From the archive: Benn seeks a comeback

In early 1984, Tony Benn, who had lost his seat the previous year, sought a way back into parliament via the Chesterfield by-election. Peter Kellner, the New Statesman’s political editor at the time, went to Chesterfield to assess what was widely seen as a challenge from Labour’s left to Neil Kinnock’s leadership.

Victor Zorza, the Guardian’s Kremlin-watcher from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s was once asked to recall his worst misjudgement. “The Hungarian Uprising in 1956,” he replied; “I went to Budapest and was intoxicated by the atmosphere. I thought it would succeed. If I had stayed in London reading Pravda and Izvestia, I would have known it would fail.”

Judging a by-election presents much the same problem: visiting the place provides ample evidence of atmosphere, the anecdotal views of “real” voters, and the horrors of the media circus. It is possible to be right about what is happening, but easy to be wrong. Give me a computer printout from a well-conducted opinion poll any day.

After visiting Chesterfield this week, I confess to having no clear view on who will win. In so far as a trek round two traditional Labour-voting housing estates confirms and fleshes out recent poll figures, it seems clear that Labour has lost rather than gained support since the general election, and that the choice of Tony Benn as Labour’s candidate is the main reason. It is also clear that the Liberal, Max Payne, rather than the Conservative candidate, Nicholas Bourne, is the main beneficiary. So far the shifts in opinion are not enough to deny Benn victory. Beyond that I cannot predict; nor, in truth, can anyone else.

What a visit to the town does show is that if justice and the qualities of the candidates had anything to do with it, Tony Benn should coast to victory. Regular readers of this column will know that its admiration of Benn knows many bounds. But it is worth recording, since few other journalists are doing so, that Benn is running an honest and serious campaign; he never slings mud at the other candidates; he concentrates wholly on policies and political principles; he is careful with his facts; he is even more careful to sustain the image of party unity.

Benn speaks with passion to the cares and ideals of many Labour supporters. The reception he and Neil Kinnock received on Monday evening from an audience of 2,000 demonstrated that. Those 2,000 people, however, are not the electors of Chesterfield who matter most. Labour’s strategic problem, starting with this by-election, is to reassemble a broad enough coalition of electors to regain power. However honest and elevated Benn’s campaign is, it does not properly address itself to that task. Benn could win next week by securing 40 per cent of the vote. But 40 per cent in Chesterfield is equivalent to barely 20 per cent support for Labour nationally.

In the housing estates I toured with Labour canvassers I found no evidence that Benn’s campaign is reconverting Labour’s lost supporters. The problem seems most serious on the older miners’ estates where Benn, the left and Labour’s policy towards nuclear weapons are disliked in roughly equal measure.

Benn complains, and with some reason, about the way the media treats him. At a public meeting on Tuesday he said, “It’s a great tragedy in Britain that we don’t have a free press.” In fact, the media have not been viciously anti-Benn in this by-election. Press reporting has been poor rather than biased. In any case, it is a bad alibi to blame the media for a bad performance. And the overwhelming reason is that Benn’s elevated, honest and sincere campaign displays little recognition of the scale or nature of Labour’s massive electoral task.

[Further reading: The myth of John Smith the loser]