Labour ponders lessons of Barack Obama victory

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/07/labour-lessons-barack-obama-victory

Version 0 of 1.

While Conservatives, spray-painted in Democrat blue, were rushing to hug the Obama victory as proof that centrist incumbents can be re-elected in tough economic times, Labour was queuing to repaint David Cameron as a rightwinger cutting taxes for the rich like the Mitt Romney seen during the Republican primaries.

The only similarity between Obama and Osborne was the initial letter of their surnames, Labour said. An official declared: "Obama had stimulated the economy and seen jobs rise for 32 consecutive months. George Osborne has done the opposite. Obama tried to govern for the 99%, while Osborne is giving tax cuts to the richest 1%. The Conservatives are deregulators and trickle down Reaganites. Iain Duncan Smith gave the game away on Sunday night when he attacked Obama's economic policies." So far, so simple for Labour.

Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary and probably Labour's closest British observer of American politics following the death of Philip Gould, was more subtle: "Obama won despite the disenchantment and disappointment of many voters. But in the end he secured victory because more voters trusted he was more on their side than Romney. When Obama explains we are all in this together, people are reassured, whereas when Cameron says it they snigger."

It is true that exit polls showed Obama won the empathy vote, if not the argument on the economy. Asked which candidate cared more about them, Obama scored 80%. That will be a warning to Cameron: voters may like welfare caps, but not if he looks a heartless, cruel plutocrat.

But Alexander also acknowledges that Obama, like the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, has shown incumbents can survive austerity if they govern near the centre. "Even in the polarised politics of America, Romney made this race competitive when he reached for the centre, and Obama won when he reached beyond his base and reassured independent voters," he said. "Obama won by looking like the whole country, by embracing the rising classes and groups in society such as Latinos and middle-income women. Labour must do the same, framing our appeal not to 4 million voters but to 40 million voters."

It also did not escape Labour's notice that Obama's slogan of "forward, not back" – the same as Labour's in the 2005 election – might have an uncomfortable resonance for Labour in 2015.

The "back" to which Obama referred was George W Bush's wars and the way he racked up the deficit, but Cameron in 2015 will make the same appeal to British voters to let him finish the job, as he urges the country not to return to the fiscal profligacy of Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.

But there is also a mood of disappointment with Obama among the Labour people – a victory for perspiration and inspiration, as one put it: "The fact that they had to rely so much on a ground war – one that with our resources we cannot replicate – shows how important it is to have a clear message. In 1992 in New Hampshire the Democrats had a flawed candidate in Clinton, and that forced him to have a clear New Democrat message. In 2008 Obama as a candidate came across as a mix of JFK and Martin Luther King, and they had a generalised change message. Even after four years in office Obama was struggling to characterise a future for the US."

Robert Philpot, editor of the new Labour magazine Progress, counsels against relying on the other candidate to lose.

"Romney's attempt to make the election simply a referendum on Obama's economic performance – rather than a choice between two competing alternatives – should be a warning for Labour," he said.

"'One more heave' and assuming that any concrete commitments are simply a hostage to fortune and that relentless attacks on the Tories are plausible routes back to power, have been dealt a fatal blow by the Republicans' defeat."

Two Labour guns who have worked for Obama, Anthony Painter and Marcus Roberts, also warned that "a vague offer of change is insufficient, as is relying on the negatives of your opponent. People want to know that you have a practical vision for the nation. A lack of clarity and your leadership will be undermined".

Labour will nevertheless try to learn the lessons of organisation. The Obama ground war, run from a vast office in Chicago, and matched in every battleground state, is beyond its means. But Labour will look hard at how social media invigorated the Democrat base, creating 180,000 volunteers, and ensured messages, both attack and rebuttal, could be despatched at the speed needed in a modern election.

But Alexander also expresses caution that elections might be won or lost on Twitter. "This campaign reminds us that for all the talk of social media, TV debates matter in elections. They made a big impact in Britain in 2010. They did so again in the US this year. The next general election here is unlikely to be any different."