But socially-conservative traditional Labour voters are either not voting at all - particularly in local elections - or considering Reform.
I don't think these people actually exist or exist in particularly large numbers.
There was a joke on twitter for a while where 'lifelong Labour voters' would be responded to with screenshots of previous tweets where they said they were voting Lib Dem or 'for Boris'.
That alluded to a particular truth, there have been at least 4 cycles (and probably more - back to the mid Blair era) where Labour support hinged heavily on age.
Actual social conservatives - people for whom the salience of social issues is high haven't been voting for Labour for a while. People who are biddable on such things will be swung on economic issues. But no one who thinks 'anti woke' or 'gender ideology' or even 'illegal immigrants' are their top issues are voting Labour anyway.
What happened last year was a tale of Tory collapse rather than overwhelming support for Labour, and ultimately they can't out-Reform Reform (but are equally unwilling to shift on economic issues).
If you're not terminally online and into politics and not rich, your experience will likely be that your standards of living/public services got worse for you under the Tories (and the lib dems given a shot at being close to power enabled them), Labour promised change and now aren't delivering ( the 'funding from growth promises are as fake as they looked) and living standards/ public service standards continue to get worse.
What news is easily accessible has an Overton window within which the same talking points are repeated - about the economy, immigration and culture wars stuff - the main planks of which (eg Brexit, not significantly raising taxes, being anti-immigration, attacking people on benefits) are accepted by all the main English parties now. Alternative ways of thinking are much less frequently platformed and require work to seek out.
Reform is the only party in that common and shared framework which hasn't been tried and experienced by voters to obviously fail - which makes them the obvious credible alternative to voters working within this information framework.
To fight them Labour would have to break with this framework- and ditch the 'fund public services from growth without starting to reverse Brexit' snake oil. They would need to raise taxes on the better off to fund public services and immediately move to rejoin the single market and customs union at a minimum. And they'd need to tackle profiteering privatised utilities like power and, in England, water. And they'd need to shift on immigration, or their house building programme to tackle housing costs and problems will fail due to lack of builders.
But they won't because they're basically in thrall to people who profit from things as they are and they're not going to buck the current Overton window in England - which is where the election will be decided.
I really really hope I am wrong but I think a natural progression for disenchanted non- politics nerd voters will be to give a chance to the lot who haven't been tried and who say they would do it properly, unlike the others who promised that and failed.
People won't realise they've been totally had with this entire framework until it's too late - just like America. Most will think Reform will be business as usual. They won't. They are Trumpalikes.
I'm not sure we can think I'm those terms any more.
I see growing support for Reform in what we might call 'traditional' Labour areas, certainly around here.
It seems that Labour is becoming - or has become - the party of school teachers, health professionals and public sector workers. I'm not knocking that. But socially-conservative traditional Labour voters are either not voting at all - particularly in local elections - or considering Reform.
That's how it looks to me on the ground. The left/liberal vote is split between Labour, the Greens and the Lib Dems. Round here Reform are not just a threat to the Tories -
but to Labour.
Yes, I could envisage some defections to Reform from the Tory right - and they'd love to have Braverman - but most Tory activists I come across hate Reform with a passion.
At any rate, I'm not sure that it's as simple as a swing to the left restoring Labour's standing in its traditional 'red wall' heartlands.
That stable door is open and the horse has bolted.
I'm not sure what the answer is.
There's no substance whatsoever to the Reform message but somehow they are successfully getting it across in a way that more nuanced parties aren't.
It's all bollocks but people believe it.
Once they get more experience and a proper infrastructure then yes, they will pose a considerable threat.
How do we counter that threat?
That's the big question.
I said just after the election, and still think now, that Reform really *don’t* want Braverman. Some of their voters might.
But when it comes to ‘Senior’ figures there’s nothing in it for either side. She’d have been keen if she could have led them, but she’s a complete busted flush in the Tory party (membership polling pretty much rejects her) and Reform managed to actually pretty much get their senior leadership ‘team’* elected so don’t need a high profile Tory in the Commons as much as they might have.
Reform have moved on to (as last night) trumpeting Labour councillors defecting to them.
Incidentally, the level of political Acumen of Reform supporters is something else. I follow Reform on Instagram (I follow all the nationwide parties) and the BTL comments on their posts are a mixture of jaw dropping, alarming, and unintentionally funny. Tbh that goes for all the parties, but none of the others are in such a relatively spectacular growth phase. Every defection to them attracts a flurry of angry posters complaining that they don’t want people from the other parties joining, because they’re supposed to be new….
Where on earth they otherwise ‘think’** their members, representatives, voters etc are going to come from I can’t imagine….
*I know, it’s the Nigel show but to be fair, all their ‘names’ were elected
**using the word in its very loosest sense for some (not all) of them
I think there is much in what @Louise, @betjemaniac and @chrisstiles say, but at the same time I think it's wishful thinking on @chrisstiles's part that 'such people' as I describe are 'rare' or don't actually exist.
I keep meeting them.
I wish it were otherwise but that's not what I'm seeing or hearing when out and about beyond my own bubble.
I think there is much in what @Louise, @betjemaniac and @chrisstiles say, but at the same time I think it's wishful thinking on @chrisstiles's part that 'such people' as I describe are 'rare' or don't actually exist.
I keep meeting them.
I wish it were otherwise but that's not what I'm seeing or hearing when out and about beyond my own bubble.
Oh I think they’re going to be a major force - kingmakers if not kings…
I think there is much in what @Louise, @betjemaniac and @chrisstiles say, but at the same time I think it's wishful thinking on @chrisstiles's part that 'such people' as I describe are 'rare' or don't actually exist.
I keep meeting them.
I wish it were otherwise but that's not what I'm seeing or hearing when out and about beyond my own bubble.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while). Furthermore they aren't biddable by Labour anyway.
I think there is much in what @Louise, @betjemaniac and @chrisstiles say, but at the same time I think it's wishful thinking on @chrisstiles's part that 'such people' as I describe are 'rare' or don't actually exist.
I keep meeting them.
I wish it were otherwise but that's not what I'm seeing or hearing when out and about beyond my own bubble.
Oh I think they’re going to be a major force - kingmakers if not kings…
There are scenarios in which socially conservative traditional voters could be kingmakers, but that depends on how the parties choose to position themselves.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
All indications are that those who voted Reform in the last election were largely middle-aged and older people living outside London who formerly voted Conservative. This is also largely true of those who currently indicate support for Reform:
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
I agree with all that. A lot can happen in the next 4 years.
There's a difference between saying Labour have abandoned the traditional working class and saying that the traditional working class are now supporting Reform. I'd like to see some data supporting that claim. Most of what I'm seeing is that the threat to Labour isn't their traditional support base voting Reform but their traditional base not voting at all.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
The "traditional working class" are all retired now, and they've been voting tory for a while (probably since ~2005).
Right now part of Labour's problem is that it's not really the party of anyone. Social liberals are disgusted with its treatment of trans people and banging on about small boats. Socialists are disgusted with its economic policy. People who want independence or greater devolution for Scotland or Wales are repulsed by the flag shagging jingoistic unionism. And the people it's trying to appeal to with all those things prefer the full fat version they get from the tories and/or Reform rather than the tepid version on offer from Starmer's Labour. Their best bet at winning support would be noticeable improvements in public services but, given their awful economic policies, the only way that happens is if the global economy perks up and drags the UK along for the ride. The global economic weather, however, does not make that look likely.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
All indications are that those who voted Reform in the last election were largely middle-aged and older people living outside London who formerly voted Conservative. This is also largely true of those who currently indicate support for Reform:
Well yes, I’m sure a significant number of them are people who voted Conservative in 2019. I said as much myself. But prior to the 2019 election they would have been Labour - especially in the “red wall” seats where Reform (or whatever it was calling itself back then) deliberately stepped aside to allow the Tories a better chance of winning enough seats to Get Brexit Done.
Yes. I can't cite chapter and verse or stats. What I'm saying is anecdotal and based on people I talk to or my experience from when I was a councillor.
I'd agree that there's more of an issue with 'traditional Labour voters' not voting at all, but those that do vote seem to vote for people or parties few of us here would countenance.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's a simple, 'I used to vote Labour, now I vote Reform' thing but I do think that Reform pose a threat to Labour as well as the Tories.
If I were a Labour Party member I'd not want to acknowledge that either.
I've also come across young people who support Reform because they think it's rebellious or because they've been influenced by right-wing online 'influencers'.
We can quote stats and voting patterns until we are blue, pink, red or yellow in the face but this is what I'm picking up and it's scary.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
All indications are that those who voted Reform in the last election were largely middle-aged and older people living outside London who formerly voted Conservative. This is also largely true of those who currently indicate support for Reform:
Well yes, I’m sure a significant number of them are people who voted Conservative in 2019. I said as much myself. But prior to the 2019 election they would have been Labour - especially in the “red wall” seats where Reform (or whatever it was calling itself back then) deliberately stepped aside to allow the Tories a better chance of winning enough seats to Get Brexit Done.
The actual effect of the Brexit Party is somewhat ambiguous even in 2019, and the Red Wall itself was a mix of swing seats that (ironically) had resisted the swing to the Tories for a few more electoral cycles and those which were probably Tory in the longer term but had swung to Labour under Blair as a result of other factors like immediate industrial closures:
Given the reduced turn out in 2024, it looks very much like the voters @Alan Cresswell mentioned above stayed away, but the conservative vote collapsed even further.
Yes. I can't cite chapter and verse or stats. What I'm saying is anecdotal and based on people I talk to or my experience from when I was a councillor.
Okay, let's take your collection of anecdotes at face value, what do you think Labour should actually do ? (other than hit the 'racism' button).
I think Reform is still counting supporters rather than members, which is fine if they don't have members as such. But, comparing that number with members of other parties is apples and oranges.
When I was membership secretary of our branch I maintained a list of supporters, people who for various reasons didn't make regular payments to be a member, but still came out to help deliver newsletters or coughed up a bit of money for specific fundraisers (eg for an election campaign). As election agent I also know that non-member supporters provide a significant proportion of income for campaigns. And, of course we'll also get a lot of non-members signing petitions or using a template to contact their MSP/MP over an issue we're promoting. I'd be very surprised if other Parties don't have a similar support base beyond formal membership.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
All indications are that those who voted Reform in the last election were largely middle-aged and older people living outside London who formerly voted Conservative. This is also largely true of those who currently indicate support for Reform:
Well yes, I’m sure a significant number of them are people who voted Conservative in 2019. I said as much myself. But prior to the 2019 election they would have been Labour - especially in the “red wall” seats where Reform (or whatever it was calling itself back then) deliberately stepped aside to allow the Tories a better chance of winning enough seats to Get Brexit Done.
The actual effect of the Brexit Party is somewhat ambiguous even in 2019, and the Red Wall itself was a mix of swing seats that (ironically) had resisted the swing to the Tories for a few more electoral cycles and those which were probably Tory in the longer term but had swung to Labour under Blair as a result of other factors like immediate industrial closures
I'm not sure saying "Labour was always losing those seats, it was an inevitable progression" is any better for the argument you seem to be trying to make. The question of why they are losing their formerly core support remains.
Given the reduced turn out in 2024, it looks very much like the voters @Alan Cresswell mentioned above stayed away, but the conservative vote collapsed even further.
The Conservative vote has collapsed by a historic amount, and shows every sign of continuing to do so. But those voters don't seem to be going back to Labour.
There seems to be an undercurrent here of "if only we could get those non-voters to turn up at the polls they'd all vote Labour and everything would be fine". But there's nothing to back it up, no hard data to suggest that all of the Reform gains are from the Tories and all of the drop in turnout is from Labour. Just wishful thinking.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard. A lot of the people who claim Labour is obsessed with identity politics (or whatever is the euphemism du jour) are simply parroting a culture warring press who are desperate to distract attention from 45 years of decline under neo-liberal economic policy.
There seems to be an undercurrent here of "if only we could get those non-voters to turn up at the polls they'd all vote Labour and everything would be fine". But there's nothing to back it up, no hard data to suggest that all of the Reform gains are from the Tories and all of the drop in turnout is from Labour. Just wishful thinking.
For me, the 'undercurrent' would be more like "if only we could get those non-voters to turn up at the polls they'd all vote Labour, Conservative, LibDem, Green [SNP/PC where appropriate] and everything would be fine". Because, my gut tells me that the extremist parties like Reform have probably got their voter base out already, and as they show themselves to be the extremists they are (and, that they're not competent MPs, Councillors etc) they can only lose votes. It's everyone else who's struggling to get their voters into the polling stations. Now, personally I'd consider it better if that didn't lead to a Conservative revival ... but, the Labour landslide last year doesn't qualify for "everything would be fine" either.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
That depends very much on what's meant by "economic" and "social".
The traditional left (in the UK, Labour pre-Blair and the Unions mostly) would have traditionally been concerned over workers pay and conditions, jobs for workers etc. Is that "social" or "economic"? It's social in that it's about communities having jobs that pay a fair wage, it's also not economic in the sense we would understand it - workers pay and conditions don't relate directly to GDP growth or how the stock market and international finance responds. Labour policy is currently much more "economic" than the left would have ever recognised 30, 40 years ago - pandering to the markets and the billionaire bosses of international corporations would have Labour leaders of the past turning in their graves (and, those traditional Labour voters who are still with us are not happy with the shift to emphasising the economy that supports the wealthy over the rights of workers).
Though, 30, 40 years ago the political left would have been aligned with the social expectations of the time, and not really concerned over equal rights and treatment of minorities - that was what the Liberal Party was banging on about, not Labour and the Unions. Look at how hard women workers had to fight to get the support of the Labour leadership for equal pay, with Barbara Castle carrying their fight in government practically single handed. Those prejudices are (thankfully) disappearing from society, and the left should be happily taking up support for the right to work and earn a fair wage regardless of race or gender, it was always the fight from the left it was just clouded by social prejudice. Which is a social fight, but one that should be (for the left) embedded in the traditional economic position of workers rights.
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while).
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
All indications are that those who voted Reform in the last election were largely middle-aged and older people living outside London who formerly voted Conservative. This is also largely true of those who currently indicate support for Reform:
Well yes, I’m sure a significant number of them are people who voted Conservative in 2019. I said as much myself. But prior to the 2019 election they would have been Labour - especially in the “red wall” seats where Reform (or whatever it was calling itself back then) deliberately stepped aside to allow the Tories a better chance of winning enough seats to Get Brexit Done.
The actual effect of the Brexit Party is somewhat ambiguous even in 2019, and the Red Wall itself was a mix of swing seats that (ironically) had resisted the swing to the Tories for a few more electoral cycles and those which were probably Tory in the longer term but had swung to Labour under Blair as a result of other factors like immediate industrial closures
I'm not sure saying "Labour was always losing those seats, it was an inevitable progression" is any better for the argument you seem to be trying to make. The question of why they are losing their formerly core support remains.
No, that's saying that the conclusion is the wrong one to draw from a set of (mostly) natural swing seats that an FT journalist decided to group under a catchy moniker. There's a load bearing assumption that they are 'losing their formerly core support' which doesn't seem to have much support apart from anecdote.
What do you see as evidence of a shift to social issues?
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard. A lot of the people who claim Labour is obsessed with identity politics (or whatever is the euphemism du jour) are simply parroting a culture warring press who are desperate to distract attention from 45 years of decline under neo-liberal economic policy.
The interesting thing about people who claim that there's a clear majority for 'economic left and socially conservative' views, is that they tend to spend all their time arguing for the latter rather than the former. This includes things like taxes when there's 'a small chance' that they might benefit.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard.
I thought it was the combination of Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" slogan and Corbyn refusing to rule out another referendum that cost the latter the 2019 election - after all, he did pretty darn well in 2017.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard.
I thought it was the combination of Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" slogan and Corbyn refusing to rule out another referendum that cost the latter the 2019 election - after all, he did pretty darn well in 2017.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard.
I thought it was the combination of Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" slogan and Corbyn refusing to rule out another referendum that cost the latter the 2019 election - after all, he did pretty darn well in 2017.
He did well at Glastonbury.
And in vote share, total number of votes, and gain in seats.
As I said he lost with a bigger vote than Starmer won with.
I agree Reform are better at getting their voters out than some other parties. When your voter base is small that is not too difficult. By simple laws of chance if more people voted they would have voted for a range of parties. That means in some of the areas Reform won there is a chance that wouldn’t have.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard.
I thought it was the combination of Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" slogan and Corbyn refusing to rule out another referendum that cost the latter the 2019 election - after all, he did pretty darn well in 2017.
He did well at Glastonbury.
And in vote share, total number of votes, and gain in seats.
I disliked Corbyn but I dislike Starmer even more.
Yes. I can't cite chapter and verse or stats. What I'm saying is anecdotal and based on people I talk to or my experience from when I was a councillor.
Okay, let's take your collection of anecdotes at face value, what do you think Labour should actually do ? (other than hit the 'racism' button).
That's a very good question 🤔.
I do think Labour - and the rest of us - should hit the 'racism' button with Reform because that's very much what motivates Reform and its supporters.
But in and of itself, that isn't the answer and may even back-fire by reinforcing those attitudes by driving them to dig their heels in.
In general, I always think it's a good principle for any organisation or political party to go back to first principles. So it would certainly help if the current Labour government acted like a Labour government ...
I'm also surprised that Starmer and Co aren't making more of the fact that Reform isn't organised like a political party in the traditional sense in terms of its fiscal arrangements but is essentially a private company.
I wonder how many of their supporters are aware of that?
Not being a member of the Labour Party I'm not sure what I can usefully suggest, but those are a few thoughts.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard.
I thought it was the combination of Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" slogan and Corbyn refusing to rule out another referendum that cost the latter the 2019 election - after all, he did pretty darn well in 2017.
He did well at Glastonbury.
And in vote share, total number of votes, and gain in seats.
I disliked Corbyn but I dislike Starmer even more.
I'm beginning to think, 'Come back Corbyn, all is forgiven ...'
Yes. I can't cite chapter and verse or stats. What I'm saying is anecdotal and based on people I talk to or my experience from when I was a councillor.
Okay, let's take your collection of anecdotes at face value, what do you think Labour should actually do ? (other than hit the 'racism' button).
I do think Labour - and the rest of us - should hit the 'racism' button with Reform because that's very much what motivates Reform and its supporters.
Yes, and becoming more racist will demotivate their current core vote, their members and at least some of their MPs (who even if they aren't particularly liberal like to think they are).
But in and of itself, that isn't the answer and may even back-fire by reinforcing those attitudes by driving them to dig their heels in.
It will be by itself, and it won't be an answer and it'll in fact reinforce those attitudes. You can't persuade someone who believes the lie that immigrants get a free flat, phone and live on benefits by giving them a fact check.
At that point one is in Neimoller territory and is hoping one isn't near the top of the list.
I wonder @chrisstiles and @Gamma Gamaliel whether you might be using “hit the racism button” in opposite senses. I read @chrisstiles comment as meaning Labour might become/ speak more racist-ly, and @Gamma Gamaliel as meaning they should call out Reform’s racism. But I may be mistaken.
And that's obviously not necessary. At all. Like Trump winning, it's about immigration. Labour have to be a damn site tougher than the Tories, who got away with a million in 2023. During the Blair-Brown years, the Tories baulked at Labour's attack on civil liberties over terrorism. That Blair had fanned the flames of. Just look at what happened to Jack Straw. So I have every confidence in Labour making even the Tories flinch over immigration. If they don't, they're history in four years. And even if they do. They don't mean it. Reform do. Labour didn't win. The Tories lost by accumulated demerits over 14 f.... years. Labour already have. In less than one. Even if they purge the country of undocumented migrants for another four. And the economy is flatlining. There will be no politically significant growth in those four years. The voter never forgives. So, they might as well actually build sustainable, high quality social housing. Link Oxford and Cambridge. Just 65 miles. Extend London to Cambridge. In effect, end the socially meaningless green belt. Go for broke. Consolidate all London airports in the Thames estuary. It might save them. Nothing else will. The masses have to feel optimistic. Hertfordshire farms and sculpture parks don't make them feel that.
But they won't. Reform it is then.
And yes, I'm ventriloquizing. I hate it, but we have to keep the fascists out. By being worse.
As I said if Labour were able to get out some of the stuff they have done it would be a different picture. I have no love for Starmer’s Labour but they have done some things.
Putting so much emphasis on how they are dealing with those who are here illegally is not such a good idea. They are playing on Reform’s home turf. Reform have little to lose. They can say they would get more people out than Labour. Immigration is only about 3rd or 4th on people’s priorities. The NHS and how far the money they have will stretch are higher priorities.
Reform will have to get a lot more money to be able to stand in an awful lot of places to become any real form of opposition. Even if they are popular if they can only stand in a small amount of seats they can only win a small amount of seats. Musk doesn’t seem to be coughing up the cash he was supposed to be giving them.
I wonder @chrisstiles and @Gamma Gamaliel whether you might be using “hit the racism button” in opposite senses. I read @chrisstiles comment as meaning Labour might become/ speak more racist-ly, and @Gamma Gamaliel as meaning they should call out Reform’s racism. But I may be mistaken.
No, you were right. That's what I meant.
I only clocked that @chrisstiles might be suggesting that Labour might try to out-do Reform by deploying racist language and racist policies themselves when I read his response.
But then, I'm not sure I understood all his response as the second part of it seemed to be chiming with what I'd said, that we should call out Reform's racism.
But yes, I agree with him on the fact-check thing. I've tried that with Reform supporters to no avail. They simply dismiss facts out of hand.
But then, I'm not sure I understood all his response as the second part of it seemed to be chiming with what I'd said, that we should call out Reform's racism.
My response was that they will push the racism button (in the sense I meant of leaning into racist tropes), and they won't run with the kinds of policies of economic investment needed to shift salience onto other issues (or make more of the fact that Farage wants to privatise the NHS and slash security - and in fact many of his outriders are now looking at the opposite site of the pond and rather wistfully suggest that they should do a DOGE of their own).
I expect Reform to do well in the elections this year. They wont need to find the money in a lot of areas because there aren't any elections
If they do really well they will then be judged on what they do, not just on what they say
So far they haven't 'done' anything. They just say stuff.
Once they've got some more local councillors and find that they actually have to do some work rather than simply sounding off, then we'll see what they can do with more traction and experience.
I can't say I've been impressed by the quality of their candidates so far. They are either rejects or renegades from other parties or think they can get by on hot air.
So far they haven't 'done' anything. They just say stuff.
Largely helped by a supine media who doesn't really cover their actual positions but continues to regularly platform Farage and his outriders (Tice, Oakeshott etc):
He's also almost certainly not the only MP who gives a significant proportion of their pay to charities, and most likely not the only one who gives everything away. But, most people don't make a big fuss about voluntary donations they make to charities.
Comments
I don't think these people actually exist or exist in particularly large numbers.
There was a joke on twitter for a while where 'lifelong Labour voters' would be responded to with screenshots of previous tweets where they said they were voting Lib Dem or 'for Boris'.
That alluded to a particular truth, there have been at least 4 cycles (and probably more - back to the mid Blair era) where Labour support hinged heavily on age.
Actual social conservatives - people for whom the salience of social issues is high haven't been voting for Labour for a while. People who are biddable on such things will be swung on economic issues. But no one who thinks 'anti woke' or 'gender ideology' or even 'illegal immigrants' are their top issues are voting Labour anyway.
What happened last year was a tale of Tory collapse rather than overwhelming support for Labour, and ultimately they can't out-Reform Reform (but are equally unwilling to shift on economic issues).
What news is easily accessible has an Overton window within which the same talking points are repeated - about the economy, immigration and culture wars stuff - the main planks of which (eg Brexit, not significantly raising taxes, being anti-immigration, attacking people on benefits) are accepted by all the main English parties now. Alternative ways of thinking are much less frequently platformed and require work to seek out.
Reform is the only party in that common and shared framework which hasn't been tried and experienced by voters to obviously fail - which makes them the obvious credible alternative to voters working within this information framework.
To fight them Labour would have to break with this framework- and ditch the 'fund public services from growth without starting to reverse Brexit' snake oil. They would need to raise taxes on the better off to fund public services and immediately move to rejoin the single market and customs union at a minimum. And they'd need to tackle profiteering privatised utilities like power and, in England, water. And they'd need to shift on immigration, or their house building programme to tackle housing costs and problems will fail due to lack of builders.
But they won't because they're basically in thrall to people who profit from things as they are and they're not going to buck the current Overton window in England - which is where the election will be decided.
I really really hope I am wrong but I think a natural progression for disenchanted non- politics nerd voters will be to give a chance to the lot who haven't been tried and who say they would do it properly, unlike the others who promised that and failed.
People won't realise they've been totally had with this entire framework until it's too late - just like America. Most will think Reform will be business as usual. They won't. They are Trumpalikes.
I said just after the election, and still think now, that Reform really *don’t* want Braverman. Some of their voters might.
But when it comes to ‘Senior’ figures there’s nothing in it for either side. She’d have been keen if she could have led them, but she’s a complete busted flush in the Tory party (membership polling pretty much rejects her) and Reform managed to actually pretty much get their senior leadership ‘team’* elected so don’t need a high profile Tory in the Commons as much as they might have.
Reform have moved on to (as last night) trumpeting Labour councillors defecting to them.
Incidentally, the level of political Acumen of Reform supporters is something else. I follow Reform on Instagram (I follow all the nationwide parties) and the BTL comments on their posts are a mixture of jaw dropping, alarming, and unintentionally funny. Tbh that goes for all the parties, but none of the others are in such a relatively spectacular growth phase. Every defection to them attracts a flurry of angry posters complaining that they don’t want people from the other parties joining, because they’re supposed to be new….
Where on earth they otherwise ‘think’** their members, representatives, voters etc are going to come from I can’t imagine….
*I know, it’s the Nigel show but to be fair, all their ‘names’ were elected
**using the word in its very loosest sense for some (not all) of them
I keep meeting them.
I wish it were otherwise but that's not what I'm seeing or hearing when out and about beyond my own bubble.
Oh I think they’re going to be a major force - kingmakers if not kings…
Let's be very clear about what I'm saying; "socially-conservative traditional Labour voters" is a misnomer, people who qualify for the first part of that description moved on from Labour some election cycles ago (so in that sense they are no longer 'traditional' Labour voters and haven't been for a while). Furthermore they aren't biddable by Labour anyway.
There are scenarios in which socially conservative traditional voters could be kingmakers, but that depends on how the parties choose to position themselves.
I’d buy that they left Labour in 2019 and haven’t come back, but I’m not sure I’d go any further than that. I think GG is right that Labour has become the party of well-off social liberals, and largely abandoned the traditional working class. And Reform has stepped into that space.
All indications are that those who voted Reform in the last election were largely middle-aged and older people living outside London who formerly voted Conservative. This is also largely true of those who currently indicate support for Reform:
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51474-what-is-attracting-24-of-britons-to-reform-uk
I agree with all that. A lot can happen in the next 4 years.
The "traditional working class" are all retired now, and they've been voting tory for a while (probably since ~2005).
Right now part of Labour's problem is that it's not really the party of anyone. Social liberals are disgusted with its treatment of trans people and banging on about small boats. Socialists are disgusted with its economic policy. People who want independence or greater devolution for Scotland or Wales are repulsed by the flag shagging jingoistic unionism. And the people it's trying to appeal to with all those things prefer the full fat version they get from the tories and/or Reform rather than the tepid version on offer from Starmer's Labour. Their best bet at winning support would be noticeable improvements in public services but, given their awful economic policies, the only way that happens is if the global economy perks up and drags the UK along for the ride. The global economic weather, however, does not make that look likely.
Well yes, I’m sure a significant number of them are people who voted Conservative in 2019. I said as much myself. But prior to the 2019 election they would have been Labour - especially in the “red wall” seats where Reform (or whatever it was calling itself back then) deliberately stepped aside to allow the Tories a better chance of winning enough seats to Get Brexit Done.
I'd agree that there's more of an issue with 'traditional Labour voters' not voting at all, but those that do vote seem to vote for people or parties few of us here would countenance.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's a simple, 'I used to vote Labour, now I vote Reform' thing but I do think that Reform pose a threat to Labour as well as the Tories.
If I were a Labour Party member I'd not want to acknowledge that either.
I've also come across young people who support Reform because they think it's rebellious or because they've been influenced by right-wing online 'influencers'.
We can quote stats and voting patterns until we are blue, pink, red or yellow in the face but this is what I'm picking up and it's scary.
The actual effect of the Brexit Party is somewhat ambiguous even in 2019, and the Red Wall itself was a mix of swing seats that (ironically) had resisted the swing to the Tories for a few more electoral cycles and those which were probably Tory in the longer term but had swung to Labour under Blair as a result of other factors like immediate industrial closures:
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-myth-of-the-red-wall/
(Which I suspect was distilled in part from Phil Edwards analysis summarised here https://gapingsilence.wordpress.com/2022/01/23/there-is-no-red-wall/ )
Given the reduced turn out in 2024, it looks very much like the voters @Alan Cresswell mentioned above stayed away, but the conservative vote collapsed even further.
Okay, let's take your collection of anecdotes at face value, what do you think Labour should actually do ? (other than hit the 'racism' button).
Still well behind Labour who have over 300,000 members
Does Reform Ltd actually have any members yet?
When I was membership secretary of our branch I maintained a list of supporters, people who for various reasons didn't make regular payments to be a member, but still came out to help deliver newsletters or coughed up a bit of money for specific fundraisers (eg for an election campaign). As election agent I also know that non-member supporters provide a significant proportion of income for campaigns. And, of course we'll also get a lot of non-members signing petitions or using a template to contact their MSP/MP over an issue we're promoting. I'd be very surprised if other Parties don't have a similar support base beyond formal membership.
I'm not sure saying "Labour was always losing those seats, it was an inevitable progression" is any better for the argument you seem to be trying to make. The question of why they are losing their formerly core support remains.
The Conservative vote has collapsed by a historic amount, and shows every sign of continuing to do so. But those voters don't seem to be going back to Labour.
There seems to be an undercurrent here of "if only we could get those non-voters to turn up at the polls they'd all vote Labour and everything would be fine". But there's nothing to back it up, no hard data to suggest that all of the Reform gains are from the Tories and all of the drop in turnout is from Labour. Just wishful thinking.
FWIW, my view is that the political left has, over the last couple of decades, shifted noticeably from being focused on economic issues to being focused on social issues, and is still trying to come to terms with the fact that a lot of people who were with them on the former aren't necessarily so with the latter.
Corbyn's offer was heavy on economic issues and was eviscerated by the "unaffordable" canard. A lot of the people who claim Labour is obsessed with identity politics (or whatever is the euphemism du jour) are simply parroting a culture warring press who are desperate to distract attention from 45 years of decline under neo-liberal economic policy.
That depends very much on what's meant by "economic" and "social".
The traditional left (in the UK, Labour pre-Blair and the Unions mostly) would have traditionally been concerned over workers pay and conditions, jobs for workers etc. Is that "social" or "economic"? It's social in that it's about communities having jobs that pay a fair wage, it's also not economic in the sense we would understand it - workers pay and conditions don't relate directly to GDP growth or how the stock market and international finance responds. Labour policy is currently much more "economic" than the left would have ever recognised 30, 40 years ago - pandering to the markets and the billionaire bosses of international corporations would have Labour leaders of the past turning in their graves (and, those traditional Labour voters who are still with us are not happy with the shift to emphasising the economy that supports the wealthy over the rights of workers).
Though, 30, 40 years ago the political left would have been aligned with the social expectations of the time, and not really concerned over equal rights and treatment of minorities - that was what the Liberal Party was banging on about, not Labour and the Unions. Look at how hard women workers had to fight to get the support of the Labour leadership for equal pay, with Barbara Castle carrying their fight in government practically single handed. Those prejudices are (thankfully) disappearing from society, and the left should be happily taking up support for the right to work and earn a fair wage regardless of race or gender, it was always the fight from the left it was just clouded by social prejudice. Which is a social fight, but one that should be (for the left) embedded in the traditional economic position of workers rights.
No, that's saying that the conclusion is the wrong one to draw from a set of (mostly) natural swing seats that an FT journalist decided to group under a catchy moniker. There's a load bearing assumption that they are 'losing their formerly core support' which doesn't seem to have much support apart from anecdote.
What do you see as evidence of a shift to social issues?
The interesting thing about people who claim that there's a clear majority for 'economic left and socially conservative' views, is that they tend to spend all their time arguing for the latter rather than the former. This includes things like taxes when there's 'a small chance' that they might benefit.
I thought it was the combination of Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" slogan and Corbyn refusing to rule out another referendum that cost the latter the 2019 election - after all, he did pretty darn well in 2017.
He did well at Glastonbury.
And in vote share, total number of votes, and gain in seats.
I agree Reform are better at getting their voters out than some other parties. When your voter base is small that is not too difficult. By simple laws of chance if more people voted they would have voted for a range of parties. That means in some of the areas Reform won there is a chance that wouldn’t have.
I disliked Corbyn but I dislike Starmer even more.
That's a very good question 🤔.
I do think Labour - and the rest of us - should hit the 'racism' button with Reform because that's very much what motivates Reform and its supporters.
But in and of itself, that isn't the answer and may even back-fire by reinforcing those attitudes by driving them to dig their heels in.
In general, I always think it's a good principle for any organisation or political party to go back to first principles. So it would certainly help if the current Labour government acted like a Labour government ...
I'm also surprised that Starmer and Co aren't making more of the fact that Reform isn't organised like a political party in the traditional sense in terms of its fiscal arrangements but is essentially a private company.
I wonder how many of their supporters are aware of that?
Not being a member of the Labour Party I'm not sure what I can usefully suggest, but those are a few thoughts.
I'm beginning to think, 'Come back Corbyn, all is forgiven ...'
Yes, and becoming more racist will demotivate their current core vote, their members and at least some of their MPs (who even if they aren't particularly liberal like to think they are).
It will be by itself, and it won't be an answer and it'll in fact reinforce those attitudes. You can't persuade someone who believes the lie that immigrants get a free flat, phone and live on benefits by giving them a fact check.
At that point one is in Neimoller territory and is hoping one isn't near the top of the list.
And that's obviously not necessary. At all. Like Trump winning, it's about immigration. Labour have to be a damn site tougher than the Tories, who got away with a million in 2023. During the Blair-Brown years, the Tories baulked at Labour's attack on civil liberties over terrorism. That Blair had fanned the flames of. Just look at what happened to Jack Straw. So I have every confidence in Labour making even the Tories flinch over immigration. If they don't, they're history in four years. And even if they do. They don't mean it. Reform do. Labour didn't win. The Tories lost by accumulated demerits over 14 f.... years. Labour already have. In less than one. Even if they purge the country of undocumented migrants for another four. And the economy is flatlining. There will be no politically significant growth in those four years. The voter never forgives. So, they might as well actually build sustainable, high quality social housing. Link Oxford and Cambridge. Just 65 miles. Extend London to Cambridge. In effect, end the socially meaningless green belt. Go for broke. Consolidate all London airports in the Thames estuary. It might save them. Nothing else will. The masses have to feel optimistic. Hertfordshire farms and sculpture parks don't make them feel that.
But they won't. Reform it is then.
And yes, I'm ventriloquizing. I hate it, but we have to keep the fascists out. By being worse.
Putting so much emphasis on how they are dealing with those who are here illegally is not such a good idea. They are playing on Reform’s home turf. Reform have little to lose. They can say they would get more people out than Labour. Immigration is only about 3rd or 4th on people’s priorities. The NHS and how far the money they have will stretch are higher priorities.
No, you were right. That's what I meant.
I only clocked that @chrisstiles might be suggesting that Labour might try to out-do Reform by deploying racist language and racist policies themselves when I read his response.
But then, I'm not sure I understood all his response as the second part of it seemed to be chiming with what I'd said, that we should call out Reform's racism.
But yes, I agree with him on the fact-check thing. I've tried that with Reform supporters to no avail. They simply dismiss facts out of hand.
My response was that they will push the racism button (in the sense I meant of leaning into racist tropes), and they won't run with the kinds of policies of economic investment needed to shift salience onto other issues (or make more of the fact that Farage wants to privatise the NHS and slash security - and in fact many of his outriders are now looking at the opposite site of the pond and rather wistfully suggest that they should do a DOGE of their own).
If they do really well they will then be judged on what they do, not just on what they say
Once they've got some more local councillors and find that they actually have to do some work rather than simply sounding off, then we'll see what they can do with more traction and experience.
I can't say I've been impressed by the quality of their candidates so far. They are either rejects or renegades from other parties or think they can get by on hot air.
Largely helped by a supine media who doesn't really cover their actual positions but continues to regularly platform Farage and his outriders (Tice, Oakeshott etc):
https://x.com/The_TUC/status/1888892648242418102
He goes for an anti-establishment appeal when he is in fact very much a part of that establishment.