A great position for Ed Miliband to be in in 2015 would be for people to think, “My life sucks without you”. Here’s One Direction, from the X-Factor singing it,
Whilst David Cameron might be populist in approach as a politician, I have never seen him trend, like the people on the X-Factor, Strictly, or (today) Bernard Matthews. Ed Miliband can easily capture the public’s imagination, being a person that most people would much rather spend an evening in the pub with, rather than with David Cameron. I don’t drink alcohol and I haven’t been inside a pub physically since 2008, so this doesn’t apply to me. Ed Miliband’s strength is that he is young, but a possible weakness is that he looks too inexperienced. An opportunity for him is that he comes in with a clean sheet (in as much as any of them do), and the biggest threat for him politically is that the cuts succeed in the reducing the deficit totally, particularly with a hostile right-wing press. I feel that clarity in purpose, having one direction, people will become aware of the Ed Miliband brand – what he stands for – and how he relates to the other options such as Nick “U-turns” Clegg. By the way, I have no understanding of marketing in the discussion that follows; but that will become clear as you read on. Due to the X-Factor nature of politics, popularity counts, but, as Nick Clegg now knows, “easy come, easy come”. When people see this in 2015, I realistically don’t expect people to think automatically of Ed Miliband, but you know what I mean!
I feel that there is one opportunity very much on his side in this most basic of SWOT analyses (SWOT = strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). That the Coalition gets discredited in popularity terms because of Nick Clegg, and that people, even if the economy does better, are so low in morale they won’t be able to suffer any more of this coalition in 2015. Governments tend to lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them. In the last election just gone, Labour lost, but the Conservatives certainly did not win enough to secure victory. In such a analysis, the weakness and threats have to be turned into an opportunity. He chould therefore argue that him being young actually means that he comes without baggage ideologically and has an open-mind in deciding on evidence-based policy; this is why it is crucial that he is not seen at all in the ‘deep pockets’ of the unions, especially UNITE. And the threat should become an opportunity; he can claim that he has had no choice but to agree with the spending plans, despite opposing them vociferously, but in 2015, he can argue legitimately enough is enough, and he will now ‘restore’ public services.
Looking at the competition, an obvious strength is that Cameron’s agenda is very populist, but his policies at best are tolerated rather than liked. Ed Miliband could easily adopt a set of very popular policies which are in keeping with potential voters’ aspirations and tackling their insecurities, without ‘selling out’. Specifically, a problem for Ed Miliband undoubtedly that is that Labour is perceived to be pro-immigration and too much in the hands of the Unions. That is why it must always in opposition demonstrate to people that Labour is relevant to people’s lives. Ed Miliband knows that he must deserve, after being the leader of the largest party ‘in waiting’, the mandate in 2015 publicly, but actually it is sufficient for the country to lose faith entirely with David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
I happen to disagree with Ed Miliband in that there now needs to be any form of post mortem about what happened to Labour in the last term. When driving a car, it is a good idea not to stare at the exhaust pipe. People have accepted, and indeed argued passionately, that Labour made significant mistakes: this must now be taken for granted, otherwise it’s going to be a case of ‘methinks the lady doth protesteth too much’. Ed Miliband should therefore have a small set of clear messages for now, while Peter Hain and Liam Byrne are conducted a detailed policy review. A possible model for conducting this review is to have a series of detailed consultations on ideas proposed by the voting public (not members of Labour solely), and to have a shortlist drafted up. All relevant stakeholders, including the Unions and the think-tanks such as Compass, the Fabians and Progress, could be invited to give a detailed response. However, as Sunder Kutwala has previously posited, we should get out of the idea that Labour is running a university economics seminar, and look to getting a clear message across to the public regarding the relevance of Labour to their day-to-day lives.
Possibly key issues might be:
- 50p tax for highest earners
- Securing decent pay and conditions for millions of Britain’s worst-off workers
- NO to any form of privatization in the NHS
- A living wage that would improve the earnings of the lowest earners
- Bankers should pay higher taxes to compensate those who suffer as a result
- Foreign workers must not be allowed to undercut wages and those who question immigration should not be called racist.
- Action on much improved civil liberties.
- Foreign immigrants, whilst warmly welcomed to the UK, should not be given undue priority in council housing.
Ed Miliband knows full well that this is a marathon not a sprint. Labour’s main weakness is that it looks as if it suffers from too much in-fighting, and does not have any opposition to the cuts. It can turn this into a strength by saying the infighting has been purged (with the internal psychodramas and the Unions wrangling), and trying to win more convincingly using as much evidence as possible – not just Nobel Prize winners – that the rate of the cuts is likely to do a lot of damage. Time is on Ed Miliband’s side here; by the end of 2011, the unemployment and GDP figures should present a clearer picture.
Ed Miliband is currently neither in office nor in power, but time is very much on his side. This may not be the sort of perception that Ed Miliband gets or wants from the National Policy Forum, but hopefully you know what I mean.
