The House | We need a more unifying politics

(Alamy)

4 min read3 hr

The government’s “good work has too often been overshadowed by missteps and political positioning appearing to trump all other considerations on critical issues such as Brexit, migration and Gaza”. 

As I read it, I thought of another famous Londoner, Michael Caine in The Italian Job, and as the strains of “this is the self-preservation society” drifted into my mind: which voters are we talking about here?

Joining the Customs Union, easing visa requirements, or adopting a more Israel-critical stance on Gaza, are essentially pivots in the direction of London voters (and to a lesser extent to parts of Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, etc). Labour does need to be strong in urban Britain. But as a national political strategy, Sadiq’s analysis could not be more wrong. He is not the only person to be making the case for a return to so-called progressive (can anyone offer me a definition of this vacuous word please?) Labour values – and that worries me.   

Work by More in Common has shown how Labour won in 2024 by drawing together a disparate coalition of voters, far more diverse than Labour’s 2019 vote. Using their ‘seven segments’, we can see that in 2019, Labour’s voters came from the ‘Progressive Activists’ and ‘Civic Pragmatists’ groups – these are disproportionately present in the same cities as those mentioned above. No one needs reminding where that got us.

In 2024, Labour’s voter coalition was broader. The two liberal-left segments were only a third of Labour’s voters. Half of our voters were from more ‘conservative’ ‘Loyal Nationals’, ‘Backbone Conservatives’, and ‘Disengaged Traditionalists’. In other words, Labour managed to attract voters from beyond its liberal left-of-centre urban vote. This took us into government with, amongst other things, the most rural MPs ever. 

That coalition of voters was bonded most of all by a complete rejection of the Conservative government and its shambolic record, general unseriousness, and willingness to place ideological projects before the national interest. We have now been allowed an opportunity to renew our country before returning to the voters to ask for another mandate. Despite mid-term polling, by-election defeats and the possibility of local election losses, we cannot afford to indulge the fantasies we rejected after being roundly beaten in the Red Wall by none other than the Conservative Party. The Progressive Activists make up 8-10% of the population, and Civic Pragmatists 13% – not to be ignored, nor to be idolised. 

The question is, what do we do with our mandate? In this anti-political age, popularity is too high a bar. Oppositions get to be popular. Governments get to do things. What we should focus on is effective change towards a future defined – yes, by Labour values, but Labour values that can speak to ordinary people, including those beyond our comfort zones. If there is a lesson to be drawn from Gorton and Denton, it is that people in that constituency are still hungry for change and that we have not yet delivered it for them.

Whether New Zealand PM Norman Kirk said it or not, it is a truism that people want ‘somewhere to live, someone to love, somewhere to work and something to hope for’. That’s what we should be doing, alongside rebuilding our defensive capabilities (through domestic manufacturing), delivering staples like a functioning NHS, and demonstrating that we have control of our immigration and asylum system. What holds that fragile coalition together is progress – I use the word advisedly – towards things that make a meaningful difference in most people’s lives – work and housing. The good news is that we have already begun to move the dial on these issues, though it needs to move considerably faster. 

But in one sense, Sadiq is right. It really does matter that we tell people what a Labour Government is for and what we’re here to do. We are here to prove that politics can still serve the common good. We are here to build a country where work is dignified and work pays, where a family can afford a home, where public services function, and where contribution is recognised and rewarded. We are here to restore a sense that Britain is governed in the interests of the many, not the wealthiest – or the loudest. If we can articulate that hopeful story and deliver on it, the coalition that brought us into office will not just endure, it will grow.