‘Labour is getting Britain back on track’
Ben Lyons, Co-Chair of OU Labour Club
In the Glasgow North-East by-election, the Conservative Party won 1,075 votes. This is a few hundred less than the “New Loony Party” candidate, Honest Blair, achieved in Oxford East at the last general election and just a hundred more than the Independent Working Class Association. By contrast, Labour won an impressive victory, holding the seat with almost 60% of the vote, despite the accepted political truth that governments lose by-elections (the Tories lost 19 by-elections before winning the 1992 general election). David Cameron is wrong to argue that the Conservatives have become a One Nation Party, representing the whole of Britain, rather than its countryside and suburbs. His party’s ideas still ring hollow to great swathes of the population.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, his rhetoric is meaningless and contradictory; soundbites rather than a serious programme for government. In a speech last week, Cameron explained that “we need new answers now, and they will only come from a bigger society, not bigger government”. Yet he explains that “big society is not just going to spring to life on its own: we need strong and concerted government action”. The speech’s argument was bizarre – using the government to fight a bloated state – but Cameron’s real vision is actually quite simple: unreconstructed Thatcherism. Beyond the pseudo-intellectualism of his speeches, how do Cameron’s policies work out for hard-working families and those concerned with fairness and a basic sense of social justice. His single tax pledge is a cut for the 3000 richest estates in England, paid for by cutting pay for junior nurses; his gut hatred of the EU has forced him into alliance with a Polish party which will only accept complicity of Poles in the Holocaust if “someone from the Jewish side” also apologises for how “the Jews” behaved and there has been no pledge on what the Conservative Party would do on global warming.
By contrast, the Labour Party is pushing on unglamorously. We haven’t got the money for the expensive ads and we haven’t got a leader who sets your hairs on end. But we are doing the things that are getting Britain back on track. Earlier this week, Labour announced plans to tear up the contracts for risky bankers, guarantee one-to-one tuition for students and legally enshrine the right to hospital treatment within 18 weeks. None of these policies are exciting and the speech to introduce them was blunt and dry. What they will do is make a huge difference for millions of people across the whole of Britain, rebuilding the economy, strengthening our education and saving lives. This is what government should be about: taking practical steps to make life better for people, not grand tautological speeches. This is why Labour won in Glasgow.
‘Glasgow North East is not representative’
Alexander Hall, History, Wadham
I sometimes wonder if A-level politics was the mother of my scepticism. Half a lesson was dedicated to ‘safe seats’, in which Liverpool Riverside was given as an example as the safest Labour seat in the land. Today, this example has become relevant once again, when BBC News informed me that in Glasgow North East: ‘More than 9,000 people – one sixth of potential workers – were claiming incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance in February… the second highest rate in the UK after Liverpool Riverside.’
Glasgow North East is not representative of the challenge that faces Labour at the next general election. If Labour had lost Glasgow North East it would have been far more worrying for the party than even Crewe and Nantwich last year. Even the most optimistic of Tory candidates would not expect such safe seats to be prised from redder hands, and in this constituency the SNP presented a far likelier alternative than the Conservative Party. The by-election victory was a convincing one, but unfortunately Glasgow does not represent the Labour Party’s comeback, and I suspect this result will soon fade into the shadow of a subject more worthy of attention and sensation: a new bank loan or a fresh demand for new helicopters in Afghanistan, obviating any bounce Labour might have gained from the by-election.
Policy gave way to partisan and class traditions in Glasgow, but this does not mean that the same will be the case more widely in the next general election. Policy will be scrutinised – this may seem a positive thing for Mr. Brown, who has not received due credit for his quick responses once downturn was underway, albeit that he was – at least – complicit in its origins. However, it may be that Cameron’s cost-cutting and emphasis on efficiency reflects the feeling of the public at large. Many seem to have forgotten that discontent in the winter of 1979 produced Mrs Thatcher’s cost-cutting; either that or they have been waiting for such an opportunity for its return. Discontent naturally hits the government hardest: economic crisis, MPs’ expenses and sensitivity to immigration will hit the government both where they are responsible and where they are not. Where traditional alignments such as those in Glasgow are not strong enough, or where Brown’s policies seem too little for the scale of the crisis, alternatives will succeed. Glasgow North East has not greatly bolstered Labour’s position, but focused the realities of elections for politicians.
