Miliband’s Progress speech was virtually ignored. That’s a worry.

Ed Miliband made a speech over the weekend that literally dozens of people will have read. More were there to see it live. I was one of the former. Opposition leaders make speeches. That’s what they do. That’s what they’re expected to do. Some get labelled as “keynote,” i.e. this is quite important and will probably form the direction of policy X so pay close attention. The leader’s address at Conference fills a few column inches for several days. Either we have a Prime Minister in waiting or it’s back to the drawing board. Saturday’s speech falls into the “strictly for diehards” category.

To sum it up: it wasn’t very good. That’s the charitable conclusion. Being brutally frank, it was actually pretty dire. Or maybe that’s the charitable conclusion. Speaking on Saturday, to the Blairite think-tank Progress (not exactly on home territory for Ed), Miliband said….something. To be honest, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what he said.

It was a hotchpotch of his responsible capitalism vision; the usual to be expected attacks on the government; listening to voters; learning lessons from New Labour – where we got things right, where we got them wrong –  more listening to voters; with sprinklings of One Nationism added for extra flavour.

One Nation: the slogan that just will not budge. Still being drummed home to death. We may have tired of it but we’re not going to forget it. The mark of a successful slogan? Not really. I still don’t understand what it means. Or more accurately, what we’re meant to do with it. Alone, it’s meaningless: Labour has broad appeal. It will unite the whole of Britain.

But, all parties profess to do this. Besides, One Nation fails the “elevator pitch:” able to be summarised in one elevator ride. Which isn’t 100% accurate as I’ve just summed it up in a sentence. Unfortunately, the summary alone is so vague it requires several more elevator rides. Heck, it might be easier just to get in one, hit the emergency alarm, and hope the rescue takes several hours.

I couldn’t help but feel I’d read/heard this speech several times before. Probably because it’s been delivered several times before. Ed’s Conference address last year (rightly hailed a triumph) has been regurgitated more times than should be humanly possible.

“One Nation is about everybody having opportunity and having a responsibility to play their part.”

Sounds very Big Society to me.

“A country that acknowledges the difficulties, accepts the anxieties, knows that times are going to be hard, but that is confident that change can come.

“A country that knows that we work best when we work together.”

See above.

“All the lessons of our history, from the industrial revolution to the post-war reconstruction, are that we need a recovery made by the many.”

This is David Cameron speaking.

The best parts of the speech were the references to the government’s failed economics. It wants to cut welfare, it wants to cut the deficit, but its actions on the latter will stop it properly achieving the former:

“For all their rhetoric about welfare reform, for all the cuts they’ve made, this government will be spending more on social security at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning.

“Not because they’re generous.

“But because they haven’t taken the action on the economy and they haven’t created the jobs we need to keep the social security bill down.”

This remains Labour’s best line of attack. Far from healing the economy, the coalition is harming it. Simple, concise and easy to preach.

My main problem with Saturday was that it could have been delivered by either Cameron or Clegg, bar the odd amendment here or there. There’s nothing in it that grabs you. Nothing stands out.

Take a step back. Imagine you were listening to it as a non-Labour member or swing voter. You’d be thinking something along the lines of: “yes, this is all very well and good, but you’re not giving me a convincing case for why should I vote Labour.”

Anthony Painter was probably right when he noted: “The problem with reviewing speeches is that you think they are better than they are if you are there and worse than they are if you are not.”

So, why does it matter that a speech given on a weekend and which barely featured in the media didn’t set the world alight? It matters for this very reason. Not every speech has to have that killer soundbite, but it should at least have one or two ideas that you take away and discuss.

Might it be that the media have also heard this speech several times before and have simply stopped listening? Because if this is the case, and they’ve already concluded that Ed Miliband has nothing new to offer, Labour’s legion of advisers and speechwriters should be very concerned indeed.

Fanciful though it sounds, the media and the public sometimes act as if UKIP are now the official opposition. Time to think of something new to say. And fast.


This article first appeared on Labour Uncut on Tuesday 14th May 2013

Only UKIP have reason to celebrate in Eastleigh

The last thing I wrote, for the online version of my local paper in Bristol, began something like this: “writers who make grand predictions risk looking like idiots...so here goes.” Such is the nature of political punditry, I was at it again, making mine on Wednesday, the night before polls opened in Eastleigh.

Lord Ashcroft’s poll on Monday, predicting a five-point win for the Lib Dems, with UKIP third on 21% (still 7 points behind the Tories), was enough to convince me that by the time people finished voting, UKIP would surge into second place (see here for my tweet predicting the result). And that they did. Increasing their share of the vote by an astonishing 24%. In 2010, UKIP recorded a mere 3.6%. Last night, this ballooned to almost 28%.

That UKIP are doing well shouldn’t surprise political anoraks (guilty) who’ve been studying the polls over the last year. They’ve regularly been beating the Liberals into third place, with support often into double-digits. Latest polls have them anywhere between 7 and 12%.

To capture 27.8% of the vote last night is a colossal achievement. Just don’t expect UKIP to be getting anywhere near this number come the next general election. By-elections can often produce freak results, with sitting governments punished. But, usually, it’s the opposition who benefits. Not that Labour were expected to challenge the top spot. I’ll come to their result later.

Why did UKIP do so well? And what does this mean for the Tories and the other parties?

Firstly, some people continue to point out that UKIP are a party of protest. Yes and no. We said the same about the Lib Dems not so long ago. Now, they’re in government. The odd crazy poll showing strong support might back this up. Not when UKIP are consistently doing well. Yes, because only the most deluded would expect UKIP to pick up 20 odd percent of the vote in 2015. They won’t. But, that doesn’t mean they won’t do well in carefully targeted seats, which must now be their strategy. A lack of resources means they’ll have to be picky, and last night’s performance should attract new investors.

UKIP’s incredible showing was a strike directly at David Cameron’s Conservatives. Whereas Cameron may have thought he’d won back disaffected, hardened Euro-sceptics, with the promise of an In/Out EU referendum, this wasn’t enough. Why? Two reasons. UKIP want one now. Not in the next parliament, where the chance of Cameron being PM again shrinks by the day. Cameron has offered a referendum, but wants Britain to remain in the EU. In other words, all three main parties will be campaigning to keep Britain in the EU. UKIP’s line couldn’t be clearer: we will take Britain out of the EU.

But, ironically, it’s not their stance on Europe that’s responsible for all these votes. In fact, polling consistently shows that for UKIP supporters, the EU doesn’t even make the top three in terms of its importance as an issue to them. The economy, immigration, crime and welfare come before Europe. Experts have found that:

“Their [UKIP] vote is driven more by concerns over immigration, disillusionment with the government and general unhappiness with modernity.”

In a bumper poll, carried out last December, Lord Ashcroft (yes, him again. His impact on British politics is only going to increase) and his team spoke to 20,000 UKIP, and potential UKIP, supporters. He found that policies were secondary to outlook. Those who are attracted to UKIP are:

“More preoccupied than most with immigration, and will occasionally complain about Britain’s contribution to the EU or the international aid budget. But these are often part of a greater dissatisfaction with the way they see things going in Britain: schools, they say, can’t hold nativity plays or harvest festivals anymore; you can’t fly a flag of St George anymore; you can’t call Christmas Christmas anymore...you won’t get social housing unless you’re an immigrant; you can’t speak up about these things because you’ll be called a racist; you can’t even smack your children”

“The mainstream political parties are so in thrall to the prevailing culture of political correctness that they have ceased to represent the silent majority.”

Sounds just like another party of the (very) right, whose support has plummeted in recent years.
In this respect, there’s not much the Conservatives could have done to stave this off. Their candidate held many views that wouldn’t look out of place in a UKIP manifesto. Even with a right wing choice, the Tories only managed to capture 25% of the vote. In one of their main target seats. One might argue that Maria Hutchings did badly because she was too right wing. But, it didn’t do UKIP any harm. It seems, for now at least, a large swathe of ex-Tories have settled on UKIP. It also assumes UKIP voters see themselves as naturally right wing. No doubt, many Labour voters also opted for UKIP in Eastleigh. The concerns expressed above can also be found amongst disillusioned Labour voters.

What should concern the Tories most is their share of the vote. A 14 point drop from 39% in 2010. YouGov’s latest puts the Tories, nationally, on just 29%. A Conservative majority in two year’s time looks further away than ever. A word about their candidate. Missing in action would be the best way to describe Maria Hutchings. The woman who refused to speak. To anyone!

What about Labour? If I was Ed Miliband this morning, I’d be pretty worried. This was way, way off, a target seat for Labour. That much we know. Scraping the barrel, a Labour spin doctor could point to its increase of its share of the vote. By 0.2%. Not exactly One Nation form. Whilst Labour never expected to win, it still hoped to be competitive. Instead, it couldn’t win over disaffected Tory voters, who flocked to UKIP. Much has been made of those angry and betrayed Lib Dems switching allegiance to Labour. Not if last night’s result is anything to go by. Like the Conservatives, the Lib Dems vote fell 14 points. Instead, not voting was preferable than plumping for Labour. It is these ex-Lib Dems that Labour desperately needs if it has any hope of securing a majority.

I liked John O’Farrell, Labour’s comic, writer, turned candidate. Refreshingly honest, not a party drone with over-rehearsed soundbites. But, Labour should have gone local. Issues centered around Eastleigh. To say, “I’m surprised how much of the literature from the Conservatives and Liberals has been about local authority issues…I’m not standing for the council. I’m standing for Westminster,” as O’ Farrell did last week, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the campaign that was being fought. As well as his admission that he wouldn’t move to the constituency, should he have won. Not clever politics.

So, why wasn’t last night a reason for celebration for the Liberals? Firstly, they now have a very vulnerable 1,771 majority. If you thought it was precarious, at under 4,000 before, then you were mistaken. I would imagine the Tories will target this seat with even more vigor in 2015. Complete with a far better candidate.

Secondly, to see your vote slip from 46% to 32% suggests much of your core support has abandoned you. It is worth noting that in recent elections, majorities have been slim in this constituency. You have to go back to the last by-election here, in 1994, to see a winning candidate leave with a handsome majority.

For Nick Clegg, I’d say the result doesn’t really alter his standing. He is still a liability for many of the party’s voters. Holding on to Eastleigh is more a victory for the Lib Dems’ formidable army of local activists than it is for the party leadership. They may feel relieved and satisfied this morning, but what this demonstrates, is the monumental task they’ll have in holding on to all their existing MPs, come the next election.

A final thought on UKIP. Had Nigel Farage chosen to stand, they could have gone all the way. Odds on, he’ll be his party’s candidate here in two year’s time.


This comment piece was first published on Speaker's Chair on Friday 1st March 2013

A Lib-Lab Coalition would require some sturdy nose pegs

This week, David Clark, editor of the fine centre-left blog, Shifting Grounds, and other signatories from the world of leftism, called on Labour to begin Lib/Lab negotiations. Or at the very least start to draw up a timetable, paving the way for a “progressive coalition” in 2015. I use the word progressive hesitantly.

There have been a number of opinion pieces written on this subject in recent months. The political realists appreciate the current mood. Another coalition, whilst not desirable, could well be on its way, so forging a plan, even reluctantly, is a necessary step. Others recoil from the very thought of one, and will hear nothing of compromise and deals being made with the Liberals.

I find myself being pulled in both directions. The sensible, tribal-averse part of me knows that Labour should be prepared for every eventuality. They may not have a choice. After the last election, it felt like the political landscape had somehow permanently altered. Hung parliaments may well be a constant fixture in the future. Between 1945-1970, Labour and the Tories won approximately 90% of the vote. In 2010, this had plummeted to 65%. The support of UKIP and “Others” continues to eat away at the big three. Proponents of pragmatism say, in short, better to be faced with Lib-Lab than Con-Dem Part II.

Nonetheless, the vengeful part of me wants nothing to do with the 57 men and women who have sat back and allowed the Tories to rule with impunity. Who have forgotten what being in coalition actually means. Clue: this isn’t it. Yes, there are some good things that have been enacted, partly down to Liberal pressure, but not everything falls under the banner of deficit reduction. See: NHS and welfare reform.

A consensus seems to be emerging, amongst us sceptical types anyway, that Labour’s double-digit lead in the polls is a soft one. The public still isn’t convinced Labour can be trusted to handle our finances. After a year of fluctuating polls, when it comes to being trusted to run the economy, Labour’s support has barely budged. Ed Miliband still trails his party in terms of popularity, whereas David Cameron remains his party’s greatest asset. An upturn in the economy, and he can almost certainly expect to benefit.

The political mainstream must shoulder the bulk of the blame for hung parliaments or threats thereof. Under Ed Miliband, Labour has started, at last, to sound and feel different from the Tories. The trouble is, many of his party’s differences are too nuanced for the public to understand. And Labour’s stance on welfare isn’t backed by public opinion. Instead, fringe groups (the nuttier the better) fill the ideological vacuum.

It does seem strange to talk about future coalitions when current projections forecast a handsome Labour majority. But, politics has never felt more unpredictable. Second-guessing the electorate is fraught with problems. Labour continues to profit from disaffected and angry Lib Dems, and yet their support can’t be taken for granted. Will all those who claim to have been betrayed by Nick Clegg et al. really turn out and put a cross next to a Labour candidate at election day, or will they chose not to bother voting at all? Instinct tells me the latter is more likely, especially as many of these Lib Dem voters were disillusioned Labour ones in the first place.

Relying on UKIP to aid Labour by unseating Tory candidates is also a massive gamble. Again, this assumes ex-Tories will abandon their party when they need them most. It’s one thing someone saying they’ll vote UKIP, whilst still safely two and a half years from a general election. It’s quite another actually doing so. It would surely be an electoral miracle if UKIP polled anything close to their current showing, which sees them at an all-time high of 16%. Too many what ifs and maybes.

So I may not like it, and many like me may not like it, but not even entertaining the idea of a Lib-Lab partnership would be reckless in the extreme.

 

This comment piece was first published by Speaker's Chair on Sunday 13th January 2013

Labour must be ready for a Tory onslaught

Labour beware. The Tory high command are poised to unleash the attack dogs. The party has been given a free ride these past few months, coasting on the back of its double digit lead in the polls, a government forever on the defensive, and gobby backbenchers on the Tory Right doing their best to nibble away at David Cameron’s authority.

But the Tories are now ready to pounce and hone in on their number one target: Ed Miliband. So says Tim Montgomerie, the indispensable voice of the Tory grassroots, in his column for The Times this week. When the onslaught will come is uncertain, but when it does Labour needs to be ready and prepared with its own fight back.

According to Montgomerie the one thing that has kept Cameron and his aides going is their belief that in Miliband they have found their whipping boy. And not just Miliband but other members of the Shadow Cabinet too. Whenever there are concerns about the state of the economy, worries about defections to UKIP, the top brass reassure themselves they’ll always have Ed Miliband.

Montgomerie notes that party strategists have been using this time for information gathering:

“While until this moment the Tory guns have been silent, Tory operators have not been idle. They have been carefully researching Labour’s weaknesses. Lessons have been learnt from the 1996 and 1997 period when the Conservative Party never settled on a consistent critique of Tony Blair. There’ll be no return to the counter-productive demon eyes campaign. There will just be three endlessly repeated messages and they’ll be delivered whenever possible by trusted surrogates.”

Picking out Labour’s opposition to the government’s deficit reduction strategy remains high up on a list, along with their stance against caps on benefits and immigration, something Labour must know leaves them trailing public opinion on.

But the real prize remains the Labour leader. Whilst the party lingers around 40 odd percent in the polls, the public’s view of Miliband on the critical qualities of being ‘decisive,’ ‘strong,’ and ‘a natural leader,’ remains obdurately poor. Expect this to be exploited in the coming months. And yet for a sitting PM Cameron’s own ratings are hardly much to write home about. His descent has been rapid and dramatic.

It is also worth mentioning that Miliband scores well when it comes to being seen as on the side of ordinary people. Four times more so than Cameron. A PM also has an obvious advantage and the scope to display the traits that he beats the Labour leader on. When it’s mattered, Miliband has taken aim and put the government on the back foot on many of the big issues of the last 12 months.

So, how should Labour respond? At this stage, fixing the public’s attention on policy might be its best bet. The NHS must take centre stage. The effects of this year’s Health and Social Care Bill are yet to be felt. When they are, Labour must be ready to act. Of all Labour’s proudest achievements in office the huge improvements in the NHS stand out.

No law is irreversible, but Labour must spend time spelling out just how these changes will alter the NHS as we know it, and why it aims to reverse them should it retake power. The NHS is a beloved, cherished, institution which unites people of all political stripes. If the public see in practice what opponents have warned about, a full on backlash could carry Labour all the way to 2015.

Polling over the last year or so has given off a confusing picture. Labour leads, but not by nearly enough. Miliband isn’t seen as prime ministerial and yet the figures show he may well become PM. Are the public convinced by Labour or just not overly enamoured with the Tories? Something tells me that there are still a significant number of people ready to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt. Even disgruntled right wingers in his own party. Better to moan in power than in opposition. Remember, all it takes is a big crisis or incident, whether at home or abroad, and a commanding response, for the PM’s ratings to shoot up again.

I’m guessing those Tory schemers know this, which is why they will be praying for a rejuvenated Cameron, ready to fight the next election, and why Labour won’t be too upset if things remain as they are.  

 

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 18th September 2012

Latest mega Tory poll: Cameron still their best asset

When Lord Ashcroft speaks, the political right listens. The last few years have seen the release of three meaty publications. In 2010 he gave us his Minority Verdict, a look into the reasons why the Conservatives had failed to secure an outright majority. In it, he gives his blessing to the coalition and argues that the party had put the country first in agreeing to govern with the Lib Dems. At the time, the country needed stability. He also asked Tories to consider the context:

“The elections of 2005, 2001 and 1997 produced, in descending order, the Conservative Party’s three worst ever results. The Conservatives had never before managed to return to government from a position as weak as the one they faced in 2010.”

The gist was that rather than just seeking to discredit Labour’s record, failing to make immigration and crime key electoral issues, the Tories lost (or failed to win outright) because the public never truly grasped what they were about. They wanted change, but were confused as to what type of change the Tories were offering.

In Project Blueprint: Winning a Conservative majority in 2015, out last May, he gave his now infamous warning that:

“...while the Conservatives struggle to piece together two fifths of the electorate, Labour’s core support plus left-leaning former Lib Dems could theoretically give Ed Miliband close to 40 per cent of the vote without needing to get out of bed.”

With Labour now regularly polling above 40% this is becoming more of a distinct possibility. The verdict of the 10,000 people he sought provided some worrying news for the Conservatives.  Whilst nine of ten of those who voted Tory in 2010 were largely satisfied with how things were going, believing the right decisions being made, recognising the need for compromise in a coalition, it was the first time Tory voters who were most likely to grumble. Almost half said their view of the party had changed for the worse, with a large number not too keen to see a Conservative majority at the next election, with only a small majority pledging the party their support in 2015.

Last week saw Project Blueprint Phase 3: The quest for a Conservative majority. As with his previous publications, its findings will provide food for thought for the strategists at Tory HQ. The size of the samples, 8,000 on this occasion, mean these reports need to be taken seriously.

Lord Ashcroft identifies those whom he calls the ‘Conservative Universe’ (terrifying thought, I know): the Loyalists (the over 65s disproportionately fall into this category), Joiners (most voted Lib Dems in 2010, but have been impressed by Cameron and Osborne’s handling of the economy, many would vote Tory at the next election), Defectors and Considerers (more likely to vote Lib Dem, favour a coalition over a Tory majority). Winning the support of all four groups may well win David Cameron his much prized overall majority. In theory at least.

It’s the ‘Defectors’ who should be giving the Tories most concern:

“One third of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say they would not do so again tomorrow. Two fifths of these say they do not know how they would vote in an election tomorrow, and most of this group feel the Conservative Party is not on the side of people like them. Around three in ten say they would vote UKIP. “

The one thing that unites all four groups is their view that Cameron/Obsorne are better trusted to run the economy than Miliband/Balls. Most support the austerity programme but are sceptical as to what it has achieved in practice.

The government’s propensity for u-turning has been greeted with some suspicion:

“For a government to change its mind was not a bad thing in principle, and could be a sign that it was listening. However, the number of reversals suggested to people that policies were not being thought through properly”

As he has been since he took over, David Cameron is still the reason Tories and Tory considerers have stuck by the party. Despite George Osborne’s reputation taking a nosedive in recent months, Cameron is the glue that binds the loyalists and waverers together.

When asked whom they thought would make the best Prime Minister, all four groups plumped for Cameron by some distance. It’s hardly surprising to read 97% of ‘Loyalists’ and 91% of ‘Joiners,’ saying this, but the 69% figure from both ‘Considerers’ and ‘Defectors’ should trouble Ed Miliband. Only 21% of ‘Defectors’ and 12% of ‘Considerers’ – the kind of people Labour should be targeting – opted for Ed.

If David Cameron is still seen as an asset to his party, according to Lord Ashcroft’s poll, the same can’t be said for Ed Miliband. When asked whether they were more favourable towards David Cameron or the Conservative Party, and to either Ed Miliband or the Labour Party, the results are quite stark. Amongst all responders (i.e. excluding the ‘Conservative Universe’), the results are close: 19% are more favourable towards the PM than his party, 21% the other way round. Damningly, only 9% are more favourable towards Ed than the Labour Party, but this rises to 41% when the question is reversed.

For ‘Considerers’ the figures read: 39% versus 23%, and 15% versus 47% for the ‘Defectors.’ When applied to Ed and Labour, only 5% of ‘Considerers’ prefer him to his party, with 47% the reverse. For ‘Defectors,’ 8% and 29%, respectively. As previous polls have shown, and continue to show, the Labour Party remains far more popular than its leader.

Even though this study aims to look at the viability of a Conservative majority in three years time, there is plenty for Labour to ponder. The knocks the Tories have taken in recent months haven’t done too much damage to David Cameron’s standing. Whilst he seems to be on the attack from the right on issues such as Europe and House of Lords reform, he can take comfort from the fact that on the Tory frontbench only William Hague, who maintains he wouldn’t want to be party leader again, comes close to matching his popularity. Overall, Boris Johnson remains, head and shoulders, the most popular Tory. For now, he is safely ensconced in London. For now.  


This article was first published by Speaker's Chair on Monday 23rd July 2012

Labour's biggest risk: renationalising the railways

Back at the beginning of April, with Labour starting to make some headway in the polls, I wrote a piece for LabourList entitled “7 Steps to Re-election.” I drew up a list of possible, some slightly tongue-in-cheek, policy ideas that could catapult the party into power. The need to take the odd risk, get a bit radical, was uppermost in my mind. Among them a personal favourite: renationalising the railways.

Predictably, this drew derision from the comments section - some wondering whether this was a belated April Fools - and Twittersphere. You can always rely on fellow Labour folk for support!

And then last weekend, when doing my own Sunday paper review online, I stumbled across this gem in The Observer, and the headline: “Labour backs calls to return railway network to public control.” According to the paper:

“Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its policy review.”

This comes off the back of a detailed report released this week by the Transport for Quality of Life think tank, and its publication, Rebuilding Rail; a union funded report, although its authors maintain that their research is thorough and wide-ranging.

The report claims that over a billion pounds a year could be saved if the railways came back under full public control. The current system of privatised railways is:

“failing society, the economy and the environment, whilst draining taxpayers’ money into the pockets of private shareholders. Common sense and expert railway knowledge have ceded to a misguided private-must-be best ethos, leaving Britain with a fragmented dysfunctional railway system that other countries view with disbelief.”

The biggest myth surrounding privatising is that our system was ever truly privatised. Taxpayers have gone from forking out £2.4bn pre-privatisation (the period 1990/1-1994/5), to around £5.4bn post-privatisation (2005/6-2009/10). Renationalising the railways could see users benefit from an 18% reduction in their fares.

At present, Britain’s commuters pay far more than their European counterparts (four times more in some cases), and are continuously faced with a baffling and convoluted ticket price structure, which, despite assurances, never seems to get any simpler.

The report notes that throughout Europe between 80% and 100% of passenger train services are run by the public sector.

Labour’s Shadow Transport Secretary, Maria Eagle, welcomed many of its findings and recommendations, and said the party was keeping an open mind:

"Labour's policy review is looking at all options to make our railways work better for passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be extended to rail services."

According to Stephen Joseph, chief executive of Campaign for Better Transport, transport could well play a part in deciding the outcome of the next general election. He points out that a key number of marginal constituencies in outer London and the south-east are stuck in commuter belt territory. Every fare rise hits families hard, eating into the wage packet.

Whilst passengers get treated like fools, the bosses of Network Rail reward themselves handsomely with bonuses of £1.7m, despite missing many punctuality targets last year.

I have long wondered why political parties are so reluctant to make transport an election issue, considering how many people rely on buses and trains. Inevitably, the economy will take centre stage, with the NHS following closely behind, but Labour will be missing a rather large trick if it doesn’t seek to use the trains as a potential voter winner. Surveys consistently show the public rejecting private ownership.

It could start off by distancing itself from the flawed HS2 project, which may well be dead in the water come 2015, anyway. If £58bn can be found for such a misguided and poorly thought out scheme, surely something which saves taxpayers money should be in the offing? A commitment to renationalising our railways would be Ed Miliband’s riskiest and boldest move yet. But, it could also be his most rewarding.


This article was first published by Speaker's Chair on Thursday 5th July 2012

The Left, English identity, and voting conservative

Two things caught my eye last week: Ed Miliband’s speech on Englishness, and a comment piece in The Guardian explaining why the working class vote conservative. Both are connected.

Last Thursday, Miliband put the left on nervy terrain by using the Queen’s diamond jubilee to talk about English identity. Perhaps not the best occasion, considering this was a celebration of a British, not English, monarch, with all of Britain decked out in Union Flags, and stirrings of British pride coming to the surface.

Yet with the fight for Scottish independence now under way, Miliband banked on this being the perfect time to speak up for those south of the border, increasingly calling for their own distinct voice.  As he rightly pointed out:

“...this debate about nationhood and identity should not simply be confined to one part of our country.”

He went on to talk about the left’s uneasiness in addressing this issue:

“We in the Labour Party have been too reluctant to talk about England in recent years. We've concentrated on shaping a new politics for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

“We should embrace a positive, outward looking version of English identity.
Finally, we should also proudly talk the language of patriotism.”

This shouldn’t be difficult to talk about, but for a number of reasons the left has tied itself up in knots trying to (not) deal with it. On identity, it has mistakenly sought to (over)intellectualise, where the right have effortlessly made overtures to the non-quantifiables; human instincts, such as loyalty and patriotism.

For too long, the left’s hesitance, its half-hearted commitment , partly borne out of a never-ending battle with Empire guilt, and partly down to not wanting to give oxygen to the far right (which we ended up doing anyway), has allowed the right to colonise (so to speak)  this issue.

Whether exaggerated or not (in particular, in the early days of New Labour), every time someone felt they were being denied the right to fly the St George’s cross (a story always gleefully picked up by the right wing press), or express their love for being English, simply nudged them further to the right, and into the arms of the less desirables. Usually, but certainly not exclusively, the case for working class Labour voters.

Which brings me on to Jonathan Haidt’s column in The Guardian about the way the working class vote. Author of the recently published The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, he uses this comment piece to explain why the political right (from all over the world) have managed to cleverly convince blue-collar voters to ally themselves with them, even when it appears to be against their own interests.

For Haidt, this represents a victory for the right in its appeal to heart over head. Whilst the left monopolises care, compassion and welfare, the right have gone straight for the gut. For them, politics is all about:

“...a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies. In most countries, the right tends to see that more clearly than the left.”

In some respects, the right have (over) simplified politics. There’s no need for detailed explanation when you have symbols and powerful rhetoric, steeped in a sense of morality:

“One reason the left has such difficulty forging a lasting connection with voters is that the right has a built-in advantage – conservatives have a broader moral palate than the liberals (as we call leftists in the US).”

The right are comfortable enough to weigh in on cultural issues, such as identity, with the left playing catch up.

Whilst national identity isn’t as much of an issue on the other side of the Atlantic (proving your patriotism is par for the course for any American politician), it seems to be in constant flux over here. This is no doubt due to historical and cultural reasons more than anything else, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid concern for some.

Economic uncertainty, spending cuts, downsizing the welfare state, which Labour admits it would have had to do (at some point) itself, mean less tangible issues come to the fore.

People are scared, they feel vulnerable. They want a sense of unified purpose, a feeling of belonging. This is why Ed Miliband has chosen to tackle English identity a full three years before the general election. He knows that the left is more trusted on the NHS, and in looking after society’s most needy, but the fact that 4-5 million working class voters have abandoned the party since 1997, proves that this isn’t enough.

A rediscovery of its conservatism – family, order and community - as articulated by one commentator; ‘rescuing conservatism from the conservatives’, according to another:

“…many people harbour deeply conservative views on matters of value, but not on matters of justice – [this] represents both an intellectual challenge, and a political opportunity, for left-wing parties.”

Speaking up for an English identity should form part of Labour’s new conservative narrative. You can do all this whilst also standing up for a strong, nurturing, state. In the words of one writer, time for a “nostalgia of the left, based on community, social solidarity and public service.”


This article was first published by Left Foot Forward on Saturday 16th June 2012

Where does Labour now stand on civil liberties?

A firm and unequivocal commitment to standing up for civil liberties will not win Labour the next election. But, they should make one anyway.

If there’s one issue which the party badly lost its way on, it was this one. Too quick to kowtow to a hysterical and unforgiving right wing press, the party passed a whole series of regressive and disproportionate pieces of legislation, mostly in the fight against terrorism. In some cases, laws which were pitched as necessary counter-terror measures soon became hijacked by nosey and over-zealous councils.

Last week’s fascinating study by the Fabian Society brought to focus Labour’s new-found appeal to ex-Lib Dems. Three-quarters of ‘Ed’s converts’ hail from the coalition’s junior partner, apparently more left-wing than either Labour or Lib Dem voters from 2010.

In order not to squander this support, Labour should dangle a civil liberties promise under their noses. This means moving beyond Ed Balls’ admission that the party skewed the balance between liberty and security. It is after all still a bread and butter issue for Lib Dems, something which unites and galvanises many of its members and MPs.

The dilemma Labour has is that whilst it flirts with its new allies, it still needs to speak to its traditional, working class base. According to Andrew Harrop this could define the party’s strategy for the next three years:

“Labour still has a long way to go to develop ideas and language that appeal both to lower income communities and left liberal voters, who now make up two distinct ‘core’ constituencies for the party. These blocs can be brought together on economic issues, but Miliband faces a real challenge in defining a social agenda that motivates both blue-collar voters and social liberals.”

In other words, the party could find itself pulled in two directions.

Let’s be clear, safeguarding civil liberties will capture few headlines. It’s not one of the public’s most pressing concerns. One could argue that it’s merely an issue for the chattering classes. It’s more about perception, but perception is everything in politics. Unfortunately, in almost every poll, the public have sided with laws which trample on civil liberties in exchange for assurances over their safety.

The debate in favour of protecting the public has been skilfully, but simplistically, framed in terms of those who are ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ on terror. The battle to be crowned ‘the party of law and order’ never ends. The moment the Tories get a sniff that Labour is starting to speak the language of the ‘appeaser,’ the right wing attack dogs will be unleashed, painting Ed Miliband as someone who’s more concerned with the human rights of terror suspects than the rights of terrorism’s victims.

It is therefore vital that the party lead from the front, taking the fight to the government. In opposition, the Conservatives pledged to turn the tide back towards liberty, and published a pamphlet, Reversing the Rise of the Surveillance State, where they vowed to take an axe to  the UK’s ‘mammoth databases’ and the excessive details it stores :

“A Conservative government will take a fundamentally different approach. We believe that your personal information belongs to you, not the state.”

Except, a couple of months ago, ‘Snooper’s Charter’ entered the political lexicon to decry government plans to track everyone’s email, text, Facebook and internet use. It was left to groups such as Liberty and Big Brother Watch to lead the charge against these proposals. The response from the opposition bench was muted at best, perhaps still conscious of the fact that the previous Labour government failed to cover itself in glory on this very issue. In fact, if it sounded like something they would have introduced themselves, that’s probably because it was.

Comfort should be taken from Ed Miliband’s leadership victory speech and his remark that Labour had appeared "casual" about civil liberties, professing that he wouldn’t let the Tories or Lib Dems "take ownership of the British tradition of liberty". Two years on, there may still be a feeling within the party that they are standing on dodgy ground, unable yet to convincingly oppose such ideas.

If this isn’t something which resonates with the public, why waste time pursuing it? Because it goes to the very essence of what it means to be a liberal. And because many of these liberals have decamped over to Labour and should be rewarded. Where Andrew Harrop’s research comes unstuck is in his assertion that a large proportion of ‘Ed’s converts’ have permanently settled:

“Intuitively this stands to reason, since a largely left-leaning group has few other places to turn.”

Taking any voters for granted, least of all swing ones, is fraught with danger. Many could decide that staying at home is preferable to voting for either party. An unambiguous, genuine, commitment to undo some of the harm of the past should be enough to satisfy new friends.

It’s also the right thing to do. Ed Miliband has already demonstrated that he’s not afraid to take on certain sections of the press. He’ll need plenty of ammo if he is to win this latest battle. But first he needs to convince the liberal left that he’s also on their side.

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 22 May 2012

Return of the New Labour Big Beasts

Just when he thought it was safe to oppose alone, carving out his own narrative and winning over exiled lefties, along comes some unexpected cheerleaders. The New Labour crew have returned, piggybacking on Ed Miliband’s (or more accurately, Labour’s) recent surge in the polls.

Fresh from spreading pearls of wisdom in the Middle East, uniting the world’s faiths, and advising dictators on economic and political reform, Tony Blair has joined Lord Mandelson in rallying round the Labour leader. Or so it seems.

According to a scoop back in March, The Sun revealed that Miliband and Blair had been in secret talks about strategy and the need for the party to be ‘at the centre ground of British politics.’

Now he’s popped up again, with his chum Mandelson by his side, with yesterday’s Financial Times (£) headline: “Blair to back Labour’s economic strategy.” The paper stated that:

“Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson are to add their weight to Labour’s calls for a renewed emphasis on growth in a sign that the big beasts of the New Labour era are returning to the cause to help make the party’s case on the economy.”

No doubt Ed will feel emboldened by this soon to be very public backing of his and Ed Balls’ ‘too far, too fast’ mantra.

The question that the party faithful will be asking is whether a New Labour intervention strengthens, weakens, or even undermines Ed Miliband’s standing.

If his main line of attack on the government receives the thumbs up from one of the party’s most successful double acts, then this surely shows that he is on the right track, knows what he’s doing, and most crucially for the voters, is economically competent.

Yet, it may also weaken him. Ed has declared, from the moment he took over, that New Labour’s time has passed, with a new generation waiting in the wings. The insular and destructive Blairite-Brownite feuds have been consigned to history. Will they now be re-opened? An acknowledgement of some past mistakes has been made, time to look forward. This drags Labour back.

It has been argued that Ed must be his own person and ‘take on the Blairite zombies:’

“The Labour leader has been successful when he's been bold: standing for leader, opposing Murdoch, making the case for a new economic model.

“As long as he is threatened internally, he will look weak. So he needs to pick a fight with a leading Blairite and win – to show who is in charge.”

But, Blair’s foray into front line British politics is intended to back Ed. The question is what comes next. If Tony Blair does make a full-time return, as some have speculated, there could be many more Blairist incursions to come. And you can bet they won’t all be as glowing.

In terms of undermining Ed Miliband, Blair’s presence will act as a constant reminder (to himself, the party, and the public) as to the size of the shoes that need filling. The stature and gravitas of the two men will invite endless comparisons.

However, there is a feeling that Blair is yesterday’s man, no longer the powerful force he once was. A recent poll found that only 24% of people would be more likely to vote Labour if he, rather than Ed, was leader, with 40% less likely. Amongst Labour voters in 2010, the figures were roughly reversed, with 40% more, and 21% less likely. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

The likely outcome of all this is that Ed Miliband will have to do even more to show that he is his own person, be enthused and delighted for the cameras for any support that comes his way, but privately hope that the New Labour entourage give him a wide berth and sticks to self-promotion and after dinner speeches.


This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Wednesday 16 May 2012

Will Being Labour Be Enough?

Whilst latest polls make encouraging news for Labour - last week gave them their biggest lead over the Tories since 2007 - things aren't quite as rosy for leader, Ed Miliband.

The consensus, especially amongst Labour lefties (such as myself), is that he's doing a pretty good job, putting David Cameron on the back foot on a number of issues.

Those calling for a break from the New Labour/Blairite era have certainly been rewarded.

But, whilst this warms the hearts of left wingers, the public haven't responded in kind. His personal ratings trail well behind those of his party's.

On the question on how he's performing, only 22% think he's doing well, compared to 66% who think he's doing badly.

David Cameron's are hardly wonderful: 34% against 60%, but still a significant 18 points better than Miliband's.

In terms of who'd make the best Prime Minister, Cameron outscores Miliband by 11 points: 30% versus 19%.

Another figure that should concern is that regarding economic competence.

A Guardian/ICM poll published just before last month's budget showed 42% of the public trusted Cameron and George Osborne to manage the economy, whereas only 25% said the same for Miliband and Ed Balls.

I'm sure those figures are likely to have changed a bit after the government's awful handling of the budget, still making headlines one month after it was delivered.

Not for the first time, it'll be the state of the economy where the next election is ultimately going to be won and lost. The public need to know that they can place their faith in Labour's big two.

Interestingly, on its piece about the French presidential election, The Economist reveals that the favourite, Socialist Francois Hollande, fares worse than Nicolas Sarkozy on a number of traits associated with leadership:

"[Sarkozy] scores better for having “the authority of a head of state” (54%, next to 23% for Mr Hollande), for being “capable of taking difficult decisions” (49 to 23%) and for being “capable of taking the right decisions faced with the current economic and financial crisis” (41 to 27%)."

And yet Hollande is expected to win convincingly in the second round of voting in two weeks time.

Maybe Ed shouldn't worry too much about his approval ratings, then.


This comment piece was first published by Speaker's Chair on Tuesday 24 April 2012

Ed's Doing Just Fine

There’s nothing the media crave more than a fall guy. Someone to sink their teeth into, ripping reputations to shreds. Character assassination is more the tabloid style.

A lot of snide and derogatory comments have come the way of Ed Miliband, many since the very day he became Labour leader.

And yet, slowly but surely, he’s started to grow in stature. He’s begun to find his voice and his line of attack.

Bradford-West by-election aside, it’s been a good few months for Ed.

It takes some courage standing up to the Murdoch empire, something previous leaders avoided like the plague.

Leading the charge against its concentration of power in the UK has won Ed plaudits across the political divide. You can imagine the pundits remarking: “I never thought he had it in him.”

His calls for a more ‘responsible capitalism’, as opposed to our ‘predatory’ one, struck a chord, and tapped into the “we’re definitely not all in this together” mood.

He has become a more than able performer at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) – not that the public notice or care for PMQs: a spectacle savoured only by political anoraks and Westminster hacks.

Last month’s budget was a gift to the opposition. The budget that keeps on giving:

“...probably the most bungled in history, fiscally neutral yet politically incendiary,” as Polly Toynbee put it.

The government has been on the defensive ever since.

Alongside Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, the cutting the deficit ‘too far, too fast’ mantra is being vindicated by our low growth, jobless recovery.

An often cited criticism of Ed Miliband is that he comes across as socially awkward, and a bit weird.

But, it’s in hustings, one to ones with the public, that he seems to shine.

At a recent Labour party event he was praised for the way he engaged with his audience, both ‘emotionally and intellectually’, addressing those who asked questions by their first name. In contrast to David Cameron’s ‘polished’ but ‘slightly distant,’ act:

“[He] gave [party members] a reminder of why he made such an impression in the 2010 leadership...Miliband would never have won in 2010 without his strong performance at Labour party hustings across the country.”

Labour’s slogan for May’s local elections, “with you in tough times,” is a simple yet effective way of drawing voters’ attention to a party which is caring and in touch with their concerns, rather than the false compassion offered up by the Conservatives.

It’s worth noting that Ed Miliband inherited a battered and bruised party, but not a broken one.

2010’s general election gave Labour its second worst showing at the polls since 1918. Its share of the vote down 6.2% to 29%; a loss of 94 seats, leaving it with 258 MPs.

Yet, this was only 49 seats behind the Tories. A crushing defeat, but one would have expected far worse for a party led by such a deeply unpopular Prime Minister.

In short, Ed has had something to work with.

A lot of new and fresh faces have joined the party; some have already found their way onto the shadow cabinet benches.

If we look at the electoral arithmetic things look fairly bright.

According to analysis carried out by Lord Ashcroft, the former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, the Tories require more than 40% of the the vote just to win an outright majority at the next general election.

They also need to secure a lead of around 7.5% over Labour.

“...while the Conservatives struggle to piece together two fifths of the electorate, Labour’s core support plus left-leaning former Lib Dems could theoretically give Ed Miliband close to 40 per cent of the vote without needing to get out of bed.”

More heartening for the Labour leader is that despite the PM’s best efforts, the Tory brand remains as toxic as ever.

A recent YouGov poll found that 42% of people would never vote Tory, compared to 30% for Labour.

Even more worrying for David Cameron, as Mehdi Hasan points out, is that:

“Not since 1974 has an incumbent prime minister pushed up his party's share of the vote.”

Not even Thatcher or Blair managed it.

Whatever is said about Ed Miliband, Labour’s share of the vote has held up well, and is currently at its highest level since the 2010 general election, with a lead of anything between 9 and 11%.

Not bad for a leader whose own ratings don’t measure up quite as well.

As leading psephologist, John Curtice of Strathclyde University, notes:

“It took the Tories several years, basically until Cameron came along [in 2005], to look electorally competitive, [but, in 2010] Labour got competitive again within a matter of months".

Exposing the incompetent and amateurish nature of this government hasn’t been too difficult.

Over the next three years, Ed Miliband’s challenge will be to draw up a set of distinct, brave, centre-left policies, with a splash of populism thrown in, whilst trying to claw back some of the 4 million working class voters lost since 1997.

This looks like a one term government. Time to unite the left.


This article was first published by Speaker's Chair on Sunday 22 April 2012