Immediately after June 9th I went round in a daze, feeling like an alien, not a citizen of this country at all. I half expected everybody to have turned bright blue, or to hear military music blasting out of unseen amplifiers. Now, oddly enough, after this initial period of alarm and despondency, I feel quite energized by what has happened. Partly because it should force the Left into taking a much longer-term view of British politics—to think more strategically and in longer time-spans. Partly because the situation we are in now could lay the basis for building a mass extra-parliamentary resistance movement. But neither of these are inevitable. There is a real danger that apathy will become even more deeply rooted in the labour movement and that the Left will fall back into habitual and defensive ways of thinking and acting. The general election at least helped to clarify the nature of the political crisis: it did not represent an outburst of authoritarian populism, though nonetheless Thatcher has managed to maintain a large measure of her support. But it did prove how profound Labour’s moral as well as political defeat has been.

It was a defeat determined by the convergence of a wide range of political processes: the compromising strategies of the Wilson/Callaghan era; the culmination of structural shifts in the composition of the postwar working class; the failure of the Labour Left to build a more substantial base of support for its policies. These processes may well be apparently contradictory, and doubtless different sections of the Labour Party will select whichever one most suits them in apportioning blame. If we are to think constructively about remaking socialism, using a language and framework of reference that makes sense to groups and generations formed in a completely different political cast to our own, then the Left—both inside and outside the Labour Party—can no longer react, seismographically, to political currents and processes. Nor can it hark back nostalgically to past moments, as if they supplied answers rather than providing a historical perspective; nor content itself with organizational gains won by tactical and bureaucratic manoeuvres in the Labour Party and trade unions.

The election campaign itself already has an unreal quality about it. Working in Leeds Northeast—Keith Joseph’s constituency—it seemed at first as if I was taking part in two separate events—canvassing on the streets of Chapeltown and watching the campaign on television. Leeds Northeast is a safe Tory seat, and is even safer since the boundary changes. It stretches from Chapeltown—a classic inner city area of high unemployment, some of the worst housing in England, and a large black and Asian population—to the edge of Harrogate, opulent gentleman-farmer country. Between are rundown fifties ribbon development council estates and leafy avenues of suburban semis. In the event Labour was pushed into third place by the sdp. Yet it was amazing how solid the Labour vote remained in working-class areas. This was partly accounted for by the famous older generation of Labour voters; I remember in particular a row of rundown back-to-backs, unaccountably left standing on the side of a dual carriage-way admist general devastation, each containing a tiny old lady, all but one Labour supporters. But the support also seemed to be strong amongst Asian families and amongst youth.

Gradually, however, the Labour Party’s hopeless national performance (which can’t be simply excused as a media conspiracy) inevitably drained meaning and conviction away from local campaigning. From a position which I think many shared—one of support, tempered by scepticism, for Labour—an acknowledgement that the Party had moved to the left, though only superficially; I found myself growing more and more furious, caught up in an ever more farcical performance in trying to convince people that they should actually vote for Foot as prime minister. ‘Yes, of course I’ll vote Labour, but they’ve cocked it up, haven’t they?’ remarked one man on a council estate, and there wasn’t much one could do except agree. This local experience certainly wasn’t typical of national trends, of even of my constituency as a whole. But I felt here even more than in hostile sdp country, how profoundly the Labour Party, with its shufflings and compromises, had patronized and underestimated its own potential support, and thus lost, not the election (which was virtually inevitable from the start), but a moral victory on which a new movement could have been built in the future.

What are the possible futures for socialists? It has already become clear that the Labour Party is unlikely to split. The stage has been set for a general move into the very-slightly-left-of-centre under Kinnock’s leadership. The far left in the Party will become increasingly marginalized; there will be less stress on internal organization, more on projecting a sleeker, more technologically and rhetorically adept image. This could have both positive and negative effects. It could mean that the Party will face up to its lack of anything but residual support. It may help to push it towards developing a more offensive strategy, stressing democratic control—reclaiming and transforming the monopoly that the Tories have successfully taken over the issues of productive work and ‘real jobs’ rather than the powerless ‘gizza job’ image of the working class that Labour projected during the campaign. One of the Labour Party’s more disastrous pieces of propaganda was that poster showing people being swept down a drain; disastrous not simply as a piece of media ‘manipulation’, but because it is both rhetorically and politically belittling to address people as passive victims, recipients of welfare. There is nothing inherently right-wing in people’s desire for self respect, for independence, for feeling that they are doing ‘productive work’, but looking at the election propaganda one would have thought so.