where did it all go wrong?

A lot of people blame Ed Miliband personally: he took the party too far to the left or he didn't take it far enough to the left. Others blame the media: they attacked Labour with lies and smears at every opportunity. Others say that Labour didn't have a 'narrative' - according to some it was the 'aspiration' narrative that was missing. (You know how I feel about 'aspiration'.)

To some extent they are all true. Personally, I also think that there was a section within the party that didn't want Ed to be PM so they did everything they could to undermine him

I think the party got bogged down in trying to be 'not too left and not too right'. They didn't attack back when the media portrayed the party in general, and Ed in particular, as weak. I think that what made those two worse was that we didn't have an overarching narrative that spelled out what the party is about.

For the past 10 years, the party has been wavering and losing direction. It hasn't had a solid base of values from which everything else flows. Even businesses have this - they spend huge sums of money establishing their vision, their mission and their values. Labour on the other hand tried to make policies in response to what they thought people wanted to hear. Everything seemed to be based on 'what do The Public think?' or 'how will the press portray it?' The upshot was that nothing appeared sincere: it all felt a bit like they were making it up as they went along. 

A lot of people lost faith because they couldn't find the labour line. They didn't know or couldn't understand what Labour stands for. Labour had given credibility to the tories narrative - on 'scroungers', on 'irresponsible Labour', on immigration - instead of challenging it head on. They legitimised the kipper narrative by trying to sound tough on immigration instead of understanding why people were concerned. 

In the debates about the economy and welfare, Labour struggled to find a coherent response to the tories. The tories have religiously portrayed Labour as irresponsible spenders and the party of welfare. They've presented a picture of welfare as a huge and unmanageable expense. At the same time, they've presented people on welfare as 'shirkers', 'scroungers' or as inadequate. The tories have consistently presented 'cutting benefits' as the only way to reduce the benefit bill and the deficit. 

This should be an open goal for Labour With Principles. Instead of challenging this, however, Labour again allowed themselves to be dragged onto the tory playing field. There is plenty of evidence about the impact of welfare cuts on ordinary people, including 'hardworking families'. There is plenty of evidence that much of the rhetoric on welfare has been at best misleading or, at worst, plain lies. 

Labour could have robustly challenged the lies about the global financial crash and made a clear commitment to reducing welfare by improving the economy. Instead, they got dragged onto the Tory ground and tried to out tory the tories on cuts. 

Actually somewhere in the midst of the madness of the election campaign, they made the point that there are many ways to skin the 'reducing the welfare bill' cat. They argued that reducing unemployment and raising the minimum wage would do more to reduce the benefit bill than cutting benefits. They also argued that zero hours contracts, low pay, part time hours and high rents brought more people into the welfare net and that tackling these should be a priority. Ed argued for dignity and social justice. These are coherent and principled arguments which can be backed up with policy.

Sadly though, instead of really pushing these ideas, explaining them and defending them, using them to attack the tories, they went for headlines. They reduced the big ideas down to a sound bite and came up with 'being tough on welfare'.  

The bedroom tax was a case in point. It has been a disaster of a policy and there are social, practical and economic reasons for opposing it but Labour were all over the place on it. They were so afraid to be seen as 'weak' on spending that they couldn't bring themselves to represent those people who were being crucified by a sudden and significant increase in their household expenditure. Instead they examined it, they waffled on it, they scrutinised it, they probably formed a committee and focus groups. It was only at the last minute that they opposed it.

Along the way, the party lost many of the people who rely on benefits for their income, like chronically ill and disabled people, working people who rely on disability benefits, working people who rely on tax credits or housing benefit to survive, people who suddenly found themselves unemployed when the recession hit, people living in high rent areas who were affected by the cap, people who were made homeless or ended up in debt because of the bedroom tax or council tax charges. 

Other parties and particularly the Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the kippers, capitalised on Labour's dithering. They all presented a clear alternative to the tories and / or Labour. The Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru presented a clear anti austerity programme, the kippers went 'immigration'

The kippers have one overarching principle, that is: 'immigration is bad and the EU is worse'. They pitch it as an 'Advocates of British Sovereignty and democracy' platform. It's a simple enough message: everything that is wrong in the UK is because of the immigrants, and the immigrants are here because of the EU. They are taking your jobs, houses, school places, doctor's time and worst of all they are undercutting your wages'

Everything that the kippers identified as a problem was related back to immigration. This is not new. What was new for GE2015 was a distinct and clear appeal to marginalised voters. In their 2010 manifesto, the kippers were determined to attract the tory vote. They went for the old tory standards of 'freedom', law and order and backing business. Somewhere along the line, they must have realised that there weren't enough tories in the UK to give them the voice they needed. So they had to make inroads into the Labour vote.

The kippers foreshadowed their intentions when they announced that they were 'parking their tanks on Labour's lawns'. On that day Labour should have been in the bunker working out who the kippers were targetting. It wouldn't have taken a genius. Labour heartlands had effectively been abandoned by the coalition. People were worried about jobs, housing, health, education, public services and benefits. The kippers knew this because it's not rocket science.

Although it took maybe six months to abandon their 'parasitic underclass of scroungers' narrative, UKIP produced a manifesto that spoke directly to the marginalised people who have fared worst under the coalition. They made promises on housing, health, education, jobs and benefits. They were out of the blocks early on the bedroom tax and they promised to abandon the work capability assessment. They did all this in the sure and certain knowledge that they would never have to implement any of their promises. They would never get a majority and if they went into coalition, they could blame their coalition partners.

They managed to get an unprecedented allocation of media time and space and they used it well. Nige even boasted that he had played the dog whistle well. After initially defending his appalling statements about people with HIV, he later admitted that he said it to 'provoke a reaction' and to appeal to the kipper core vote.

The kippers identified fears and played on them. Labour let them and instead of offering a robust challenge, allowed themselves to be dragged towards the same ground. They legitimised the tory and kipper rhetoric by agreeing that the problem was immigration. For an example, see Labour's infamous '4th pledge', forever emblazoned on mugs (which I suspect noone bought), 'controls on immigration'

Everyone knew that immigration was an issue. Labour understood that it was an issue. They knew that the debate was being hijacked by the kippers, the tories and other even less savoury groups. What they couldn't work out was why it was an issue - so instead of discussing immigration from a principled position, they tried to make themselves appear 'tough on immigration'.

But if you read between the lines of the 'immigration problem', it wasn't immigration that most ordinary people were worried about. It was jobs, wages, housing, education, health and public services - all things that should have been an open goal for Labour With Principles. They could have challenged the coalition record on housebuilding, on the NHS, on unemployment, on wages etc.

At the same time, by ignoring the issues that make immigration a 'problem', Labour lost out to the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, all of whom claimed the title of'the progressive parties'.  Labour allowed them take on the mantel of 'protectors of the people'.The Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru were able to tell people all over social media that Labour were dead, that they didn't represent vulnerable/ disadvantaged groups and that they would out tory the tories. Those parties were able to step in and occupy the ground that Labour had allegedly abandoned.

Labour needs to get off the defensive and get onto attacking the tories. They need to take the socialist ground back from the 'progressive parties'
People who support labour expect Labour MPs to defend and represent their interests. This means not supporting tory policy just to appear 'tough'. If there's a policy that they're not 100% happy with, then oppose it. Or at the very least offer amendments and if they're not accepted, oppose. Don't abstain, don't sit on your hands, don't give them credibility.  
Challenge every lie. 
Change the discourse: instead of speaking the tories' language, find a new language. 
Define and defend principles. 
Talk to the voters every single day; on their doorsteps, in their communities, in their workplaces, in their classrooms. 
Be at the forefront of campaigns, even when they are lead by people from other parties. 
Take the lead,