Fisking Jon Cruddas on Voting Figures

Bob Piper quotes Jon Cruddas in Comment is Free this morning:

“Labour lost nearly 5 million voters from 1997 to 2005, and not to the Tories. Four broad elements can be detected in this change: a significant movement away from us among workers in the public services; among black and minority ethnic voters; and among those described by marketing experts as “urban intellectuals”; and a huge shift away from us among working-class voters, especially manual workers. These voters did not go to the Tories, they went to the BNP and other nationalist groupings, the Liberals and Respect. Or they simply stayed at home.”

I’m concentrating on the numbers, and on the suggested destinations of the missing voters.

Straightening out the Facts

First of all, let’s straighten out one fact: Labour did not lose “nearly 5 million” votes from 1997 to 2005, they lost less than 4 million; the problem is therefore 20% smaller than Jon Cruddas thinks it is (or wants to make it sound?).

And do the Guardian have no fact checkers - even for such headline data?

Now, let’s go beneath the surface.

Looking at the Numbers

First, to summarise the totals. Figures from wikipedia, and I am quoting parties with more than 50,000 votes nationally in one of the elections, not including Northern Ireland.

Party 1997 votes 2005 votes change
Labour 13,518,167 9,562,122 -3,956,045
Conservative 9,600,943 8,772,598 -828,345
Liberal Democrat 5,242,947 5,981,874 738,927
UKIP 105,722 603,298 497,576
SNP 621,550 412,267 -209283
Green 63,991 257,758 193,767
BNP 35,832 192,746 156,914
Plaid Cyrmu 161,030 174,838 13,808
Respect na 68,094 68,094
Referendum Party 811,849 na -811849
Independent 64,482 122,000 57,518
Socialist Labour 52,109 20,192 -31,917

Where all our voters went?

Now, Jon Cruddas identifies 4 destinations for these voters:

“Voters did not go to the Tories, they went to the BNP and other nationalist groupings, the Liberals and Respect. Or they simply stayed at home. In fact the only group where Labour support has actually grown between 1997 and 2005 has been among the professional, administrative and executive classes - but we cannot go on to win with them alone.”

There’s a bit lot of spinning going on here to bolster John’s “return to issues of class” analysis. Lets look at the numbers. I’m suggesting that anything involving less than 100,000 voters can be ignored in the context of a change of 4 million.

Or did they?

Respect

Respect is given a prominent part, but they are just a convenient red-herring here. They obtained a whopping 0.3% (68,000) of the vote in 2005. They are a one-trickster, single use pony, and in my view will dissolve like the morning mist next time round. Just conceivably, one of the two halves of Respect - Socialist Workers and Islamists - may take over the other for the sake of controlling the brand.

BNP and other nationalist groupings

I am not sure what all of these are. There were 150,000 extra votes for the BNP between 1997 and 2005, and 400,000 for the UKIP. The Referendum Party’s 800,000 votes more than outweigh this change. So - in these terms - nationalists made a net loss. Is this another red herring?

The Liberals

On the surface of it 700,000 extra voters for the Lib Dems is interesting, but much of that was a war-protest vote - there was an increase of 1.8 million Lib Dem votes from 2001 to 2005.

The numerical dominance of the stay at homes

Although they were the last on the list, these dwarf all the others put together. The overall vote fell from 1997 to 2005 from 31,286,284 to 27,110,727.

Are these all Labour voters who can be recovered into the fold, or Tory voters temporarily borrowed by Mr Blair who will be scared back to Mr Cameron by a sharp left turn?

The Greens

The Greens went up by 200,000 votes in 2005 over 1997. The interesting question here is how many voters went to the Green’s from the different main parties?

Wrapping Up

If I were leading Labour, I’d be far more worried about the putative Tories who stayed at home sulking, and the ex-Referendum people, than I would be about Respect and the various parties over on the left. There are a lot more of the former, even though Jon Cruddas gives them less prominence in his analysis.

And - given how far UKIP have been on the wane this month - I’d be praying to God for them to have a resurgence.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

[tags], , , , , , , , , , , [/tags]

About the Author

admin

Matt is an internet consultant, commentator, freelance writer and Project Manager based in the UK. He is available for hire. Matt edits the Wardman Wire, and writes at Poligeeks, Total Politics, and occasionally in several other places.

One Response to “ Fisking Jon Cruddas on Voting Figures ”

  1. Interesting. But you do concentrate purely on the parliamentary elections, and I suspect Cruddas does too, hence 2005. However, I suspect if we extend it out to 2007, and include the voters who have turned their backs on Labour in local elections (and devolution) the figures are not far off what Jon says (although I have limited time at this internet cafe in Hanoi to check it out), Certainly the BNP and other nationalist votes wqill be much higher, and I also suspect he lib dems do better in local elections.

Leave a Reply

Comments will be sent to the moderation queue.

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>

SQL Queries for this Page:64