Hurtling towards defeat: Norwich North reflects the woes of the Labour government

(c) *saxon*

This week saw another by-election and another defeat for Labour. The Labour government is in the final act of government, wherein by-election defeats stack up and power ebbs away until parliament must dissolve. The nature of British politics makes this process torturous for lack of inescapable fixed elections. This by-election defeat offers further support for another truth of British politics: oppositions do not win elections; governments lose them.

In Norwich North, Labour lost 14,854 votes since 2005 (70% of its 2005 vote). Its vote collapsed, offering support for the claims that Labour under Gordon Brown is unelectable in England. Even the harsh judgement passed on Ian Gibson failed to win support for Labour in Norwich North. By losing so many votes, Labour engineered its own demise.

There is some comfort for Labour, as their fate remains in their hands. The Conservatives lost 2,047 votes since 2005 (13% of the 2005 vote). Six visits by David Cameron and bombardment by Conservative MPs did nothing to excite support for the Conservatives. The fierce and well-funded Conservative campaign machine made little difference. Once again, the sole change was that formerly Labour voters abandoned the party.

There is no reason to believe Labour will perform as badly next year. They will not lose 70% of their national vote. By-elections are protest events devoid of meaning. They can reflect trends (i.e., governments losing them suggests they may lose an election) but cannot predict vote shares. Labour will do better at a general election. It will likely lose, but not as badly as it lost in Norwich North.
Still, Labour must face the scale of dissatisfaction in the country. It has been humiliated repeatedly as voters abandon the party of government. The party must now ask itself how it can win back some support, if only to slim the size of a Conservative majority in 2010. The question that none dare ask returns: would Labour perform better under different, more charismatic, leadership?

Nevertheless, change remains unlikely. Labour MPs have had many opportunities to express their dissatisfaction with the direction of government and the leadership of the party. With many MPs retiring for various reasons, few have an incentive to protect their seats by appealing to the electorate. A quiet final year is preferable to strife and dissent. Those who are staying in their seats and have leadership ambitions will not want to wield the blade. There are too few MPs with an incentive to remove the leader but without pretentions to the post.

Moreover, the malaise runs deeper than leadership issues. The whole party is tired and devoid of ideas. There are no talented backbenchers ready to enter government; the backbenches are full of former ministers and hardliners. The situation has gotten so bad that Brown promoted Bob Ainsworth to Defence Secretary, presumably in lieu of any higher profile candidates. The single greatest addition to government—Peter Mandelson—came from outside the Commons. A new leader would face the same small pool of talent and the same struggle to form a government.

With each electoral defeat, the inevitability of a Conservative government becomes more apparent. Labour appears unable to do anything to avert this; it cannot change its record and it will not change its leader. Labour is struggling to connect with voters and cannot mitigate the impending defeat of 2010. Quite simply, it will lose in 2010 and lose badly.