where people feel that

things are reasonable today, there are widespread fears that the worst is yet to come.

Figure 2: Present conditions and future prospects

(a) Percentage satisfied that they and their immediate family…

How worried are you that you personally will find it hard to make ends meet in a year or two’s time?



9

Detailed analysis of the data shows that anxiety exists in every age group and each social

class. The Focus group discussion made it clear that anxieties were centred on people’s

families. They see their main challenge as maintaining a job in order to provide for the

welfare of their children, now and in the future. Even though most people are satisfied with

the current quality of local services, for the minority who are dissatisfied, the issue is vital.And affordable housing is a crucial issue for some. This is how some of them expressed

their concerns:

“Keeping good jobs, making sure we give our children a good life and education, possibility of

moving overseas”

“Clichéd as it may be, maintaining a work-life balance. Making sure I have time to dedicate to my

family while keeping up my career”

“My daughter is worried about going to secondary school and being able to get a place”

“We had a major problem re secondary schools last year. Ended up not getting a place anyway,

which lead us to move from Tooting to the suburbs”

“I earn above the national average yet have no prospect of buying a house where I live for a long,

long time”



10

What should be done?

YouGov provided a list of 14 possible measures that might be taken, and asked respondents

to identify their priorities.

Table 1: Priorities for action

Commuterbelt

GreatBritain

% %

Which THREE or FOUR of these do you think would do most to make life better FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

Lower taxes for people like you 47 47

A better health service 45 42

Local streets and neighbourhoods free from crime 41 41

Cheaper fares on buses, trains and the underground 38 29

Full employment 32 37

Better schools 20 17

A return to ‘family values’ and less divorce 19 19

Higher minimum wage 15 21

More places where children and adults can play safely 14 15

Higher taxes on the rich 14 18

More opportunities for people to start their own business 12 12

Fewer regulations and less ‘red tape’ for business 11 12

Higher welfare benefits for the poor 9 12

A greater role for religion in day-to-day life 6 4

Don’t know 5 5

In the commuter belt, as in the rest of Britain, the main priorities are ones that either cost

the government money, or require radical measures to improve the value-for-money

provided by our public services. Lower taxes are the people’s top priority, even thoughthere is precious little chance of these happening in the near future. (However, if the public

finances allow a tax cuts close to the next general election, they could enhance the

coalition’s popularity.)

For commuter belt voters, cheaper fares would be very popular. Again, this is unlikely to

happen – if anything, fares for many are likely to rise faster than inflation. But, at a time

when belts are tightening, this could become a far greater political issue than in the past.

When we asked a slightly different question, on what should be the Government’s national

priorities, there was a three-way dead heat for first place, both in the commuter belt and

Britain more generally: faster economic growth, maintaining the quality of public services,



11

and cutting immigration. One in four said it should be a government priority to withdraw

Britain from the European Union. But whereas Conservative voters placed it fifth out of 12

priorities, Labour voters placed it 11th , and Liberal Democratic voters last. Europe matters

to around one in three Tory voters but, apart from the small numbers of UKIP and BNP

supporters, virtually nobody else.

We next asked people whether they, personally, would be prepared to pay higher taxes “if

there were a guarantee that the extra money would be used to improve healthcare, increase

benefits for retired people and provide more money for schools”. The figures for the

commuter belt and Britain as a whole were the same: 35% said they would be willing to pay

extra taxes, while 44% said they would not. Conservative voters divided two-to-one

against, while pluralities (but not outright majorities) of Labour and Lib Dem voters were

in favour, by 48-36% and 46-33% respectively.

These figures should be handled with care. The word “guarantee” in the question isimportant. Past YouGov research has found that most people are sceptical about proposals

to raise money for specific purposes. They think that governments use such funds to make

up for shortfalls elsewhere, not to deliver better services. Specifically, Labour discovered to

its cost in 1992 that it was simply not trust to run the economy or the public finances

competently. So any future political strategy to raise taxes for worthwhile objectives –

whether to reduce poverty, improve public services. safeguard the environment or

anything else – will have to persuade voters that their guarantees have real meaning. Even

then, it is not certain that such a policy will win votes.

How voters view the parties

Our focus group consisted of former Labour voters who are now unsure which party they

will support next time. We asked them to jot down in one sentence how they feel about the

party. Here is a typical selection:

“Confused – it recognises the problems but is still too fearful of the right-wing media”

“Has a tradition and values which should still be valued and campaigned for”

“Lost its way under Blair/Brown. I hope it is rediscovering its role as party of the many, not the few”

These views help to explain the results of our quantitative surveys. The figures shown in

Figure 3 are based on a sample of London commuter belt voters. As the results show, 30%

of commuter belt voters think Labour cares for people like them; the figure for the

Conservatives is the same. The difference is that many more people think Labour used to

care – 53%, compared with 33% for the Tories. The figures for Britain as a whole are similar.



12

Figure 3: Party images

(a) Do you think the Conservative/Labour Party…?

(b) Total used to care/cares today

There is, plainly, nostalgia for past Labour. But this should not be confused with support

for “Old Labour” in an ideological sense. Past YouGov research has found a widespread

appetite for increasing taxes on the rich and acting tough on bankers. But there is little

appetite for such traditional socialist measures as widespread nationalisation or

significantly higher taxes. Perhaps the slogan that best captures the mood of would-be

Labour voters is “traditional values in a modern setting”; and their complaint is that the

modern setting is currently far more evident than the traditional values.



13

Indeed, many people fear what would happen under a Labour government. We asked

people whether each of seven things would go up, down or stay the same, if (a) the

Conservatives and (b) Labour won the next election outright. In table 2, the figures for what

most people would regard as an improvement are shown in bold, and things that most

people would regard as a deterioration are shown in italics. Again, these are the results

from London’s commuter belt; the figures for Britain as a whole are similar.

Table 2: Future prospects

If the Conservative/Labour Party wins the next general election, do you think…?

If [name of party] wins the next general election, doyou think…?

Conservatives Labour

Go upStaysame

Godown

Go upStaysame

Godown

% % % % % %

The amount of business regulation and ‘red tape’ will goup, down or stay about the same

16 37 33 41 34 9

The taxes paid by people like me will go up, down orstay about the same

43 36 10 51 29 8

The number of jobs available for people like me will goup, down or stay about the same

16 38 34 22 36 27

The quality of public services such as health andeducation will go up, down or stay about the same

20 34 37 28 30 32

The overall standard of living of people like me, takingaccount of taxes, income, job opportunities and public

services, will go up, down or stay about the same21 34 36 24 27 38

The number of serious criminals who will be caught andsent to jail will go up, down or stay about the same

22 46 19 17 42 27

The number of immigrants allowed to settle in Britainwill go up, down or stay about the same

18 34 37 52 28 8

At first sight, it looks like a fairly even contest, with the Conservatives ahead on four items

and Labour ahead on three. But if we combine all seven items and average the figures, then

the Conservatives have a clear advantage:



14

Figure 4: Future prospects - AVERAGE

In 1997, Labour’s campaign song was “Things Can Only Get Better”. It was believable then;

it is not widely believed today. Admittedly, there is no great optimism about life under a

majority Conservative government: on average, 29% expect things to get worse, while just

23% expect them to get better. But with Labour, more than twice as many, on average,

expect things to get worse rather than better.



15

Trade unions and co-operatives

Trade unions generate neither the enthusiasm nor the calumny that they did some decades

ago; but with disputes over the London Underground and public sector pensions, they can

still inform political attitudes. Table 3 shows how Britons generally, and people in thecommuter belt, view unions as a whole and, in the case of union members (around 15% of

all adults), their views of their own union.

Table 3: Trade unions

a) Unions generally b) Own union

All electors TU members TU members

Commuterbelt

GreatBritain

Commuterbelt

GreatBritain

Commuterbelt

GreatBritain

% % % % % %

a) Do you think Britishtrade unions in generalthese days do or donot…

b) Do you think your owntrade union does ordoes not….

Provide a useful service to their members

Do/Does 49 50 75 50 75 77

Do not/Does not 28 26 15 26 17 13Not sure 23 23 10 23 9 10

Have too much power

Do/Does 45 33 26 16 9 7

Do not/Does not 34 43 63 68 82 83

Not sure 21 24 11 16 10 10

Have a relevant role to play in making Britain a fairer place to live

Do/Does 45 46 74 70 76 73

Do not/Does not 34 31 15 16 14 15Not sure 21 23 11 15 10 12

Act in an extremist and disruptive manner

Do/Does 50 37 31 21 10 10

Do not/Does not 30 39 56 64 82 80

Not sure 21 24 13 15 8 10

Two points should be noted. First, while views about the relevance and usefulness ofunions are much the same in the commuter belt and elsewhere, commuter-belt voters a



16

significantly more likely to say unions have too much power and act “in an extremist and

disruptive manner”.

Second, many union members themselves, especially in the commuter belt, hold sharply

different views about unions generally, compared with their own union. Just 10% think

their own union acts “in an extremist and disruptive manner”, but as many as 31% thinkunions generally do so. It is possible that these figures are affected by the disputes that have

disrupted London’s underground; but these results will give more comfort to David

Cameron than to Ed Miliband.

Co-operatives do not attract anything like the same criticisms as trade unions. Our focus

group liked co-operatives and mutual – from the Co-op itself to building societies and John

Lewis. Here are two typical comments:

“It is a model that worked in the past for good reasons - i.e. profits are recycled and there is morealignment of long term interests”

“They tend to value their staff more, treat them as stakeholders in the business”

They are not regarded as a solution to every problem; as one focus group participant put, it:

“I wouldn't want public services to necessarily rely on co-ops”

However, the responses suggest that there is a considerable appetite for organisations that

are able to operate both efficiently and in ways that give workers a stake in their workplace.

The battle to seize this agenda – between Labour with its roots in the Co-operative

movement, and the Conservatives with their “big society” offering – could be one of the

key contests of the years ahead.



17

Conclusion

Gareth Thomas MP

Labour needs a new focus on winning back the hearts, minds and ultimately votes, of

those living in the London commuter belt. For the last twenty years winning back votes in

the South has been part of the cri de coeur for Labour leaders. Quite rightly Ed Miliband

has made the South a focus too. In the South of England the electoral battleground, where

elections have turned and government won or lost, lies predominately in commuter belt

seats; the Enfields, Gillinghams, Croydons and Milton Keynes’. For our new generation of

Labour modernisers it must be the suburban Sarahs and Simons and the commuting

Chloes and Christophers that provide the test for our next electoral offers.

If we craft together a political and policy narrative that appeals to those commuting into

London then Labour will have an agenda to help it win back seats in other parts of the

country too. One of the fundamental lessons Giles Radice’s great interest in the South

helped Labour understand from the years of opposition to Margaret Thatcher and John

Major is that what worked in Southern marginals also worked in marginal seats

elsewhere. In short, understanding the issues that matter to those commuting into

London, will not only help us win marginal seats in London’s commuter belt, but will also

help us understand what matters to those living in other marginal seats across the country.

Ed Miliband has rightly set out to overhaul Party policy, wanting our Policy Review toprioritise how to help the squeezed middle, how to rebuild strong communities and how

to help reverse the increasing fear that the next generation won’t do better than ours – that

the British promise won’t be fulfilled.

For those contributing to that Policy Review, like it or not, compared to national opinion

commuter belt voters are collectively less sympathetic to traditional Labour concerns

about poverty, social security or a rise in the minimum wage. Equally they are likely to see

trade unions in less positive terms and are even less enthusiastic than the rest of the

country about higher taxes on the rich. Recognising and understanding the nuances incommuter belt opinion, compared to national views, will be fundamental in helping

Labour use the Policy Review to reverse the trend away from Labour of for example those

suburban voters that were so decisive in helping Boris win the London Mayoral Election

and which were significant too in the series of gains made by the Tories in commuter belt

seats in the 2005 and 2010 General Elections.

The polling demonstrates that we have a considerable amount of further work to do to

convince commuter belt voters, as well as the country at large, that the next Labour

Government will lead to higher living standards, more jobs and better public services andnot more red tape, uncontrolled immigration and higher taxes. Whilst expectations that a

majority Conservative Government would lead to fewer jobs and worse public services



18

provide fertile territory for our growing critique of the Tory-led Government’s economic,

schools and NHS policy, it is clear this will not be enough. Less than eighteen months after

a major election defeat this should dispel any ‘lingering’ notions in the wider Party that

opposing Tory cuts and waiting for yet more Coalition mistakes will be enough to get us

again through Whitehall’s closed doors.

The polling does however point to a series of further opportunities for Labour. Over a year

into a Tory-led Government the strength of the anxiety across the country that those

polled feel about their own and their families’ future is striking. With almost two-thirds of

people worried that they will find it harder to make ends meet and only just over a third

confident that they will have opportunities to prosper in the near future, our priority must

be to continue to speak for the sense of anxiety and insecurity about personal and family

futures that too many of our fellow citizens feel at the moment.

Ed Miliband understands that the concerns about where the next good job might comefrom, the challenge of finding an affordable home, the worry about rising energy and

petrol bills or food prices, have created an ‘age of anxiety’. This anxiety, felt by so many

people, clearly motivates some of the anger towards bankers, politicians and those who

have abused the benefit and immigration systems and has also fuelled the anger about

tuition fee rises, the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance and the

Government’s NHS plans. For Labour the challenge is to think through how government

could help create the conditions that put more money into people’s pockets, make it easier

for people to get on the property ladder and support and encourage sustainable job

creation. Some of this work has already been started through the Policy Review.

Some of the above questions in turn create their own conundrums to resolve for example

academic evidence suggests demand for middle ranking jobs or jobs requiring higher level

skills is tailing off. It is these jobs, with salaries offering the chance to build a secure future,

that are crucial to the hopes of many in Britain who don’t aspire to be a millionaire but

who quite reasonably do want a good lifestyle. Part of Labour’s challenge after the General

Election was to re-engage with a business community facing amongst other pressures;

ever growing competition, particularly from abroad. Thinking through with businesses

the national need for more well-rewarded and stimulating jobs is one of the issues John

Denham is focusing on in the Policy Review.

Equally challenging for Labour will be responding to the appetite for lower taxes, which

almost half saw as the priority for making life better for them and their families.

Addressing this appetite appears essential to help further the process of rebuilding

confidence across the electorate that Labour speaks for peop le like them. Ed Balls’

campaign against George Osborne’s daft decision to increase VAT, putting at risk the

economic growth that had begun to return in Labour’s last months in office, is therefore a

particularly sensible move.

Maintaining a clear lower tax direction for families worried about their finances will

therefore be critical. Doing this, while also offering plans for a better health service and



19

crime free neighbourhoods, whilst the state of the public finances stay firmly in the

national spotlight will be tough to put it mildly, but will be fundamental to our electoral

aspirations.

For those of us instinctively confident that unions have a key role to play in making Britain

a fairer place, the polling data offers some comfort but also many questions.

Three quarters of trade union members believe their union provides a useful service and

over eighty per cent don’t believe their union has too much power. However amongst all

electors the figures are more provocative, with only half believing unions provide a useful

service and in the ‘battleground’ commuter belt half believe unions act in an extremist or

disruptive manner or have too much power. It is clearly possible that these polls may have

been affected by recent tube or pension protests but it does suggest that a serious debate is

needed across the centre-left and particularly within the trade union movement itself

around how and why unions are seen by the public in such sceptical terms and what can be done to reverse this.

Trade unions rarely get the credit that for example their education, training and vital legal

work deserve. They don’t get that credit because outside their membership the way

unions are perceived hinders their broader appeal. Even with all the obvious constraints,

an open, public and strategic debate about the future of trade unions could be helpful. The

debate would need to range far wider than the ‘betrayal’ thesis of the far left (i.e. unions

would be stronger but for Labour in Government) and instead should look at how

economic, social, cultural and technological trends are going to change the workplace, and

which could open up new opportunities for the union movement to help those not

currently in a union.

The focus group discussion also revealed that the co-operative and mutual ‘idea’ has

recovered appeal among possible Labour voters in the commuter belt. After the 1980’s and

1990’s the Co-op and mutual movement appeared to be on the wane and there was little

interest in cooperative ideas, but now what is striking is that, albeit with caveats, the

appetite for co-operative and mutual solutions is apparent again.

In every part of the country there are new co-operatives forming, whilst longer established

versions such as the Co-op Group and John Lewis are thriving. More care co-operatives,

more credit unions, renewable energy co-operatives, even football supporters trusts are all

examples of the resurgence in the co-op idea. As well as the benefits individual co-

operatives can bring, co-operatives and mutuals are increasingly demonstrating a

successful and different way of doing things; that a ‘better capitalism’ is possible.

Involving people in decision making, greater transparency, clear ethical values and a

genuine interest in sustainability are all associated with a co-operative and mutual

approach. Outlining an intellectual narrative, that offers not only individual communities

but the Labour family too, a clearer co-operative alternative to the Cameroon’s ‘BigSociety’ and which speaks to the ‘age of anxiety’ is more likely to resonate now than at any

time in Labour’s recent past.



If Labour is to win next time it will need an organisational focus and political narrative

that recognises the importance of the commuter belt. Less in tune with traditional left of

centre interests, commuter belt voters are nevertheless like the rest of the country in being

anxious about their own future. Their doubts too suggest a serious debate about the future

of trade unions would be timely. The Policy Review offers the chance to further championthe interests of those across the commuter belt, and in other marginal seats too, whose

incomes are being squeezed, who worry about whether their children will find it harder to

get on, who want lower taxes and better public services but who are open to stronger co-

operative and mutual ideas. Whilst the voters are sceptical about the prospects of a

majority Conservative Government and whilst we can be pleased about the Party’s recent

recovery we still have more to do to prove our worth again.

co-op report - gareth thomas

Documents