Friday 30 March 2012

My take on why Labour lost Bradford West


Looking from the outside into Bradford West I’m going to give the reasons why I think Labour went down to a damaging defeat in this by-election. In a week where Labour has seen its highest polling lead over the Conservatives for years, as they led the polls by 10% 3 days running, it would seem that Labour presumed that victory was in their sight. With the Tories being Labour’s closest challengers at the last election in the constituency and the Tories having had a disastrous week: delivering the Millionaires budget, cash for access row, the pasty tax and presiding over the fuel debacle, it seemed even more of a foregone conclusion than it previously might have done that Labour would win the by-election.
Did this mean that Labour took the by-election too weakly? Not really, Ed Miliband alongside other prominent Labour MPs and shadow cabinet members all visited Bradford West showing their support for Labour candidate Imran Hussain. Moving onto Hussain. He was a local candidate, as a councillor in the Toller ward of the city and had been deputy leader of the Bradford city council since 2010. Being a local, well-known candidate alongside Labour riding high in the polls, Bradford West seemed destined to elect another Labour MP. So how did it all go wrong?

Of course George Galloway is a politician that divides people, some love him for his brutal honesty (often not associated with traditional politicians) and others hate him. However if it wasn’t for George Galloway, Labour would not have lost. No one can argue that it wasn’t the Respect party that won it for him. They wouldn’t have even figured in the top three, if Galloway hadn’t put his candidacy forward. Galloway clearly campaigned about being a “parliamentarian” rather than a councillor – a clear dig at Hussain.  Galloway’s election strategy was a clear anti-war message rather than focusing too much on local issues. The anti-Iraq war stance alongside his message to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and his opposition against any future war in Iran were all clear vote winners for not only the big Muslim electorate but also for the rest of the electorate including the white working class vote. Due to Galloway’s massive margin of victory it would be wrong to say that (as people are) that Galloway only courted the Muslim vote, rather he took wide support.

A straight talking politician such as Galloway and his anti-war election strategy seemed to have mobilised a large number of first-time voters. Although we are unlikely to know this for sure, it seems that Respect got a lot of votes from people who hadn’t gone out and voted in 2010 (if before at all). The major parties (if we still call the Lib Dems that) failed to get their vote out, because the parties and their supporters (wrongly) assumed that this seat would be easily held by the Labour Party. This is seen that the turnout fell, expected in a by-election and also the major parties share of the vote fell sharply (over 20% in both Labour and the Tories vote share)

Finally local issues may have also played a role in the election defeat for Labour. A Labour administration serving Bradford City Council saw languishing schools performance throughout the city, which was picked up by Galloway as well as the “hole in the city centre” – meaning the undeveloped area in the centre where Westfield were meant to be developing a shopping centre. Galloway argued that Bradford West needed an outsider to change that. This is likely to have hit a nerve and further reduced backing for Imran Hussain (being a councillor at present) from the electorate with voters asking, why Labour hadn’t done anything earlier whilst they were running the council.

Galloway knew the message he needed to get across, who to get it across too and how to get it across. This is something that Labour clearly failed to do and was the reason that Labour failed to hold Bradford West.  Labour can’t simply take the vote from voters in Northern cities for granted; they need to give voters something to vote for rather than just an anti-Tory argument, which seems all too prevalent at times.

4 comments:

  1. Isn't this about candidates finding out what makes the voter tick the box?

    The Conservatives would never stand a chance here.

    So, pure & simple; after 30 years of Labour ignorance of low-earners and youth demographic (the very people for whom labour exist) #BradfordWest decided they'd rather have a cat impersonator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well-written and well-researched, Tom. I agree with most if not all of your points and think it might not prove to be such a bad thing in the end that Galloway beat us in Bradford West.

    The Commons has become dangerously united on issues of foreign policy. With Tony Benn and Galloway (two brilliant anti-war speakers) no longer MPs, there was almost unanimity on issues like Libya, and I wouldn't be surprised if the government (with the Lib Dems no longer filling in the vacuum Labour left on the anti-war left as they did during Iraq) could get its way on any foreign venture it wanted to go on.

    With opposition to successive governments' imperialist foreign wars close to non-existent (aside from John McDonnell and an admirable but small minority in Labour), I welcome having someone like Galloway to speak out against it and show that there is an alternative. His victory, among other things, showed that people haven’t forgotten about Iraq and haven’t forgotten about the shameful part that Labour played in it.

    On alternatives more generally, Galloway has shown some people are desperately looking for alternatives to the coalition's austerity programme and will even vote for parties they never have before to get it. I'm not saying constituencies across the country mirror Bradford West, but Labour must stop its obsession with being 'credible' on the economy, another word for austerity-lite. Labour's flip-flopping, 'against the cuts' one minute and ‘for the public sector pay freeze’ the next clearly wasn't 'credible' in Bradford and won't be in many constituencies across the UK.

    I know George has a number of questionable (and sometimes downright shocking) views but he even if this upset teaches a small number of Labour people that we can't take our core vote for granted and assume - whatever New Labour did or (more often) didn't do for communities in places like Bradford - that they'll support us no matter what, we can make it this into a success and be stronger in 2015.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Polly, I'd agree that perhaps Labour forgot about the people that it was created to represent such as those in Bradford West.
    Zaki, although I agree on your thoughts on the war/foreign policy I tend not to agree fully with your thoughts on the economy. Although Labour's message on the economy has been mixed, it is essential that Labour becomes credible on the economy. This means that it can't be against every cut that is made by the government. A complete anti-cuts agenda wouldn't resonate with the electorate as a whole or with the markets. A government that proposed no cuts, would be shot down by the markets, reducing the UK's credit rating and resulting in higher interest rates for government borrowing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not saying we should oppose every cut. But having a clearer stance is more credible than what you called our mixed message on the economy (what we have at the moment) where the public doesn't know what we stand for.

    The people of Bradford West clearly didn't think Labour was credible when it was sending out mixed messages, while Galloway was clear about the alternative to austerity that he supported.

    The markets also don't like uncertainty, and that's very much what Labour is causing by flip-flopping and saying so little. I know you don't lay out a whole manifesto while in opposition, but you provide some kind of narrative (as, while I don't agree with what it was, we did before 1997). How can you win back trust when no-one - be it the markets or constituents in Bradford - knows what you would do?

    I don't buy the economist's argument that being anti-austerity can never be credible. Often economic theories (such as the trickle-down one) are far more utopian and unrealistic. While there are cuts to be made, we mustn't sleepwalk into accepting Blairite dogma that Labour can only win elections by sticking to Tory spending levels and being as right-wing as the Tories on crime etc.

    Interesting discussion though.

    ReplyDelete