It’s not just the goofs and gaffes plaguing Ed Miliband and Labour at Westminster which are stopping the opposition’s recovery. It’s how Labour responds that needs improvement.
The week started with Labour guru Lord Glasman’s declaring in the New Statesman that Miliband has “no strategy and no narrative”. The turmoil continued with the leaking of Director of Communications Tom Baldwin’s memo, which insisted comparisons between Miliband with Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard are “well wide of the mark”.
Later in the week, Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy’s acknowledged that Labour has to start accepting some of the coalition government’s cuts. Although no different from previous statements by Miliband and Ed Balls, Murphy’s comments were covered in the press as adding to the general sense of seams unravelling.
But these were dwarfed almost entirely by Twitterstorms. A race row caused by Diane Abbot’s sloppy tweeting, and a sloppy social media faux pas of Miliband’s own making: a ‘Blackbusters’ Freudian slip on his Twitter feed on the death of national treasure Bob Holness.
Separated out, none of the above clangers are life threatening to Labour. Memos leak, tweets are mistyped, Diane Abbot says nutty things, Glasman’s pronouncements are usually ignored and when Obama’s cutting defence by $450 billion in the next decade, Murphy agreeing to £5 billion is a start, rather than a stop.
But altogether, it feels like the Labour Party is stuck in a real-life episode of The Thick of It. The party’s solution to this, as ever, will be the inevitable relaunch in the next week or so.
Back in 2009, The Economist rightly identified the set-piece parliamentary announcement as one of the “few trustier gambits in the Brownite playbookâ€, because “these opportunities to set the terms of debate, and to stage carefully prepared appearances rather than have to think and communicate†entirely suited Brown.
And they did work when he was Chancellor, with set-ups like introducing the pre-budget report giving him the platform to continue his ascent against Blair. But as leader they didn’t work so well. In September 2008, a year after his election, Brown’s first relaunch of his leadership was announcing a mortgage rescue scheme to reverse the plummeting house market. It was scuppered by Chancellor Alistair Darling’s (correct) assessment the weekend prior that the British economy was at a 60 year low and getting worse.
Since Brown’s tenure, Labour Party positioning has felt like Bambi skating. It gets to the point where it’s just about standing up and keeping it together, when a wobble causes mis-step and collapse.
As Brown’s former advisor, Miliband too favours the use of the set-piece announcement whenever the Labour Party needs to stave off a crisis. Miliband’s bigger problem, unlike Brown, is that too many of his announcements are about the party, not about policy or governing or even opposition.
Since his election as leader, Miliband has announced scrapping elections to the Shadow Cabinet, loosening relationships with the unions, reinvigorating annual conference and allowing ‘registered supporters’ to participate in internal elections as attempts to stamp his authority on the party. None have given Miliband his desired Clause 4 moment and is leading to a policy vacuum with the public.
So next week Miliband needs to make sure his recovery announcement trailed in today’s Guardian, on how the Labour Party will look beyond redistribution of wealth as the means to a fair society, is an announcement very much about policy, and not about party.
Unlike Scottish Labour at Holyrood, where much deeper reforms are needed to combat the malaise, what will make Labour electable in terms of Westminster isn’t how reformed the party’s internal structures are, but policy, popularity and proper opposition.
In another week, Murphy’s comments on defence spending would’ve worked; positioning Labour towards all three of the necessary strands for electability. Speaking this week, Murphy said:
“There is a difference between populism and popularity. Credibility is the bridge away from populism and towards popularity. It is difficult to sustain popularity without genuine credibility. At a time on defence when the government is neither credible nor popular it is compulsory that Labour is both.â€
Policy that acknowledges to tackle the fiscal deficit will need some cuts – they just should be the right ones, like cuts in defence spending, that don’t harm the vulnerable in society. Popularity in finding a position which most of the electorate also share. Proper opposition by getting the first two right and giving the foundation to properly take on the coalition government.
Behind all the goofs and gaffes, the rest of the Labour Party does seem to be getting on with this strategy – Gregg McClymont MP’s Cameron’s Trap pamphlet launched between Christmas and New Year indicates a strong awareness of the need to get the position with the public right, rather than worrying about party structures. Let’s just see if the Leader of the Opposition can start to talk policy, over party, without slipping again.
#1 by Jeff on January 7, 2012 - 11:06 am
Spot on Kirsty. I particularly enjoyed the Bambi analogy.
The one thing I would like to see from Ed, putting policy to one side, is for him to be his own man, and I think he’s getting their, Robotic Ed hopefully now behind him. If he’s nerdy then that nerdiness should e celebrated rather than swept to one side. He’s certainly no more geeky (read unelectable) than Kevin Rudd in Australia who won an election down under. I just hope concern, paranoia even, in that regard isn’t the underlying reason for some of these clangers.
I reckon progress for Labour recently has been to go from one step forward, two steps back to two steps forward, one step back. It’s just that this week’s step back was a large one!
#2 by Allan on January 7, 2012 - 2:27 pm
Ah, but Labour’s problem is that they have played the long term game as opposed to playing the day to day game of politics. As a result, the goalposts have shifted from under Labour’s feet.
For example, Milliband the younger has focused on redefining the terms of capitalism, where what he should have been doing is formulating a credible alternative to Osborne’s Scorched earth policy – a policy that is now seriously holed under the waterline thanks to a lack of growth. It is the acceptance from the public that the scale of the cuts originaly proposed is necessary that is Milliband the Younger’s biggest failure, and it is this acceptance that has deprived Labour time to come up with an alternative.
In retrospect my own post from last June called “The Milliband Drift” seems pretty apt, as due to this drift, the vultures are now starting to circle. One of the things saving Miliband for the moment is the lack of a credible alternative candidate.
#3 by Galen10 on January 7, 2012 - 4:21 pm
I think Allan is right; as soon as Labour failed to set out an alternative to the Coalition’s cuts, their scale and speed the writing was on the wall. They have also fudged the issue of showing us the body of New Labour, staked through its vile black heart…. probably because many of the architects of the nauseating New Labour project still infect the party.
There is still nothing remotely progressive or radical about Labour or Newer Labour. Their policies appear to differ from those of the Coalition only in degree and detail, not in substance. They are likely to continue their current path in Westminster in hope that they can win outright at the next election… or perhaps scrape in allied to the LD’s or other minor parties.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the Scottish Labour party lose control of Glasgow this year, and what happens with respect to a referendum. What would Ed (assuming he’s still around then) do if the SNP call and win a referendum in 2014 before the next Westminster GE? How does he win without Scottish Labour MP’s?
#4 by Nikostratos on January 7, 2012 - 4:48 pm
Umm! perhaps Ed will embrace ‘relentless positivity’
#5 by FormerChampagneSocialist on January 7, 2012 - 7:49 pm
Labour stand for nothing other than the pursuit of power, usually disguised as moral superiority. They remain reprehensible.
#6 by Barbarian on January 7, 2012 - 11:31 pm
Bambi comment is funny.
What Labour need is to clear out the graduate trainee and public schoolboy image that seems to define the shadow cabinet. The party still has a core support, despite all the problems they’ve had, yet seem unable to accept that they will have to change. I for one cannot take Milliband seriously at all. If he was a Lib Dem, perhaps, but the Labour Leader?