How looking to the past will ensure Labour’s future

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/09/looking-to-past-will-ensure-labour-future

Version 0 of 1.

Jonathan Freedland’s excellent article (‘Moving on’: the mantra that traps politicians in the past, 6 June) reminds politicians, and all of us, that while voters may usually be ungrateful and forgetful, they can also have long and selective memories, and will dredge up from the past former perceived failures and old dislikes as they turn against a political party. This certainly seems to have happened in the case of Labour at the last election when the party allowed the Conservatives and the Lib Dems unjustly to saddle them with the blame for the financial crisis. This was a charge that Labour never seriously set about rebutting, and so it proved their undoing. Politicians particularly should remember the words of TS Eliot in Burnt Norton: “Time present and time past/ Are both perhaps present in time future/ And time future contained in time past.”Keith AndersonLeeds

• In Labour’s breast-beating since the election, far too little weight has been given to the party’s tactical failures during the last parliament (and the Tories’ notable success in this area). Two stand out. First, the failure to challenge the constantly repeated claim that Labour overspending caused the crash and the resulting deficit. Second, the inability to develop the potentially powerful “one nation” theme that Ed Miliband introduced in his excellent 2012 conference speech. His speech in the Commons last Thursday showed that he recognises how this theme could unlock the issue of inequality to make it meaningful to a wide range of voters. As the leadership candidates fight (or not) over the future political direction of the party, it seems vital that a strong tactical operation is put in place from the outset – one which recognises that key themes must be pursued continuously and false charges cannot be allowed to stick.Professor Ron GlatterHemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire

• I agree with Jonathan Freedland that failure to confront the Tories on the roots and responsibilities for the increase in national debt was one of the key elements in the election defeat. The large debt was due to the necessary and timely bailout of the banks after the crash. However, Labour must take responsibility for the crash and hence the need to bail out the banks. Labour’s light-touch regulation contributed to the swelling of the financial sector and thus to its unavoidable crash. The Tories were more than happy with any amount of deregulation and with the bailing out of the banks. How could Miliband have come clean on these issues when he had appointed as his shadow chancellor Ed Balls, the very man responsible for deregulating the financial sector? A second question is the following: since the 1980s has any party won a British election without the support of Murdoch? Miliband could have avoided the first problem by appointing a different shadow chancellor, but not the second. Grazia Ietto-GilliesEmeritus professor of applied economics, London South Bank University

• The news that the ridiculous “Edstone” idea passed through 10 meetings of the Labour high command says much about how detached the leadership has come from reality. It won’t surprise party members, who are generally treated as a volunteer army to be patronised at will. The succession of patronising missives varied from how to vote (Justine Miliband) to “why haven’t you given us any money recently?”If Labour ever wants to win power again it needs to re-democratise and reconnect to the grassroots. To continue with a careerist-led, detached hierarchical structure that disempowers members and the public alike can only in the long term lead to political oblivion.Paul DonovanLondon

• Jonathan Freedland argues that “only another economic calamity can erase the memory” of Labour’s supposed economic mismanagement. If he’s correct, things may not be as bad as they seem for Labour. The FT reports that George Osborne is planning to relax the post-crash restrictions placed upon UK banks. So, on the basis of what we now know of the greed and stupidity of bankers, another financial crisis must be just around the corner.Paul TempleMilton Keynes

• Neither Patrick Wintour’s article (The undoing of Ed Miliband, 3 June ) nor any of the subsequent letters (5 June) mentioned one of the most important reasons for Labour’s defeat: the erroneous assumption that the party could always rely on the support of poorer working-class voters. As it turned out, in England many turned to Ukip or did not vote, and in Scotland they voted SNP. The immediate reason for these defections was the Labour leadership’s timid and muddled “austerity-lite” campaign strategy. Just like New Labour’s strategy, austerity-lite was dependent on Labour’s “natural” supporters keeping faith with the party whatever its policies. But those who have already suffered most from five years of coalition government saw nothing hopeful in continuing austerity. What happened in 2015 is only a symptom of a deeper long-term problem. Where (and when) I grew up you voted Labour because you were working class. It really was that simple. That kind of blind class loyalty was probably never healthy. But identification with Labour in working-class communities has been significantly eroded over the past 50 years. Rebuilding the Labour party following the 2015 defeat will undoubtedly need new, clear and decisive policies. It will involve reaching out to Ukip voters as well as to those too disillusioned to vote. But crucially rebuilding Labour means inspiring, engaging and ultimately recruiting a new generation of young working-class people. This is the only way to ensure its future.Dr John KirbySheffield