I woke up this morning to the results of our worst General Election defeat in decades. We knew the polls were bad but still you always campaign in hope and we believed that even if we did not win we could deprive the Tories of a majority. Hope turns to disappointment but not despair.
While the media focus on the number of seats we hold, a level similar to the dark days of 1983, I draw some comfort from the vote share. In 1983 Labour took 27.6% of the vote; yesterday we had 32.2%. That is a higher share than Gordon Brown won in 2010 (29.0%) or Ed Milliband in 2015 (30.4%). Remember that Tony Blair won a majority in 2005 with 35.2%.
However, it is too soon for that kind of analysis. The numbers will be spreadsheeted to death in the coming weeks.
There is another kind of reflection and analysis which we will need. I believe we should not look at this election in isolation but examine the three national votes held in the last few years; the referendum, the 2017 election and this one.
Too much of what will pass for analysis will be commentators expounding views they held well before the results were known. They will pin the blame on Mr Corbyn or on the Brexit policy or on the radicalism of the manifesto or whatever aspect of the party they already didn't like. I believe we need a more honest, measured examination. We must be willing to change our minds, to listen to insights that may be uncomfortable, to recognise where reality differs from our views and to accept the facts we uncover.
Referendum
We have not yet fully come to terms with the meaning of the referendum results. We have not listened enough to those who voted Leave to understand why they made that choice. Instead Remainer commentators have offered their own explanation of the vote. Leavers were ill-informed, didn't understand the issues or were misled by dishonest propaganda. They were "little Englanders" bewitched by imperial nostalgia. their grievances were domestic problems nothing to do with Europe. Or they were "left behind" by globalisation, as if globalisation was a train we had all consented to board.
That leads to the first set of questions. I think we need to understand better the political alienation of the working class that made "take back control" such an appealing slogan. I feel that without taking time to connect with them in their own terms we will remain vulnerable in our heartlands.
2017
One of the surprises of the 2017 election was the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn. His sincerity and authenticity, which those who knew him already admired, was able to communicate itself to a wider constituency. The press threw the same slurs then as this year but they did not stick. So we have questions about why that changed and what lessons can we draw for any future leader.
Labour's radical 2017 manifesto was popular. Policies which could be portrayed as hard left, like nationalisation of utilities, had public support. Those attacks seem to have hit home this time. Some will argue for abandoning more radical ideas. But if we pose the question of why radicalism was popular one year and less so two years later we may come up with more useful answers.
Polarisation
A final set of questions concerns how we campaign in a time of increased polarisation. In a polarised polity people are choosing which facts to believe selecting the evidence that suits their conclusions. We will need to examine how to go beyond the tribes. But first we must be able to escape from our own bubble and listen to other voices.
There will be plenty of other questions, like legislating to control social media campaigning and improving our campaign tools. But that is enough for now.
