Labour can only win the election by fighting for a fair deal for all – that’s what the majority wants, argues “Arkwright”
Recent political discussion has focused on what the Conservative Party actually has to offer following the narrowing of its lead in the opinion polls. Suddenly the Tories look vulnerable. Their policies lack depth and even their costly poster campaign has turned out to be feeble and an object of derision.
But Labour will not win the forthcoming general election simply because the Tories are shallow. And our strategy must not be based entirely on persuading our core supporters to stick with the party.
Last December, Gordon Brown quipped in Prime Minister’s Questions that Tory policy was formulated on the playing fields of Eton. Labour’s opponents have since tried to force us on the defensive – accusing us of resorting to “class war” in the election campaign. And, since the Public Spending Review, we have had to review our attitude to public spending cuts and tax rises.
Urged on by The Times, Peter Mandelson and a tiny group of senior ministers and former ministers associated with Tony Blair have sought to “correct” the course of the Government by reversing its direction towards that followed “new” Labour. These people want to focus on the nature of the support for Labour among the so-called middle class. They stress the need for Labour to be associated with notions of “aspiration”.
The crux of these Blairites’ concerns is that we ought not to tax middle-class people more. Instead, at a time of national and international fiscal crisis, they argue that it is better to cut public expenditure.
The following examples show the themes being developed by those on the right of the Labour Party.
In April last year, in a calculated intervention in the House of Commons, former Transport Secretary Stephen Byers insisted: “I don’t think the case for the 50p [tax] rate has been made.” He said: “I think we will regret it for many years to come in the Labour Party.”
In the same month, The Times reported that one of Tony Blair’s closest allies (unnamed) had said: “The 50p tax move is a disaster. Blair would have cut taxes, not increased them.”
On December 24 2009, an editorial in The Times declared: “Lord Mandelson has been a shield under which Labour’s hold on the aspirant classes has been damaged beyond repair. His choice in the year ahead is whether to continue as the Great Pretender or to fight for the new Labour cause that he once believed in.”
The Business Secretary himself has been articulating some interesting notions this year. On January 6, he said: “Personally, I would favour, when financial circumstances permit, for the top rate [of tax] to come down.”
His view is that: “We are not a sectarian party. We are not a heartlands party. We are not going to win the election on that basis.” He believes that “new Labour” has to articulate new politics that will allow Britain to earn its way in the world.
However, elements of this “new” politics are reminiscent of old and failed politics. Universities have had their 2010-11 budget cut by £449 million, On February 11, Mandelson insisted the universities were not being singled out for cuts and that “much of the rest of the public sector will face similar constraints this year or soon after”.
Such arguments are a reaction to the decision in the April 2009 Budget to raise the rate of tax to 50 per cent for people earning more than £150,000 a year. This was followed by the announcement in last autumn’s
Pre-Budget Report emphasising the Government’s continuing commitment to public spending investment rather than cuts.
The Blairite ultras have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Britain’s social and economic structures in the 21st century. They seem unable to grasp where the best interests of middle-income Britain really lie. It is doubtful that a Labour victory can be secured if their view is allowed to prevail.
What it is to be part of “middle Britain” has been subtly redefined and come to mean professionals such as architects, doctors, dentists and so on. In one report, Middle Britain in 2008, published by AXA, the insurance company, middle Britain was defined as those households that “typically earn gross household incomes of between £40,000 and £100,000, and have an average income of £62,000”.
The real picture is very different. Only one person in 10 earns more than £46,000 a year. If we define middle Britain to mean those people who are actually in the middle-income bands, then an entirely different story emerges. The median pay for the average Briton is less than £22,000.
The facts of modern Britain are miles away from the prejudices of the media commentators and opinion formers who dominate much of the public discourse.
Low-income Britain – the bottom 30 per cent – earns less than £14,500 a year.
Middle-income Britain – the middle 40 per cent – earns between £14,500 and £29,000. Upper income Britain – the top 30 per cent – earns more than £29,000.
Even deprivation as defined by the Government is not confined to poor and near-poor households. Nine per cent of families in the middle quintile of income earners cannot afford enough bedrooms to avoid boys and girls over the age 10 sharing. As many as a quarter of these families cannot afford at least one week’s holiday away from home, while 6 per cent cannot afford to send their children swimming once a week.
If Labour becomes detached from this situation, then our election strategy is bound to make serious errors. So it is hard to understand why some key players in the Government are so concerned about the
50 per cent tax rate. A recent parliamentary question revealed that only 260,000 individuals would be affected by the new additional 50p rate of income tax – about 0.5 per cent of the adults living in the United Kingdom.
In terms of election strategy, it might be argued that members of the so-called aspirant middle class are more concentrated in marginal constituencies in the south-east of England which may swing to the Tories. Again, the facts prove this is not the case.
In Labour’s three most marginal seats in the south-east, median income is not above £18,000. The figures are £17,700, £17,400 and £17,000 in Crawley, Sittingbourne & Sheppey and Harlow respectively.
Far more people who live in middle-income Britain will be damaged by public expenditure cuts than a small increase in the taxation paid by the super rich. This has been illustrated in Mandelson’s rush to prove that Labour can make cuts by reducing funding to universities, which will adversely affect thousands. In terms of aspiration, there are far more people in middle Britain who hope their children can go to University than want to earn to £150,000 a year.
So will Middle Britain vote for Labour in 2010? Middle Britain does not conform to a single set of political beliefs. According to a recent TUC survey, 24 per cent of “Middle Britons” describe themselves as “left-wing” or “left-of-centre”, 30 per cent as “in the centre”, 17 per cent as right-wing’ or “right-of-centre”, while 30 per cent “didn’t know’.
In fact, these people support more state intervention and are not as individualistic as some commentators would have us believe. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, nearly three-quarters of middle-income Britain (73 per cent) agree that “ ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth”, while only 5 per cent disagree.
And an opinion poll in The Guardian in January revealed that, of the overall population, 53 per cent regard themselves as working class and 43 per cent as middle
class. Only 1 per cent considers they are
upper class. Yet 33 per cent of the population see the Tories as mainly representing the upper class. And 41 per cent of people in social groups D and E, 33 per cent of C1s and 25 per cent C2s regard the Tories in this way.
So the middle-class Britain beloved of David Cameron, George Osborne and Times leader writers is largely a myth. Labour’s leadership must not buy into it. Our politics must focus remorselessly on the realities that confront the 70 per cent of the population who are middle and low-income earners. We must address their economic difficulties, cultural anxieties and, yes, their aspirations.
These people work hard, but they are being squeezed. Their job security is precarious. The future of their children does not look particularly secure. They want a country that can offer good and dependable public services. They resent the fact that some people seem to earn huge amounts of money for rather little effort. They want fair rules which apply to the few as well as the many. And they want fair shares for all.
That should be what Labour wants, too. And campaigning for it is the only way that Labour can win the general election. That’s why it has to be Labour’s agenda for 2010.
The author is a senior figure in the Labour Party
