Core Vote

New Labour's electoral strategy was based on the idea that the core working class Labour vote was not big enough to secure election victories. It ws basically an acceptance of the embourgeoisement theories of the 1960's and 70's, which argued that rising affluence was transforming large sections of the working class into a middle class, whose aspirations made them look away from the traditional affiliation to Labour. Many sociological studies showed that the embouregoisement thesis was false. Yet, there was no doubting the fact that from 1945 onwards Labour's vote was declining. New Labour's strategy basically amounted to the idea that the traditional, working class, core Labour vote would turn out for it almost whatever it did, and, therefore, to win it had to woo the middle classes, even at the expense of policies that were seen to alienate the core vote.

There were quite a lot of flaws in this strategy. Firstly, it assumes that the embourgeoisement thesis was right after all. Secondly, it assumes that the other parties could not equally appeal to that middle class vote, thirdly it assumes that a sufficient number of workers would keep that core vote at a suficient level, and finally it assumes that appealing to the middle class also involves policies that are geared solely to them, rather than that it is possible to design policies that are aimed at workers, but which not only do not attack, but which also benefit the middle class.

I don't intend going over all of the refutations of the embourgeoisement thesis. You can look those up for yourself. However, what I would point out is that many of those traditional groups of workers that have most frequently been seen to fall into this category have themselvess been some of the more militant groups of workers of the last 20 years. On the second point, it took some time for the Tories to regroup, but Cameron embodies the fact that the Tories have indeed, reshaped themselves to win back the middle class, and for that matter so does Nick Clegg for the Liberals. On the third point New Labour appeared to have been proved correct until the last few years. In successive elections large numbers of workers DID continue to come out to vote Labour, which alongside thee middle class vote provided it with huge majorities. In a way that is not surprising. Although the Left has criticised New Labour for not pursuing the kind of socialist, interventionist policies it sets as being the benchmark for judging workers parties, the reality has been that New Labour DID carry through a whole raft of policies that benefitted ordinary working people, such as the building of large numbers of new schools and hospitals, a tripling of the NHS budget, the inroduction of the Minimum Wage, and so on. Yet, despite all of that a section of workers, or what has previously been described as an underclass, remained relatively excluded from these benefits, and if anything relatively more so, as the benefits and rising wages of workers above them increased quite rapidly. Although, this group is quite small, perhaps only 5-10% of the population, it is concentrated in certain areas that make it appear larger than it is, and that is enhanced by the fact that groups like the BNP have been able to latch on to it. Its problems of exclusion, and the causes attributed to it - largely large scale immigration - have been turned into an emblem of the failings of the Government in general.

Politics hates a vaccuum, and as large numbers of Labour activists left the Party, the basis of communtiy organisation began to be undermined, though not as much as is often stated, because that communtiy organisation was always mostly the work of the ordinary worker Branch members, rather than the politicos who focussed on "political" activity in the CLP and higher bodies. The activists who had Left were neither the kind of activists who were going to immerse themselves into the kind of community activism that the ordinary Branch members were engaged in, and as they either dropped out altogether, or else isolated themselves from thee class in tiny sects, they were in any case in no position to do so. Its no surprise that both the Liberals who for several decades have built up their local organisation and position in Local Councils through Community activism, and the BNP who have made a conscious turn to such work have filled the vaccuum that was left. We will have to see how much of Labour's core vote turns out for it, in the election, but it is being attacked from several directions.

The greatest tragedy is that it was, in fact, quite possible to have appealed to and won over sections of the middle class, whilst at the same time advancing policies that were directed towards the traditional working class. The German SPD at the beginning of the twentieth century went out of its way to win the support of the middle class, of small traders etc., whilst advancing a solidly pro-working class programme. Unfortunately, it is the idea that most of the Left has adopted of "redistributive socialism", which undermines this strategy. It is frequently pointed out that if you want to finance the spending that is seen as necessary for the NHS, Education etc. this cannot be raised simply by raising taxes on the few billionaires, and multi, multi-millionaires. The massive growth of the Welfare State, and attendant bureaucracy requires huge amounts of finance, and in order to finance it taxes are raisd not just on the rich, but on everyone. As Eric Hobsbawm has pointed out, what the Welfare State has done is not to redistribute from the rich to the poor, but merely to redistribute from one group of workers to another. In doing so, it necessarily creates the basis of intense division and antagonism within the working class. That is why so many workers, complain about scroungers, about single mothers, and so on. It is not just the fault of the gutter press that enhane and play upon those ideas. They can only do so, because those stories play into the experiences of many workers in their daily lives. Middle class lefties might not want to accept that, but it is a fact.

What the Left has done is to abandon all hope for now of challenging the wealth and power of he bourgeoisie, and instead settled for a redistributive socialism that attacks not the bouregoisie, but the petit-bouregois, the middle class, and even as the need fo more taxation has risen, even the better off sections of workers. It has advanced a strategy that divides the majority of workers from its natural allies, and drives those other sections of society into the hands of the Liberals and Tories. It does so whilst, trying to attract to it those very sections of the working class, least likely to form a "Vanguard", the least advance sections, the sections who are in fact, being attracted to the BNP. In that respect, the strategy of the Left has been at least no better thaan that of New Labour.

More than a hundred years ago, Marx argued against such a strategy. He pointed out why such redistribution could never work. It does not matter whether it is proposed to effect this redistribution by militant Trade Union struggle to raise wages and conditions, or by the Tax policies of a "Workers Government". He advised workers not to spend too much of their time on the former, precisely because of the limitations that existed to it, due to the natural laws of economics and Capital accummulation. He pointed out the fallacy of the latter, because it assumes that Distribution and Production are two separate spheres, whereas those very same laws of economics that he and others had uncovered demonstrated precisely that Distribution was a function of Production. If you want to change the Distribution of Wealth and Power in society you first have to change the distribution of ownership of the means of production. So long as capitalist retain the majority ownership of the means of production, whatever measures for reeduistribution of income or wealth are undertaken, will come to nought. But, as he says, once Co-operative ownership of the means of production begins to increase, those same laws, bring about a decisive shift in distribution of wealth and power to workers.

If Labour or any other Workers Party is to have a succesful strategy it has to build that alliance between the working class and the middle classes. It cannot do so on the basis of redistributive socialism, which to be credible has to place the burden of taxaation on those very same middle classes, and sections of the working class. It has instead to focus its attention on attacking the real basis of inequality in society - the concentration of ownership of the means of production in the hands of a tiny number of very, very rich families. It can do that by immediately demanding control of the workers pension funds, in which those same middle classes also have invested large amounts. It was not just workers after all who were aghast at the actions of the bankers and financiers. At a time when even the Tories are talking about Co-operatives and Mutualisation, let's take them at their word, and begin by turning those pension funds into Co-operatives, owned and controlled directly by the workers.

Immediately, the rise of the Liberals opens an intersting prospect for Labour. If the Liberal vote were to turn out anything like that being suggested in the polls, then this would mean that it is that large centre ground that has been divided up. No longer would Labour have to worry about losing it to the Tories. The most sensible strrategy for labour then would be a core vote strategy. If labour can turn out its core vote, whilst the centre ground vote is split fairly equally three ways then it has every chance of winning.