There has been a definite change in tone since Ed Miliband brought Bob Roberts (L) and Tom Baldwin (R) onto his staff. One of the most visible changes has been the decision to switch from using the word 'coalition' and replace it with the new phrase 'Tory-led government'. This is designed to shift the focus from the coalition's 'alliance in the national interest' and onto the fact that this Government has a Tory majority and that they are responsible for its policies.
Ironically, this is also the new policy of many Tory backbenchers. As I have mentioned before, they are concerned that any popular policy the coalition proposes is credited to the Lib Dems, in order to improve their image, prop up their poll ratings and in turn reinforce the coalition. So it seems that despite the dawning of an age of 'new politics' and coalition, our democracy is still based on two main parties looking to marginalise the Liberal Democrats. How reassuring.
Ed Miliband wrote an article in the Times today that demonstrates perfectly why Labour do not yet scare the coalition. He started by saying that "In their politically motivated desire to propagate a myth about the last Labour Government, they [the Tories] are ignoring the real lessons of the global financial crisis."
Miliband goes on to say that the Conservatives' "deceit is that the deficit was caused by chronic overspending rather than a global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues."
Ah! I see. So chronic overspending wasn't an issue or didn't exist. Obviously the answer to the current situation is not to cut spending but to stimulate the economy in order to get tax income back to pre-crash levels, right?
Erm, no. "The real debate is not about whether or not to cut the deficit: Labour has been clear that we need to reduce borrowing from levels that are far too high." Oh, so there is a problem with the amount of money that the Government spends? Now I'm confused.
Ed Miliband is trying to have it both ways. He wants to say that the cuts are bad. But he also knows what this graph (above) from the Spectator shows: that Labour spent more than it received every year after 2002. And so he wants to show that he understands the need for cuts to be made, because apparently voters like that. So he ends up in the middle, opposing Conservative cuts while arguing that cuts need to be made.
This is cowardice. It's understandable, but it's still cowardice. It also makes his allegations that the Tories are being politically motivated in their policies totally hollow and hypocritical.
One of the things I admire about this coalition is that it has an aggressive policy to fix the economy that it believes in and that it is seeing through to completion. It is leading public opinion. That takes guts and confidence. Labour is hedging its bets, waiting to see what the public thinks. So Miliband calls the coalition strategy a gamble, and says he "hopes it pays off" but believes it's "an extreme approach.... Mr Osborne is going too far and too fast on the deficit."
He can't have it both ways. And, frankly, he shouldn't be trying to. He'll get no credit in 2015 if he once said that the coalition strategy might work. He should go with his gut and genuinely promote an alternative strategy. What would he do if he was in power? If he wouldn't cut then he should say so. Because if he does believe Osborne's got it wrong then by having a clear and 'less painful' alternative he'll be giving himself a chance to be the leader who has it right in 2015.
Labour members should be concerned by articles like these. These nuanced policies reflect a short-termism that belies a lack of faith in their own economic arguments: If they're not certain that the Tories will get it wrong then they're not certain that their policies will get it right.
As a final point, I can't help but feel that having someone like Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper in the Shadow Treasury role would give Labour's economic policies a lot more purchase. The media would certainly listen more attentively than it does to Johnson.
John Redwood has used a blog post today to highlight a problem that I've mentioned before: that the Conservatives are allowing the Lib Dems to portray all the positive coalition actions as stemming from their influence. Redwood calls this trend a 'new narrative' and, claiming that the notion that the Lib Dems have come into Government to 'bridle the instincts of Conservatives' is wrong, and he goes on to list policies - like the pupil premium - that should be credited to the Tories.
The problem is that the Lib Dems are struggling in the polls. To counter this they are trying to get credit for policies that will get good press, and the Conservatives are letting them do it. It is a good policy for the Lib Dems, because it's a narrative that is easily understood by the public. The Conservatives probably think that it's a short-term piece of political expediency for the sake of the coalition, but it could have dangerous long-term repercussions for the Tories.
Come 2015 the Conservatives will have problems if the Lib Dems can claim that every good bit of legislation was down to their influence, holding the nasty Tories at bay. But while this issue is easy to identify, it is much more difficult to resolve. The coalition will come under stress in 2011. And 2012. And 2013, 2014 and 2015. It will prove very tempting at a number of points throughout the life this Parliament to allow the Lib Dems to claim that they are a moderating influence on tough Tory policies so that they can try and improve their poll ratings. There is no period when things will get easy for this Government.
But Conservatives do not need to be that worried. The deficit reduction plan is their idea and, if it works, they should be able to make it clear at an election that Britain's prosperity is down to them. This should count for more with the electorate than the Lib Dems' suggestion that some social policies are a little different because of their influence.
One of the most important points made at the Tory Reform Group (TRG) conference on Saturday was the need for the Conservatives to ensure that they get the credit for the government's liberal and progressive policies. The simplistic view that has arisen, in part because the Lib Dems have promoted it, is that the work of the Conservatives to cut the deficit, reform the health service and the education and welfare systems has been tempered by the guiding hand of the Lib Dems.
This is not true. The policies being enacted by this government are mainly Conservative ones and the party currently has a moderate leader in David Cameron, who is in reality politically very close to the Orange Book group in the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg. The Tories need to work harder to promote this side of their work, and to ensure that the Lib Dems don't get all the credit.
As key note speaker Damian Green said:
What is absolutely clear to me is that the Conservative Party must retain its own capacity to be moderate and progressive. We must not sub-contract the need to keep the Government in the progressive space to the Liberal Democrats. It would not only be bad for the Government to think that progressive policies must come from the Liberal Democrats it would be flatly untrue.
So the role of the TRG is more important than ever under the Coalition. We need to retain a strand of thought which is recognisably moderate and reforming, but also recognisably Tory. Because we are not Liberal Democrats. We do look first to the market, to the voluntary sector, to the individual. We glory in the history of our country.
A successful Coalition government will make real the argument... that a combination of Tory realism and progressive idealism gives us the right kind of government, the right kind of politics, and most importantly, a country we can be proud of.
Posts
