skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Now that he has the economic terrier Ed Balls in the Shadow Chancellor's role and has Doug Alexander as his hyperactive media spokesman, Ed Miliband does not need to get his hands dirty fighting David Cameron. I have long been critical of Miliband's poor debating style and it seems he's found a way to overcome it, because this new approach meant that it was totally irrelevant. He's changed the game in a manner I frankly did not expect, and deserves full credit for it.
I'm not suggesting that every PMQs will be like this - today's topics of Afghanistan and Egypt are two areas where the Government and Opposition are largely in agreement - but that the shift in style is an acknowledgement that what Miliband was doing wasn't working, and that it was actually harming his image. What we saw today was an attempt to rise above the usual 'bunfight' that is PMQs and begin the era of 'new politics', which is still an often repeated but largely meaningless phrase. If Ed Miliband can create that kind of pure political image he'll be in a very strong position - although he may well find that David Cameron can play this game too.
So how on earth do you score this, given that they didn't really compete and they agreed on pretty much every point? What I think has to be noted is that this style of PMQs stemmed from a change in approach by Ed Miliband. Because of the nature of PMQs, the Prime Minister doesn't really have a chance to set the initial tone. So for creating a novel atmosphere and changing a dynamic that has not suited him, the win must go to Ed Miliband.
Remarkable Ed Miliband victory.
The other big news this week was the belated publication of the Government's review into the UK's counter-terrorism measures. There was some good news - a reduction in the duration of detention without charge from 28 days to 14 days, curbs on police stop and search powers and measures to stop local councils using surveillance operations so much - and the review was definitely a success for Nick Clegg and the liberal wing of the Tories, but it did not go as far as some would have liked. Control Orders were replaced with TPIMs (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) but contain many of the same provisions, even if they are a little less stringent. The problem of dealing with these suspects outside the criminal justice system still exists though.
Elsewhere, Lord Lawson and Mark Pritchard helpfully stuck it to David Cameron by kicking up a fuss about the undesirability of coalition government. We also saw the MoD scrambling to defend itself against allegations from senior military figures that they were leaving a huge hole in Britain's defence capabilities by scrapping nine new Nimrod aircraft. And we were treated to more Eurozone grumblings as Germany continued to push for stringent budget checks across Europe rather than immediately back Commission President Jose Manuel Barosso's bail-out fund.
Miliband got a cheer when he rose - reflecting new found belief on the Labour benches - but his first question was predictable and weak. He asked, in the deadpan way that he always does with his first question, what the cause of the poor economic performance was: Cue dozens of Tories and Lib Dems shouting 'YOU!' at the Labour leader.
Cameron's approach clearly confused Miliband. He stepped up and said the figures were 'disappointing' even without the impact of snow. Cameron taking responsibility and bringing up the bad weather first was clearly not something that Miliband was prepared for, and it exposed Miliband's inability to adapt. He asked Cameron if without the weather growth would have been flat. Cameron simply said 'yes'.
The next exchange began with Miliband's best line of the day, when he shot back at Cameron that the PM didn't understand that without growth there would be no recovery. But he was clearly rattled and the Tory backbenches began to mercilessly mock his stuttering style of delivery. Cameron responded by quoting the head of the OECD, who had said that before the Coalition's deficit reduction plan the economy had been 'out of control'.
The following question was another example of Miliband's apparent inability to 'war game' PMQs properly. If he'd been through a preparatory dual with an aide then he would have rapidly realised that claiming that the Labour Party left a legacy of growth was a poor strategy. Cameron jumped on the 'laughable proposition' that Labour left a 'golden legacy' and reeled off a list of Labour's economic failures.
Miliband recovered with his last question. He launched into an attack on Andy Coulson, which wasn't particularly coherent but did raise an important point. He also raised the comments by David Davis, who said that without the former NotW man Cameron's inner circle was out of touch. Unfortunately he then said the Coalition's policies were 'hurting not working'. It didn't even rhyme properly. Cameron finished him off by asking why he was claiming credit for appointing Ed Balls when he didn;t want him in the first place and by outlining the coalition's plan to deal with the deficit to ensure growth.
I said yesterday that Miliband would have no excuses for not winning today. In fairness to him, Cameron's strategy was proactive and he gave his best ever performance against the new Labour leader. But so many of Cameron's lines were easily prepared put-downs to predictable questions. And too often when put on the spot Miliband simply failed to think quickly and adapt. He almost always starts with a simple factual question, before asking a couple more and then getting confused when the course of the debate takes a different route to the one he'd prepared. With better preparation he could be so much more effective.
Solid Cameron win.
This is not going to be a long post. In fact I wrote that sentence just to beef it up a bit. Because PMQs tomorrow is only going to be about one thing: today's shock 0.5% GDP contraction. Balls has already launched a pretty effective broadside on Osborne tonight, claiming that the 0.7% GDP growth in the previous quarter was a legacy of Labour's spending plans and that these are the first set of figures that reflect the Conservatives' economic policies.
Surely even Ed Miliband can make this stick tomorrow. For all their bluster Cameron and Osborne know that the weather did not cause all this damage alone - and that blaming the snow is a line that won't play well in the House. Expect their VAT hike to take a beating. Despite this, Balls' record under Brown and the resignation of Alan Johnson late last week should give Cameron something to hold on to, even if Miliband can just point to Coulson and previous Tory calls for more financial deregulation. It should be fun...
Despite Cameron's personal popularity, the Government's approval rating has fallen to -22%. But this figure won't upset the coalition too much, given that they believe that by 2013 there will be a resurgent economy and that they'll get all the credit. Based on this, the -28% rating for Miliband's ability to handle the economy, and the fact that all anyone in politics has talked about for the past two years has been recession and debt, I think the coalition will feel that if they stay committed to their deficit reduction programme they'll come out the other end in a very strong position indeed.
We were also treated, early on Friday morning, to the resignation of Andy Coulson, David Cameron's Director of Communications. This was not a total surprise - it had been a question of when not if - but the timing was a little unexpected. The case against Coulson personally has a lot of circumstantial evidence but has so far lacked concrete proof. He had quite accurately realised that he had committed the cardinal sin for a press officer and become the story, but that had been true to some extent since he was hired. While it was excruciating to see an opportunistic Ed Miliband question Cameron's judgement just hours after his own inept Shadow Chancellor had walked, the PM will quite rightly face some hard questions next week about his decision to hire the former NotW Editor. As a final point, it is worth noting that without question both Johnson and Coulson chose to use the appearance of Tony Blair at the Chilcot inquiry as cover for their resignations.
The rest of the week was dominated by unemployment figures that made particularly depressing reading for young people, and the official launch of Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms, which - although well-intentioned and if successful will radically improve the way the NHS operates - represent an unusual gamble by the PM.
Bit of an odd session today, with a six-question break in the middle of Ed Miliband's questions to the PM. Even odder, however, was the huge cheer that Miliband got when he stood up to speak: for a split-second I think he thought something else was going on in the Chamber. Still, it's definitely good news for the Labour leader that his party is starting to support him.
The first question, as it tends to be with Miliband, was very simple. He asked if it was a good thing that unemployment was rising. Cameron responded very well and actually gave an honest answer, stating that he was worried about the figures but that there was some progress being made. He then, cleverly, raised the issue of youth unemployment and pre-empted the Leader of the Opposition by saying that it had increased by 40% under Labour.
And so it all started to go wrong for Ed. He clumsily read out his clearly scripted line which bore no relation to what Cameron had just said, and accused him of being complacent - Cameron's answer had been anything but. He then delivered a hopeless line about how the PM was 'rumbled' in Oldham. It made no sense. Predictably, Cameron laid into him for his inability to debate properly and his reliance on his notes, before easily swatting away his attack on the coalition's decision to scrap the Future Jobs Fund with some excellent statistics.
We then endured a 6-question interlude before Miliband got back up to ask the PM if he could guarantee that hospital waiting times would not increase. This was a well-designed question, because the PM can't guarantee it. He can't because he's abolished top-down targets, and that means that there is no longer scope for a centrally imposed guarantee. But Cameron failed to make this point, and to argue that his reforms would reduce waiting times, which was his biggest slip-up of the day. Instead he just started to attack Labour for not promising an increase in NHS spending.
Miliband said Cameron was taking the 'National out of the NHS', which is a nice line but didn't really reinforce the point Miliband made in the previous question. Miliband then got a little personal, and called the PM 'arrogant'. By now Cameron had got back into his swing, and he came up with a line - I've no idea why he didn't use it earlier - that the waiting list times were in the NHS constitution. He also said the reforms would save £5bn and improve the NHS.
The session started with Cameron on top and ended the same way too. Miliband made some comments about broken promises which didn't fit his earlier questions and were horrendously delivered, prompting Cameron to make yet another joke about his sub-standard debating skills.
What's most worrying for Miliband is that if he can't kick Cameron around on Lansley's NHS reforms and bankers' bonuses then what can he beat him on? These were golden opportunities for Miliband to make life very hard for Cameron and yet, aside from a couple of good questions, he has not managed to do it. So poor is his delivery and his inability to divert from his script that he's managed to make it an issue that Cameron highlights as much as Miliband picks up on dodged questions. Cameron was on better form than last week and, aside from one missed opportunity, was on top for the whole debate. So while Miliband's attacks on the NHS might play well in public, they were not good enough to save him from defeat today.
Cameron win.
Daft. That's the word that comes to mind when you look at the letter Tom Baldwin, Ed Miliband's new spinner, sent to pretty much everyone in the media. First of all, he's become the story, which is exactly the opposite of what he should be doing. And secondly, he's created a situation whereby if the press do start calling the coalition the 'Conservative-led Government' then they'll look like they're taking orders from Ed Miliband's Comms guy!
I do understand what he means - even if, in the long-term, he's doing the Tories a favour. But it's an embarrassingly clumsy way to go about conveying this message to the press. A quiet word with the editors would have worked a lot better. Anyway, if you're interested, here is the letter:
As you may have noticed, we have changed our language in recent weeks to avoid describing the Government as a coalition or a partnership of equals. We believe a more accurate description is that this is a Conservative-led government.
I understand that the phrase a "Tory-led government" is two words too long to be repeated on every occasion. But I also think that you are making a choice whenever you call it "the coalition". When we were in power, no one was left in any doubt that our most unpopular decisions were those of a "Labour government". The word "Coalition" is one that avoids party labels while also suggesting a degree of inter-party harmony and co-operation which is, day-by-day and split-by-split, being shown as false.
Unless Nick Boles gets his way, "the Coalition" will not be standing for election.
Can I suggest you at least vary your description of this Tory-led government. On some occasions, you might call it a Conservative-Liberal Democrat government. On others it might be just "the government".
When you are talking about this government in a political context, I think it would be fairer to refer to it by reference to party labels.
With best wishes, Tom Baldwin,
Director of Strategy and Communications
Senior figures like Miliband and Yvette Cooper have stressed that while it gives Labour some momentum, the Party has a long way to go before it is in a position to win a general election. They are right to be cautious. The polls suggest that Miliband is not regarded as a great prospect and while people are now less certain that the coalition’s economic policies are the right ones, they still don’t believe Labour would be any better.
It’s also important to note that despite Labour’s claims to the contrary, this wasn’t necessarily a vote against the coalition’s economic agenda: if you add the Conservative and Lib Dem vote share it comes to 44.7%, which is more than Labour’s 42.1%.
The Lib Dems actually gained a larger share of the vote than in May: up from 31.6% to 31.9%. This was probably because of tactical voting by some Conservatives, but their effective and determined local campaign does show that the Party is still alive. Clegg will be relatively satisfied that his Party avoided a bigger defeat, and while he’ll be afraid that May’s local elections will be unpleasant, he’ll also argue that national poll ratings that have them around 10% are likely to mean nothing at the next election.
The Conservative high command will be satisfied. They decided a long time ago that this by-election was not one that they could win and that it served the long-term health of the coalition better if the Lib Dems came through unscathed. They’ve achieved this aim. Their only worry will be that their weak campaign in Oldham will simply encourage those backbenchers who are concerned that the coalition panders to the Liberal Democrats. Baroness Warsi has, perhaps unwisely, told them to shut up and stop whining, but there is little chance of that happening.
The big news of the week was, of course, the result of the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. Yet as exciting as it was, it didn’t really change anything. Labour, and particularly Ed Miliband, needed a comfortable win: they got it. The Lib Dems needed to show that their support had not totally collapsed and that they could still compete: they did that. The Tory high command just needed the Lib Dems to survive in order to ensure the stability of the coalition: which is exactly what happened. No party will be particularly unhappy with this result.
The story that dominated the first half of the week was bankers’ bonuses. This came to its head on Wednesday with a very competitive PMQs after Chancellor George Osborne had been called to the House for emergency questions on Tuesday. Ed Miliband – who has had a pretty good week for once – embarrassed the PM by pointing out that the Tories’ website still proudly displayed his election pledge to limit bankers’ bonuses to £2,000. Yet despite early hits, Miliband is still a PMQs’ amateur and, unwilling to depart from his prepared script, failed to kill off Cameron and let him back in to steal a draw.
The Government also managed to overcome some backbench resistance to defeat an amendment to its EU Sovereignty Bill, but left itself in an unhappy position by proposing a piece of legislation which is detested by the very people it was designed to appease. We also found out that the decision on Control Orders is to be delayed until next week because of ongoing cabinet disputes.
The big news for the economy this week came from the MPC, which decided to keep interest rates at 0.5%. It hopes that this will create the right environment for economic growth, and is choosing to focus on this rather than efforts to rein in inflation. There was also some good news from credit rating agency Moody’s, which said that the UK’s AAA rating was safe.
In Europe the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton, suggested that the arms embargo to China should be lifted for the good of the European economy. This came after a visit by Chinese Vice-Premier – and probable future PM – Li Keqiang to various European capitals. Given the shock that reverberated around Western defence circles after new stealth fighter technology was unveiled just before US Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ trip to China, it is highly unlikely that the US and UK would be keen on such a move.
YouGov Polling 13-01-11
Conservative 41%
Labour 41%
Liberal Democrat 8%
Government Approval -17%
It's a real shame that this state of affairs exists, because blogs like Political Scrapbook have so much potential. But instead of being independent left-wing blogs have chosen to take their lines from Labour HQ: and the contrast with the Conservative side of the blogosphere could not be more apparent. Attempts to 'spin' the blogosphere are so transparent and really counter-productive. I genuinely hope that these blogs stop essentially working for Miliband and start arguing independently for their left-wing opinions, because that's a whole lot more interesting than just being Miliband's mouthpiece.
Cameron's reply was weak on substance but high on flair, setting the tone for a very personal PMQs. Miliband probably could have pushed on with this line of questioning but he is still too unsure of himself to deviate from what was pretty defined series of questions. Even so, his next question was good, asking Cameron about the amount of money that his Bankers' Levy would raise, and comparing that figure to Labour’s Bankers' Bonus tax.
The PM gave a very long, technical answer to this question which seemed to flummox Miliband. This was a real shame, because Cameron was being a little creative with the facts. He argued that his Levy would raise £2.5bn this year, more than the £2.3bn Labour's tax generated. Miliband argued that Cameron's Levy would raise £1.3bn, and said Labour's Bonus Tax raised 3.5bn.
It was Miliband who had his facts straight. The crafty maths that the Treasury used to get the £3.5bn down to £2.5bn – by making guesses about how much NI and income tax they'd lost in lieu – and the fudged statistic that the Levy would raise £2.5bn – it will in 2012, but not in 2011 – were frankly embarrassing. But fortunately for the PM, it was here that Miliband really let himself down. He stuck to his script again and failed to make it clear just how wrong Cameron was. This was a huge opportunity missed.
He ended up asking a lengthy question demanding more transparency, which gave Cameron the opportunity to turn to Labour's record in Government, and there was little substance to the rest of the session. Cameron scored an easy hit by reminding the House that Miliband had been at the Treasury during Labour's period in power and, in particular, when they had awarded Sir Fred Goodwin a knighthood.
Yet at times the whole thing threatened to get a bit too personal Cameron said of Miliband that: 'He was the nothing man when he was at the Treasury and he is the nothing man now he's trying to run the Labour Party.' For his part, Miliband commented that Osborne was a 'poisonous fungus'. Cameron tends to get personal when he's in a tight spot, and Miliband was just responding in kind – but it didn't look great for either man.
Bankers' bonuses worked for Miliband today not because he got the best of Cameron but because he pushed an argument that will resonate with the electorate. Miliband had a big opportunity to really punish the PM but he still lacks the confidence to deviate from his script and so Cameron was able to fudge his response, make a few jokes and stop Ed Miliband from winning it, but he was never on strong ground. A good defence by Cameron and a promising start to the year by Ed Miliband.
A very entertaining score draw.
This morning I was pretty sure that bankers’ bonuses would be Ed Miliband’s main focus. But watching today’s emergency questions to the Chancellor and seeing Alan Johnson and a host of other MPs fail to land a solid blow on George Osborne I’m not convinced it’d be a good idea for the Labour leader.
If Miliband does use this line, he better have a long list of retorts for Cameron when the PM – as he undoubtedly will – reminds the House of the scale of bonuses under the previous Labour government. A few choice quotes from Mandelson – 'haven’t the rich suffered enough' or 'We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich' spring to mind – or maybe a quick mention of Sir (with emphasis on Labour’s knighthood) Fred Goodwin’s £14million bonus...
Today we found out that the decision on retaining control orders, which expire in March and was due this Thursday, has been delayed by another week or two. It’s clear that the Government is struggling to come to a decision. Given that Labour created them and took a strong line on law and order, this is a topic Miliband should focus on. Not only can Labour point to a strong, or at least unambiguous, record, but it can also make political capital from the confusion in Government – both within the coalition and in the individual parties.
Some of the detail has leaked to the BBC this evening, and Ed Balls has been quoted already as saying that the process has 'descended into a shambles', and that it is designed to 'keep the coalition together rather than exclusively about what is in the national interest'. A Labour attack on this would also tie neatly with a dig at Ken Clarke’s prison reforms and the plan to allow inmates the vote, which are making lots of Tories very unhappy.
One other option for Miliband is the EU Bill, which is being debated tonight and is likely to pass despite unease on the Conservative backbenches. The big problem with the Bill is this: it was designed to appease eurosceptic Tory backbenchers and it has failed. Indeed, this is the group which has been most vocally opposed. Labour is on risky ground with Europe after the shambles of the Lisbon Treaty but they could still make the Tories uncomfortable with a couple of well-targeted questions.
Anyway, that’s what I’d do – although previous experience suggests that it might well not be what Miliband does. The main thing is that he avoids bankers’ bonuses, because it’s worse for Labour than the Conservatives. Besides, any debate even touching on economics is likely to encourage Cameron to bring up Alan Johnson’s National Insurance gaffe earlier this week.
Other things to watch out for include the sluggish Q4 growth at the end of last year and the 50p tax rate, as well as comments on the 'nuclear option' outlined by Vince Cable before Christmas. I wouldn't expect to hear anything on Eric Illsley or David Chaytor from either party.
Other stories have rumbled on over the holidays, with Conservative MPs increasingly uneasy with their leader’s approach to the Lib Dems and the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. Angus Reid conducted an interesting poll showing that the Coalition would struggle if if fought as one in 2015 because Lib Dem voters would desert it. Ed Miliband has changed up his press team and looks to be making more of an impact, although there is a long way for him to go.
The NotW hacking scandal came back again to ruin Andy Coulson’s New Year, and the Coalition has got itself in a bit of a mess trying to decide what to do with Control Orders. Half of Westminster decamped this week to Oldham for the by-election, which is expected to return the Labour candidate, Debbie Abrahams, and David Chaytor became the first MP to be sentenced for his expenses claims. He was given 18 months in prison.
YouGov Polling 06-01-11:
Conservative 39%
Labour 43%
Lib Dem 7%
Government Approval: -20%
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.
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.
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.
What's even more upsetting is that the real issue here is being missed. Retailers are going to put up prices by as much as 5% or even 8%. This isn't to make profit, it's to readjust their costs to factor in inflation. These price rises were coming VAT rise or no VAT rise.
So the real story here is not the tired old tale about the profligate Labour Government and the austere Coalition reducing its deficit, but about the huge risk the UK faces in 2011 from inflation which some economists at the Bank of England fear could see the CPI top 4%.
4%! And that's just the CPI. The RPI was already at 4.7% in November. So despite recent support for their economic measures from a group of leading economists - who believe that the UK is in for a slow period of growth in 2011 rather than a double-dip recession - the threat of inflation still looms large. It is the most pressing economic problem facing the country, and the Government must start concentrating on finding some way to reduce inflation.
p.s. If you want to look at whether the VAT rise is progressive or regressive then look no further than this well-researched article by the BBC's Business Reporter Laurence Knight.
What the graph (right) shows is that recent party leaders - with the exception of Tony Blair - have all faced difficult periods in the polls. I think Miliband will feel that he has a chance to reform his party in the same way that Cameron has changed the Conservative Party during his leadership. Miliband should be confident that he will follow Cameron's trajectory, and see Labour into the next election in 2015 with a reinvigorated Labour Party behind him.
He'll also - if he actually believes in his key economic message about cuts and it isn't just political expediency - be certain that come 2015 he'll be facing a Conservative Party in government as unpopular as the Labour Party under Gordon Brown. So I don't think Miliband will be too unhappy with these figures. He will be wary, however, of falling below -20, because when that happened to IDS, Hague and Howard they never recovered.
The overall figures, which show that opinion is split on his leadership, are an opportunity for Miliband rather than a death knell. Electoral politics is all about convincing people that you're right and he still has the time to do it.
Yet if I was Ed Miliband I would still have some serious concerns. I'd be less worried about how I appeared to the country, and more concerned how I appeared to my backbenchers and shadow cabinet colleagues. I'd also be afraid that the absence of concrete Labour policies in many areas would blunt my political attacks. So, in the spirit of Christmas, in anticipation of an exciting 2011 and in the hope that the opposition will force the government to raise its game, here are five suggestions to get Miliband's leadership moving in the right direction:
1. Ed Miliband must improve his PMQs performances in the New Year. Whatever he is doing now isn't working. If he does this he will begin to convince his backbenchers that he can actually compete nationally with David Cameron.
2. He needs to bring Balls and Cooper closer to his leadership, because at the moment they are not in his inner circle and are just itching to prove themselves better potential leaders. Plus they are in portfolios where, frankly, their talents are completely wasted. One of them at least has to replace Johnson in the shadow Treasury role if they ever want to get close to Osborne.
3. Stop picking on the Liberal Democrats. He claims to want to woo disaffected Lib Dems but he always goes for the easy line in the media or at PMQs and picks on them for some perceived 'U-turn'. Miliband should never forget that the coalition has a Conservative majority, and that they must be his primary target.
4. Choose a few policy areas and ruthlessly demonstrate to the public how the government has taken the wrong options. Eric Pickles' reforms to local government are the most radical changes to the structure of government in the UK in years, and the government has no idea how its localism agenda will turn out. The restructuring of the NHS is potentially disastrous and the changes to education are being very poorly executed. Lansley and Gove should be easy targets for their Labour shadow ministers.
5. Get real distance from the unions. If they are actually serious when they talk of huge coordinated strike action in 2011 then it would be toxic for the Labour leader to get too close. Cameron will be looking to paint Ed Miliband as a union man helping undermine the economic recovery with reckless strikes. He must avoid this.
So Labour are offering a 1p membership to anyone under 27. I started writing a post on this the other day but couldn't really be arsed to finish it. And it seems that I wasn't the only one lacking any enthusiasm, because today the Guardian revealed that the offer had brought in just 400 new members.
400 people paid a penny to join Labour, so they could have the honour of having Ed Miliband voice their concerns to the nation. Now, I'm pretty confident that the admin on 400 new members is going to cost more than the £4.00 that Labour have made this week. And that these bargain hunters may prove fickle when they get asked for the full £39.00 next year. It's also made me more certain than ever that Labour's claim to have had 50,000 new members since the election is likely to prove an exaggeration.
I wonder why people didn't take up the offer? Maybe it's because although the 'young' are perceived to be against some of the coalition's policies, they still realise that Labour are not yet a credible alternative. These young people also aren't quite young enough to have missed the fact that Labour were the ones that introduced tuition fees in the first place. And they won't have missed that Labour itself has absolutely no credible policy for higher education. They will also be suspicious that having Ed Miliband as a spokesman isn't necessarily the best thing, given that he can't seem to get any media coverage at the moment and the PLP thinks he's useless.
Which begs the question: why now? A reduced membership rate is a great one-off gimmick that has the very real potential to raise membership numbers. But you have to already have forward momentum. A cheap membership rate when you've no policies, have just been beaten in an election and have a weak new leader will not turn things around. Now they're in an even worse situation, because this poor response has just confirmed to the public that no-one wants to join their party. If they'd done it in three years' time then it could have been hugely successful. But I really think they've jumped the gun.
Here's a quick and by no means comprehensive list of the things I would have considered talking about at PMQs:
The ill-advised comments of Howard Flight, which had made the Tories seem out of touch and callous. The continuing concerns about the way the NHS is being restructured. The Lib Dems were/are in disarray over whether to vote for, against or abstain over tuition fees - even Vince Cable, who is in charge of the bill, hadn't then decided what too do. There had been more protests over the fee increases. Wikileaks had just released documents suggesting the Governor of the Bank of England thought Cameron and Osborne weren't up to the job. The plan for elected Police Commissioners looks to undermine the impartiality of the police force.
So what does he ask about? The OBR report. Which said that growth this year will be better than expected and that 160,000 fewer jobs than expected will be lost through public sector cuts.
So he got torn to shreds. He questions had no direction. He didn't build momentum. Cameron couldn't believe his luck, it's hard to see how Ed Miliband could have made it any easier for him. And to top it all, he used a tired line about Thatcher which Cameron had obviously anticipated and deployed the headline-grabbing retort: 'I'd rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown!'
Easy Cameron win.
Posts
