Liam Byrne MP draws on Labour Party's detailed analysis of Britain's most complex British post-war election and warns party not to exaggerate the LibDem threat in this new Fabian freethinking paper.

Download the report (160 kilobyte PDF)

Labour risks defeat in the next General Election if the LibDem challenge to Labour's left flank distracts the party from the Labour-Conservative 'battle of the supermarginals' which will decide the next election, argues government minister and Labour rising star Liam Byrne MP in a Fabian freethinking paper Why Labour Won: lessons from 2005 published on Friday 22nd September 2006.

The paper draws on the Labour Party's own internal seat-by-seat analysis of the results of what Byrne calls "the most complex General Election in post-war political history, where the concept of 'national swing' was challenged as never before". Byrne says that the debate over the 2005 result - which will be a hot topic at Labour's first post-election party conference – will do much to influence the government's third term political strategy and approach to the next election. Byrne, who narrowly beat the LibDems in the Hodge Hill by-election last year, fears that excessive attention to the LibDem challenge could lead the party to draw the wrong lessons in its post-election inquest:

"A sharp swing to the left won't take us back to the glory days of 1997 – no will throwing in the bin the reform manifesto on which we've just stood and won".

"But it's equally true that we didn't poll our full support. Radical party reform is vital if we want to mobilize every single Labour sympathizer in 2009".

Why Labour won: explaining the 2005 election

'We won as New Labour'

Winning electoral coalition held off pressure. But Labour 'could have lost' and did not poll its full support.

Byrne shows that Labour's 2005 victory was built on the foundations of the new winning coalition which brought the party back from the electoral wilderness in 1997.

In 2005, Labour retained a lead among men (+5), women (+6), all ages except the over 65s with an 18 point lead among voters under 34. Byrne returns to Giles Radice's influential analysis in his 'Southern Discomfort' pamphlet series for the Fabian Society from 1992-94 to show how Labour rebuilt its electoral prospects to put together the winning coalition which provided the foundations for the 2005 result.

But Byrne also warns that Labour failed to poll its full support. Labour now holds a 46-34-14 lead in overall party identification among the 70% of the electorate who identify with any party. Byrne says that while the Conservatives polled their full support – "every dog heard the whistle" – the party's right-wing campaign failed with swing voters. Labour's support was broader but the party found it more difficult to get its full support out and Byrne warns that Labour "could have lost" a tight election where the party led by 770,000 votes (1.8% of registered voters). He notes that boundary change analysis will see Labour go into the next campaign with a majority effectively reduced from 64 to just 50.

Labour defectors to LibDems not all 'left wing protest votes'

Nationally, 13% of voters who say they are normally Labour voted LibDem and 9% stayed at home. Byrne says that to call all of these "left protest" votes is "far too simple" with Labour was pressed from right and left. Iraq was the most important issue for 26% of these voters but the top six reasons for 'usually Labour' supporters not voting Labour also included the economy (15%), asylum and immigration (14%), the NHS (10%), crime (4%) and anti-social behaviour (4%). Together asylum, crime and anti-social behaviour regarded as "right-wing issues" were most important for 22% of these voters. Tuition fees were cited by only 1% of Labour defectors as most important. Local campaigns made more different than ever before.

Byrne's analyses shows that an increased 'incumbency factor' was especially strong for "first-time defenders" with parties especially vulnerable where MPs stood down for new candidates.

Labour's vote fell 13.9% on average where a new candidate replaced a sitting MP, compared to a fall of just 3.9% for 'first-time defenders'. LibDem 'first-time defenders' rose 19.5%, while candidates replacing sitting MPs lost 5.9% of voters. But these 'incumbency effects' varied a great deal, according to the level of campaigning activity, the profile of the MP and the type of seat.

'Three key lessons for 2009'

Tories – not LibDems - are main threat to Labour

With the Conservatives second in 88 of Labour's 100 most marginal seats, against 21 for the LibDems. Labour can not expect either of its opponents to fight the same campaign next time - with the Tory party finally holding a serious inquest into three defeats, and many LibDem MPs fearing being stranded out left.

'Voters will demand that we speed up delivery'

Byrne shows that voters preferred a Labour to a Tory government by 52-35% and prefers Labour on the economy, health, education and anti-social behaviour. But voter satisfaction with Labour's progress on the economy (70%) is far higher than with progress on the NHS (44%), schools (34%), crime (30%) and immigration/asylum (16%). Byrne says that party will come under pressure to speed up reform.

'Radical reform' of Labour Party required

With local campaigning more important than ever, Byrne says that Labour's local organisation is "not up to the job" and needs 'radical reform'. Arguing that people have not given up on changing the world for the better, Byrne argues that "too few people who want to change their communities and their country see their local Labour Party as the platform on which to stand".