The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The challenges facing Ed Miliband

Winning outright at the next election will prove as tough for Labour as the Tories.

By Sunder Katwala Published 14 January 2011 14:17

Ed Miliband is considerably more likely to be the next prime minister than most people have realised.

The biggest reason is less to do with a solid Labour win in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, or anything the Labour leader has yet done to set out his stall for the year ahead, which will be his task at Saturday's Fabian conference, but is rather the stark difficulty in identifying a plausible re-election strategy for David Cameron.

No postwar prime minister has ever governed for a full term and then increased their party's share of the vote at the next general election. It will not be enough for Cameron to recover his support if an economic upturn arrives at the end of his austerity parliament; he must break the mould and increase it. Unless he can become more popular while governing, something that has eluded his predecessors in the best of economic conditions, there will not be a Tory-majority government elected in May 2015.

Yet a Tory-Lib Dem pact seems close to impossible, and Michael Ashcroft is gathering evidence that it wouldn't work anyway. And Cameron will struggle to negotiate his way back in if he seeks a majority and falls short: this time it would be his legitimacy in question. Any outcome where alternative governing combinations are possible could well see him ousted.

These Tory difficulties are not cause for Labour complacency. Even with a fairly modest increase in Labour's vote from 29 per cent, Ed Miliband has every chance of drawing the next election by default. He would very likely become prime minister with one more seat or one more vote than the Conservatives. But winning outright is probably as tough for Labour as for the Tories. Hung parliaments are as likely to be the norm as the exception, as IPPR has recently set out. (Those who disagree need to complete the sentence: "It should be easier for the Tories to win a majority in 2015 than it was in 2010 because . . .")

Miliband has received much contradictory advice since becoming leader. He has been told that nobody wants to hear from the last government, and to define himself in 100 days. He has been reminded that he has a fragile mandate from a close, and split, leadership result, and told to assert himself on his critics. He has upset MPs concerned about his desire to draw a line under the New Labour era, and his repeated voicing of fears that Labour has yet to understand how much it has to change to reconnect. Such, inevitably, is the lot of the leader of the opposition.

In his first three months, Miliband established that he will have a more collegiate leadership style, and that he is in the foothills of a long campaign and doesn't see rushing into photo opportunities or political pyrotechnics as the answer. His party's morale is mixed. Among younger activists, who campaigned in great numbers in Oldham, it is high. But excepting the class of 2010, many Labour MPs have been fairly miserable ever since the autumn of 2007, with the novel experience of recession and defeat mixed into the cocktail of hatred towards MPs after the expenses crisis.

The most daunting challenges for the Labour leader are to restore the party's economic reputation and forge a new political economy, and to demonstrate some supple leadership in dividing the coalition and demonstrating Labour's ability to adapt to this more plural political environment. Punching the Liberal Democrats in the face is often not the best way to exploit the emerging coalition fault lines. He must also define the broad themes of his policy review. A quarter of current party members were not in Labour a year ago – the test remains whether Labour can show that they can shape its campaigns and policy.

Another feature of 2011 may be an ever sharper geographical polarisation in British politics. The electoral map between coalition and the opposition – except for Labour in London and the Scottish Lib Dems – presents quite a stark north-south divide, which the pattern of public spending and cuts will exacerbate. This is a problem for the government, whose "there is no alternative" mantra risks creating a bunker mentality. But it will not be enough for Labour to rack up enormous leads in Scotland and the north if it cannot also rebuild its collapsed support in the south outside London.

The opening to the new year has been good for Miliband. The government cannot win a public argument about why it is increasing VAT but refusing to renew the bank bonus tax.

If, as the governing parties claim today, Labour was always going to win the Oldham East by-election, it is quite a mystery why it took place.

While Tory tactical voting has averted a deeper Lib Dem party crisis, the by-election has cost Nick Clegg his governing strategy – his warnings to his party not to seek distinctiveness within the coalition now scrapped in favour of "Operation Detach", and an increasing amount of yellow dissent at every level.

Conservative MPs are in a mood to respond to this. The patently false Conservative claim that they fought a whole-hearted campaign has brought trust between Cameron and his party activists to new lows. If Cameron would like some form of pact or arrangement, he has increased the obstacles to it.

There is no threat to the coalition itself, but these self-inflicted wounds are potentially significant longer-term fissures. Ed Miliband will welcome the assistance but certainly cannot rely on his political opponents. At the Fabian New Year conference on Saturday, he will need to begin to colour in the shape of the alternative platform he is beginning to construct.

Sunder Katwala is general secretary of the Fabian Society. The New Statesman is media partner for the Fabian/FEPS New Year Conference "Next Left: What is the Alternative?" on Saturday.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Ed Miliband

More from Sunder Katwala

28 comments

Sun, 2011-01-16 12:44 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Swatantra Nandanwer, Clem the Gem and Mulligrubs. How much longer are you going to blame the Tories for the collapse of this country? Thirteen years of spivery by Blair and Brown brought this country to it's knees! and no I'm not a Tory supporter, I'm a Liberal Democrat, Ed Miliband was part of what was termed a Labour Government but never was! Gordon Brown was prepared to sell his soul and get into bed with every minority party to form an "alliance" and people like you would have swallowed it just to keep the Labour Project going. If you were true socialists,you would have nothing to do with Ed Miliband's new improved Labour! Reginald-Fah-fah, you are either a wind-up artist or an idiot!

Fri, 2011-01-14 18:25 — elrob

A review of the boundaries and the abolition of 50 seats - reversing Labour's gerrymandering - would enable Cameron to win a comfortable majority in 2010 without increasing his support at all.
That was not Labour gerrymandering. Just how the cookies fell from the last commission in the 980s. If I remember well, the Tories had the head-start in the 1980s.

Furthermore, the system is only unfair when it is unfair to the Tories it seems. The Lib Dems get 23% of the vote, and 9% of the seats. But that is fair?

While Tories squeal when they get 46% of the seats from 36% of the vote. Because it did not help them as mush as 36% did for Labour in 2005. What chutzpah! Arr, diddums

Gerrymandering is when you set the rules yourself, without taking a public comment period. Ie the Tories now!

Would it not be delightful for the Labour and Lib Dem leaders to campaign for AV, and Bullingdon Boy campaign against, only for Labour to go and win a majority despite 1% behind the Tory vote in 2014/15. The hear them squeal! Ha! Your rules!!! We wanted a fairer system but you campainged against. How they would squeal...

Fri, 2011-01-14 18:31 — elrob

I meant....That was not Labour gerrymandering. Just how the cookies fell from the last commission in the 1990s.
-----
and Luddite...
Labour almost disappeared south of the Scottish border and east of the Welsh border.
-------------
I think you'll find London is red. Or do only English shires count (Real Britain eh? Like Palin's real America - only the redstate hicks!)?

Typical Tory. No-one counts if there from the cities, Scotland, Wales, London, immigrant, of immigrant family (going back how far we don't know). And that from the Conservative and Unionist (sic) party.

Sun, 2011-01-16 15:02 — 13eastie (not verified)

Indeed Stuart, Brown would not only have sold his soul but would have spent further billions of tax-payers' money bribing every loon in the HoC to try to keep himself in No. 10.

It really is remarkable how by simply questioning the assertion that Cameron would have to increase his support arithmetically to achieve a 2015 majority, cloth-eared Labour shills start bleating about Thatcher, who left office more than 20 years ago...

Why do they have nothing more current to offer?

The British slung Brown out on his ear because they do not like being taxed to hell, bullied, spied on, controlled, lied to, imprisoned without trial, stolen from.

Hence Labour suddenly have no policies...

Fri, 2011-01-14 18:47 — swatantra nandanwar

Just to remind the prejudiced that the Boundary Commission is impartial. Labour just seems to have a bit more supporters in the inner cites and towns and not in the sprawling leafy sparsely populated suburbs. So the type of shirley porter gerry mandering is not relevant here. If the affluent Tories bothered to abandon their flight from the city and gentrified the poorer areas they might find they have more prescence and seats there.

Fri, 2011-01-14 19:27 — matthew fox (not verified)

@elrob

Please lay off Luddite, give him enough rope and he will get himself banned from this site.

And don't start using facts in your argument, it only winds him up even more.

My understanding of history, is that Sir John Banham lead the boundary changes in the nineties.

Sir John Banham was head of the CBI, not really your average pinko.

Sun, 2011-01-16 17:52 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Watched the Andrew Marr bout with opponent and new champ -Ed Miliband.
Brought back memories of the spanking M Ali gave Ernie Terrell. 'What's my Name?'
The ref should have shown mercy and stopped the fight at the half-way mark.
Marr completely outclassed. Bantam-weight, maybe. Heavy-weight? In your dreams.
Ringmeister

Fri, 2011-01-14 20:10 — Reginald-Fah-fah

Labour's success in Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election will not even be remember by the next General Election.

I think the people of Oldham East and Saddleworth have made a very big mistake. It's a waste a good vote! To me it's like not voting at all to make a point. No one really cares.

Locally, they are going to have a hard time getting their point over to the coalition governement.

For example, the areas with a Conservative MP and Conservative Councils had a better chance of beating the recent 'big freeze'!

Everyone knows that is better to have a MP who is part of the political party who are in government.

David Cameron knew that his by-election wasn't a king make nor a king breaker!

Prime Minister David Cameron will still be the Greatest Prime Minister Great Britain has ever seen!

Sat, 2011-01-15 09:34 — Tom Jeffries (not verified)

Hello

Dance is the answer

http://gingerfightback.com/ginger-whingers/ed-milibands-strictly-coming-...

Sat, 2011-01-15 11:03 — swatantra nandanwar

Reggie, he'd have to wait in line behind churchill thatcher heath and major before that happened.
Its true, right to buy stalled the house building market, and its disgraceful that labour did little, not even releasing the receipts.
he first policy ed should concentrate on is housing, after he's done the economy welfare prisons and education.

Sat, 2011-01-15 12:41 — 13eastie (not verified)

elrob, sawatantra et al.,

Gerrymandering, pseudo gerrymandering and electoral fraud have certainly been effected by Labour via immigration policy, craftily targeted (public, not election) spending in marginal seats, and postal voting abuse.

The Commission is indeed independent, which is why it is curious that so many on the left are so vociferously opposed to a review of boundaries. Surely anyone who wanted the playing field to be kept level who support wholeheartedly an active and vigilant boundary commission? As a Labour home secretary once said, "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear!"

As far as "diddums" is concerned, I do hope this typifies Labour - an attitude like this will help keep them out. If you are going to say this to anyone, though, you should say it too your children: it is they that will spend their working lives paying for Brown's maladroit economic cluster-f***. Cheer them up by taking them to visit HMS Mothball and HMS White Elephant...

Sat, 2011-01-15 12:57 — swatantra nandanwar

... in the same way we are still paying for the mistakes of Thatchers and 18 years of Tory misrule?
'The sins of the fathers/mothers lives long after them'?

Sat, 2011-01-15 15:56 — Clem the Gem

The by-election result is welcome, but it is a HOLD not a gain, we need a similar result in the next one, just to stay where we are. Don't forget the loss of 50 seats in the "Reform" gerrymander, and that if AV doesn't win the referendum, the Conservatives stand to be entrenched as parliaments largest party.
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com/

Mon, 2011-01-17 18:33 — Mulligrubs (not verified)

Stuart Eels;
Thanks for the mention and the upbraiding lecture. So, like many in your Jason-like and dilemma-riven party - you have decided to rewrite the Tories recent past and dubious present - now that you are best friends - according to the Clegg version. I think this adds weight to my point about being untrustworthy, ( A really mild description.) Lib Dems are happy to be in coalition with Lab or Con or practically anyone - so long as they can have any sort of puppet grip on power. Hmmm! very principled. I admit I am a socialist and live very comfortably with that knowledge - but Blair's New Labour was little better than watered down Toryism, let's not pretend it was progressive or establishment challenging, let alone socialist. L/D's would have been quite happy in coalition with New Lab undoubtedly - middle of the road and all that - if they are consistent that is. I mean consistent in their moderation and deficiency in the principles department. That said - there is an area on which we ( you and myself) are in agreement: Reginald Fah Fah is not only an idiot but he is an idiot that obviously doesn't possess or know how to use a dictionary - he could be much less casual regarding the English Language as she is spelled crektly - and still not make any sense - as I'm sure an embarrassed Eton Dave would readily point out to him. Although Fah fah is unaware of it - he's actually doing sterling work for the increasing numbers of anti-Tories. Carry on Fah fah!

Sat, 2011-01-15 15:58 — Clem the Gem

Ed is doing fairly well at this point, and the result does seem to show that people are willing to see him, and newer candidates, as "drawing a line" under both New labour and the expenses scandals.
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com/

Mon, 2011-01-17 19:39 — matthew fox (not verified)

Cameron is in a league of his own, Unibond League.

Thu, 2011-01-20 15:58 — Union Steve

NHS Camerons Poll Tax. Ed Next PM. The Tories destroying the country again. The right wing thick'os are getting realy desperate. Daft coments from looney people.

Fri, 2011-01-14 14:25 — Marcus (not verified)

This Miliband will never be PM.

Fri, 2011-01-14 14:42 — swatantra nandanwar

They said the same of John Major and look what happened to him. First amongst equals can throw up a lot of outsiders. Ed has got a 1 in 650 chance of being PM, which are pretty good odds.

Sat, 2011-01-15 20:01 — Mulligrubs (not verified)

Tis Saturday and he's made his speech to the Fabians; He seems to be welcoming the disaffected Lib Dems with open arms into the Labour fold. Beware Ed - Lib Dems, Soc Dems - call them what you will - are notoriously vain and untrustworthy - they walked away in 1979 and we got thirteen years of the Thatcher Gorgon as a result - think on lad - history can repeat itself.

Fri, 2011-01-14 15:08 — 13eastie (not verified)

in 2005, Blair took 35.2% of the popular vote and won a majority in the house of 32.

In 2010, Cameron took 36.1% of the popular vote and fell short of a majority by 20 seats.

Labour has a built-in head-start of over 50 seats.

A review of the boundaries and the abolition of 50 seats - reversing Labour's gerrymandering - would enable Cameron to win a comfortable majority in 2010 without increasing his support at all.

Fri, 2011-01-14 15:20 — Whig (not verified)

Quote from above article "If... Labour was always going to win the Oldham East by-election, it is quite a mystery as to why it took place."

Sunder - the previous MP was forced to stand down so there was a vacancy. You can't have a stitch up between the parties to prevent an election on the assumption that Labour would probably win - the scope for abuse of power is immense. The above quote undermined an otherwise good article

Fri, 2011-01-14 15:34 — Pat (not verified)

Firstly, Blair won a majority of over 60...

The reason that Labour does relatively better on a lower percentage of the votes is because labour strongholds tend to have lower turnouts, whilst the Tories stack up votes in their strongholds.

This has always happened in recent elections (in 1983, labour won MORE seats than the Tories did in any election 1997-2005): in 2005 the Tories only won 198 seats, as opposed to 209 for labour in 1983. I don't believe the Tories had a problem with this 1979-1997!

This is the way FPTP works if you do not have compulsory voting. If you have a problem with it, support STV!

If anyone is gerrymandering it's the Tories: forcing through boundary changes that will benefit them. That opens a VERY dangerous can of worms - you will get like th USA where boundaries are gerrymandered to help the party in power. I don't think ANYONE in this country really wants that...

Sat, 2011-01-15 22:08 — Reginald-Fah-fah

Churchill, Lady thatcher will have to move aside in British Politic History!

David Cameron is in a league of his own! David Cameron will be the Greatest Prime Minister in British History! I back David Cameron full and wholeheartly! He will change Great Britain for the best!!!!

Fri, 2011-01-14 16:07 — sunderkatwala

Whig,

Except that this relied on the LibDem candidate taking the unusual step of the court challenge, and pursuing it vigorously. That is how he was forced to stand down, so I am talking about the decision to go for the judicial challenge by the LibDem candidate.

So there are broadly two possible explanations.

(i) The LibDems thought that winning the court case would open up a good chance to win the seat.

(ii) The LibDems did not think that, but felt they had to support a determined candidate. Either because the candidate thought he could win (while the party didn't), or (in theory) because the candidate wanted to get the Woolas election overturned as a matter of justice even if he thought he would lose the re-run (though this doesn't appear to have been the case).

There is some element of (2), in that the candidate was keener than the party, but also I think a good dose of (1)

Fri, 2011-01-14 16:46 — Luddite (not verified)

Labour almost disappeared south of the Scottish border and east of the Welsh border. Labour may have retained many of the big cities thanks to the concentration of the immigrant vote, but next time, with boundary changes and ending fraudulent postal voting, things will be quite different, with a booming economy our troops out of Afghanistan, who the fuck wants Labour back.

Fri, 2011-01-14 16:57 — 13eastie (not verified)

Pat - my simple point (which you have further illustrated with your pedantry) is that Cameron may well not need to increase his popular support at all to take a big majority in 2015.

You can write as many "PR for Dummies" paragraphs as you like, but this will continue to be true while electoral reform remains on the agenda.

Fri, 2011-01-14 17:17 — Dave C (not verified)

13eastie talks of "Labour's gerrymandering".

Constituency boundaries are set by the relevant independent Boundary Commission, such as the Boundary Commission for England.

http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/

For each seat under review, there is usually a public hearing lasting about three days, at which all political parties and members of the public give their views.

The charge of "gerrymandering" is a fantasy (unless 13eastie would like to give us some evidence).