Big ask, small tent

Tony Blair’s essay, political fragmentation and a way forward for Labour

Max Langelott (source: unsplash.com)

How does the Labour Party overcome the heavy burden of incumbency? How does it tackle voter disapproval? Does it tack left or right, or try to take what Sir Tony Blair recently called the “vacant space” of the ‘Radical centre’? What does it do about the populist surge?

These are difficult questions without straightforward answers. To add to the complexity, Labour needs to consider the type of tent it uses for shelter in the face of strong headwinds.

A so-called ‘big tent’ strategy seeks to attract voters with a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds. Instead of focusing on a narrow set of issues or a specific ideology, the idea is to reach out from a core base to build a broad coalition of supporters.

This was achieved by New Labour whose architects created both a modern image and policy platform to attract a wider variety of voters including aspirational middle-class voters previously wary of Labour. Tony Blair’s ‘third way’ found a middle ground between free-market capitalism and state-controlled socialism.

But that was a long time ago. Reaching out to new parts of the electorate only works if you have a solid base and, it seems, no-one does anymore. The ground is distinctly shaky as long-term partisan dealignment combined with growing grievances and voter impatience have fractured loyalties and created volatility.

‘Swing voting’ — a habit aided by the adoption of new electoral systems for ‘second order’ elections offering encouragement for smaller parties and the lower cost of entry to joining political campaigning — has brought a speedy end to Britain’s 100-year-old duopoly. At the last general election, Labour and the Conservatives gained a combined total of 57% of votes cast, their lowest tally since the 1910s. More recently, last month’s local elections of 136 local councils resulted in 64 with no majority party, up from 41 last time around.

20/20 (/20/20/20) vision

The splintering of politics can be seen in polling too. Ipsos’ latest voting intention poll had Labour and the Conservatives on 20% and 19% respectively with Reform on 27%, the Green Party on 14%, Liberal Democrats on 12% and others on 8%. The so-called ‘uni-party’ has shrunk in terms of vote share — its measly 39% compares with 40% 12 months earlier, 61% the year before, 72% in May 2023 and 79% five years ago.

Parties must work harder to hold onto voters they could once rely on. Even new populist insurgent parties are not immune from threats. Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain is just a few months old but is already polling at 4% according to YouGov and poses a challenge to Nigel Farage and Reform UK — reach too far beyond your base, and we’ll take it from you. The SNP briefly faced the challenge of the Alba Party led by Alex Salmond. Could more parties enter the fray — a party representing a deeper shade of Green for example?

Start with tribes

A big tent approach makes theoretical sense, offering parties and campaigns the potential to gather support from a large and diverse group of voters, making them less reliant on any single group. But it looks increasingly impossible in practice with numerous potential downsides including a risk to clear messaging and internal party cohesion.

Tony Blair’s much-discussed recent essay was strongly criticised for its prescription for Labour — a move to a weakly defined ‘Radical centre’ — but was more compelling in framing the key tactical choices facing Labour. The former Prime Minister drew contrast between barely surviving “conventional politicians” and thriving “unconventional ones” (probably code for populists) who are far better at understanding how the new media landscape operates (also a theme of Chris Clarke’s Putting down the vase paper last year). He suggests that this landscape means:

“…political debate [is] conducted in a climate of perpetual gale-force winds, capable at any moment of turning into a tornado, and, confusingly, constantly changing direction.”

He uses the metaphor of storm and ballast inspired by something written by John Adams, the second president of the United States:

“Conventional politicians pay close attention to what media, traditional and social, agitate over. This means they’re blown this way and that, trying to follow the prevailing wind. The paradox is that the public form part of this wind, but at the same time deeply distrust it. And look for leaders who stand strong in the face of it.”

This projection of strength is a hallmark of populists who like to simplify but exaggerate problems only strong, anti-establishment leaders can fix (through cakeism). Blair describes the perils of taking ‘ish’ positions which result in ‘ish’ delivery with the effect of all voters feeling let-down. He advocates for clarity in target and purpose:

“These unconventional leaders appear to have the ballast many conventional politicians lack. They have an attitude, a tribe and a project”.

Time to choose (and deliver)

Does Labour have an inter-connected attitude, a tribe, a project?

If it has, it hasn’t been altogether clear; missions, first steps and milestones haven’t really cut through in Westminster and Whitehall let alone beyond while Rachel Reeves’ reprise of Gordon Brown’s prudence with a purpose, lacked for a purpose. Perhaps, though, this is changing and taking shape in the words of the current PM in his response to Blair’s essay as well as the statements made by potential leadership contenders.

The tribe of choice seems to be the young, especially the working (or not working) classes among them. Wes Streeting, Andy Burnham and Angela Rayner have all recently talked about this section of the electorate, the ‘inheritocracy’, and the risk of a ‘lost generation’.

In his essay, Keir Starmer focused on this group too, articulating his project as “a country that feels like it truly belongs to us all”:

“It is why so many of the investments we have made are targeted on young people — in childcare, in new school-based nurseries, in family hubs, in tackling child poverty, in apprenticeships, in technical excellence colleges, in special educational needs education, and in a youth guarantee that will support every young person who can’t find work with a new opportunity to earn or learn.”

Choosing the young as a tribe of focus and opportunity as a project makes sense for Labour politically for several reasons particularly the Green Party’s progress since 2024 among younger age groups at the sharp end of the ‘endurance economy’ such as private renters and those who can’t find employment. According to analysis by the British Election Study last year, voters are shifting between parties within, not between, two blocs. Thus, Labour is losing voters to parties of the left rather than the right.

Another important, and obvious, reason for targeting and mobilising the young is that recognising and addressing their grievances could yield future benefits if loyalties can be gained and maintained through effective delivery which is experienced.

Improving their lot will also be seen by other tribes. At the beginning of the century only 12% expected their children to end up poorer than them, a figure that has risen to 45%. Every ‘NEET’ and frustrated renter is someone’s (grand) daughter or son. Get this tent constructed and you can put up another, bigger, one?

This won’t be easy. Time and goodwill have already been lost. A change in what Blair described as attitude will be necessary. Starmer, or whoever is in charge, will need to be bolder and lead with the “courage, not caution” identified by Liam Byrne in his plan to beat populists and revive democracy.

Labour’s opponents are beatable but being clear-eyed about your base is a crucial starting point.

Smaller tents are easier to pitch and better in high winds.