Is there a new Ed Miliband coalition?

New polling shows that Labour supporters are more liberal on issues such as immigration than in 2010.

Much of the autopsy on Labour’s 2010 general election performance has focused on the "traditional" supporter and their apparent drift from the identity and values of the party over the last decade or so – especially on immigration. The Gillian Duffy demographic has become the party’s preoccupation.

However, new polling data suggests that Labour has been successful in attracting a rather different voter in the last two years – the liberal centrist.  Should the party now aggressively seek to appeal to working-class conservative support as some advocate, the liberal centrist may be repelled. These liberal centrists are, like their culturally conservative opposites, "values" voters. A populist agenda on immigration, culture and Europe may not be the one-way street that is often supposed. What’s more, an Ed Miliband coalition that doesn’t rely on such populism is one potential route to a majority for Labour.

In 2008, Barack Obama was able to win the presidency by assembling a coalition of support tapping into new sources of political energy ignited by demographic and social change. Unable to reverse the Democrats’ deficit amongst white voters or even significantly improve his vote in that demographic, he relied on Hispanic, young, and professional voters. With the obvious exception of Hispanics, the question is whether such a new coalition could be an option for Labour? A new poll hints that it could be a possibility.

Respondents were asked in the YouGov poll commissioned by Extremis Project whether they were more or less likely to vote for parties pursuing a particular agenda based loosely around populist themes such as concern about political and financial elites, nationhood, immigration and culture. The shift amongst Labour supporters from 2010 was very striking. Conservative support showed no such shift.

In 2010, Labour voters were "more likely" to vote for a party that pledged to stop immigration into the UK by 36% to 31%. That figure has now reversed with 36% to 32% "less likely" to vote for such a party. The poll asked the same question of a party pledging to reduce the "numbers of Muslims/presence of Islam in society". Again, we see a reverse. Thirty four per cent to 25% of Labour voters were "more likely" to vote for a party with such a pledge in 2010. It is now 31%-29% in favour of "less likely."

By comparison, the Conservative figure on the same question is 50%-15% in favour of "more likely", which is almost identical to the figure for its 2010 support. The overall figure is 37% to 23%. The likely explanation would appear to be Labour’s success in wooing Liberal Democrat supporters and young voters since 2010. The poll shows a clear generational divide between younger and older voters.

A new Ed Miliband coalition would combine liberal centrists, young voters, those in the public sector as well as the more traditional working and lower middle-class support who are concerned about whether the Conservatives speak for them.

The values voter Miliband seems to be attracting is more, not less liberal on immigration, more, not less accepting of other cultures, and less prone to muscular articulations of national identity. Would he really want to reverse these gains in a populist race that he would find very difficult, if not impossible, to win?

Again, the echoes of Obama’s strategy are striking. The president has embraced gay rights, the green agenda and pitches at both young and professional, college educated support through improving access to higher education (Liberal Democrats take note) and an emphasis on investment in science. He pitches towards both the Hispanic and more liberal audiences with a commitment to immigration reform: better managed borders combined with pathways to earned citizenship.

A critical aspect of this strategy is the frame. So Obama’s pitch is not open borders instead of closed borders. It’s managed immigration versus inaction. It’s not renewable energy instead of oil and gas. The frame is rather pitched around energy security and economic growth. On gay rights, a choice has been made but the articulation is around committed relationships and a contribution to society.

The issues that Miliband faces in political terms are slightly different, but the strategy of pitting pragmatism against ideology and incompetence is instructive. While the default position on immigration is anxiety and scepticism, a majority of people are pragmatic when it comes to certain migrant groups – a failure of the Conservative immigration cap will help his cause. It is to this pragmatism that Miliband could appeal to.

The same goes for Europe, green issues, and potentially even welfare as long as there is an understanding of the deep concern with the welfare state as it is. Given that the Coalition is heading in a distinctively Thatcherite direction – blue collar populism has taken over from progressive conservatism – on these issues, that leaves the pragmatic centre open to Miliband should he wish to take it.

What’s the catch? Most critically, the economy is not going away and a perceived failure of the coalition to turn things around will not be enough for people to invest their faith in Labour. A credible approach to the economy and the deficit is critical. Just as important is the leadership question. If Miliband is not seen as a convincing and competent alternative to David Cameron he will equally struggle to maintain this new-found support. Obama passed both these tests.

Further research is needed to understand how this coalition works on a seat-by-seat basis – could it be too metropolitan? Moreover, this strategy certainly doesn’t mean that Labour should not concern itself with the very serious under-currents of cultural antagonism that exist in British society as poll after poll – including the Extremis Project/YouGov poll - has demonstrated. This is real and in, many ways, frightening.

More broadly, this strategy involves a very fine balancing act. An authentic emotional engagement with nationhood and a sense of national values is critical. See Michelle Obama’s speech where she emphasised that her husband "knows the American dream because he’s lived it". Equally, it involves clawing back assumptions both within the Labour Party and the wider media establishment that these cultural issues can only be dealt with in a discordant way.

With these caveats in mind, embracing and motivating this new coalition nonetheless seems like a more natural fit for Miliband than something more traditional and conservative. Avoiding over-adjustment in addressing Labour’s electoral weaknesses in 2010 is smart politics too. Labour now needs to look forward. Crafting a workable centre-left pragmatism is sound politics. Constructing a solid policy agenda is very different set of questions. For Labour, though, an Ed Miliband coalition of voters could be available to it – and it is one that could have the potential to see it into office.

Extremis Project  is a new platform for news, analysis, data and research on extremism across the globe co-founded by Dr Matthew Goodwin  and Anthony Painter. Anthony Painter writes in a personal capacity.

Ed Miliband has attracted a more liberal breed of Labour supporters. Photograph: Getty Images.

Anthony Painter is a political writer, commentator and researcher. His new book Left Without A Future? is published by Arcadia Books in November.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.