Popular policies alone are not enough – Miliband must win voters' respect
|
Version 0 of 1. Yesterday's local and European elections bore all the hallmarks of a dress rehearsal for next year's general election. So what do they tell us about how ready Labour is for opening night in May 2015? Estimates by politics professor John Curtice put the party's share of the vote up three percentage points on 2010 to 30%, but down from 38% two years ago. As he argued this morning: "If a party looks as though it is potentially regarded as an alternative government, it should be doing very well in local elections – even better than you would expect to do in a general election in 12 months' time. The truth is, by that test at least, Labour has not done well enough." In the face of the Tories' ability to outspend it, one of Labour's great strengths is its volunteer army, which – as it did in 2010, when organisational effort allowed the party to win a 1992 share of the parliament on a 1983 share of the vote – played a key role in its advances yesterday. But the elections also underlined three weaknesses that it must now seek to address. First, the election campaign saw a positive tsunami of new announcements from Labour: on increasing the minimum wage, capping rent increases, and giving people the right to see their GP within 48 hours. Each of these policies is undoubtedly popular. A ComRes poll shortly before the elections, for instance, found that 32% of people said Labour's policies for government such as freezing energy prices and increasing the top rate of tax made them more likely to vote for the party. However, popular policies alone are not sufficient to guarantee electoral victory. As Peter Kellner of YouGov has suggested, "history offers plenty of examples of the dangers of interpreting the public mood too simplistically". In 1992, Neil Kinnock took the supposedly popular policies of higher child benefit and state pensions funded by an increase in national insurance contributions on the better-off to the electorate and was buried by John Major. Similarly, policies on crime, immigration and Europe, which scored well in the polls, did nothing to save William Hague in 2001 or Michael Howard in 2005. The Tories' chances then were sunk by its lingering "nasty party" image. Labour's problem is somewhat different. As in 1992, its failure to convince the electorate that it can be trusted with the economy undermines much else it tries to do. Second, the elections highlighted the limit to Labour's focus on the cost of living crisis. As wage increases begin to outstrip prices there is a question mark over whether this campaign will reach its sell-by date before May 2015. However, the proceeds of the recovery are not yet being felt by all and the Tories have shown scant interest in ensuring they do. This presents an opportunity for Ed Miliband, but to seize it Labour needs to develop an agenda focused on future prosperity: one that is as much about growing the overall size of the cake as it is about sharing it out more fairly. Third, some of Nigel Farage's comments during the campaign – about the undesirability of having Romanians as neighbours, for instance – reeked of 1960s Powellism. While there were some honourable exceptions, Labour's leadership appeared strangely unwilling to call out Farage's racism and tackle head-on the lies about Europe and migration that Ukip has been allowed to peddle for too long. There are legitimate concerns about immigration – principally the exploitation of migrants and the impact on low-paid Britons – which need to be addressed (and, to his credit, Miliband has focused much attention here). And there is a rich agenda around reform of the EU which supporters of Britain's membership need to do more to advance. But basic principles – that migration benefits Britain socially, culturally and economically and that to cut ourselves off from the world's largest single market would be an act of absolute folly – must be defended vigorously. Labour not only lags the Tories on economic competence, it also lags on leadership. There is still time for Labour to address both. Miliband has previously indicated his desire to reshape the landscape of British politics in the manner of Margaret Thatcher. She was, in part, able to do this because voters respected the fact that she stood up for what she believed in, even when they disagreed vehemently with those beliefs. Workshops conducted by BritainThinks for the Labour pressure group Progress in four key marginal constituencies last autumn found a desire and willingness to hear hard truths, even unpopular ones, from the party. A staunch defence of both immigration and Europe by Miliband might fly in the face of public opinion, but in so doing it may give the Labour leader's ratings just the fillip he needs. Miliband will receive much advice in the light of the results from David Axelrod, who helped steer President Obama to two landslide victories in America. But perhaps fictional American political drama has something to offer too. "Let Bartlet be Bartlet", suggests a staffer in The West Wing. On immigration and Europe we all know where Miliband's instincts and values would lead him. Someone needs to tell him they may make good politics too. |