Miliband and the myth of the "35 per cent strategy"

Aiming for 35 per cent would mean settling for less. But it would be foolish not to recognise that, as in 2005, it could prove enough for a Labour majority.

Rachel Sylvester's Times column has caused a stir in Labour circles this morning, with its claim that some in the party believe Ed Miliband is pursuing a "35 per cent strategy". This would amount to securing the 29 per cent of voters who backed Labour in 2010, and adding on another six per cent of Lib Dem defectors in order to inch over the line. Dan Hodges similarly claims on his Telegraph blog: "Labour’s leader thinks that if he can convince just 35 per cent of voters to give his party the benefit of the doubt in 2015, he’ll win. Tony Blair is not alone in thinking it’s a strategy that is fundamentally flawed." 

It's hard to reconcile this with Miliband's aspiration to be a "one nation" prime minister and the "35 per cent" line is a fairly obvious and crude attempt to undermine his leadership. As one source close to the Labour leader told me this morning, "Aiming for 35 per cent suggests we'd settle for less, which is one of many reasons why it would be stupid to have that as our strategy." 

There isn't (and nor should there be) a "35 per cent strategy" but the debate over it is a good example of the increasing disparity between politics and psephology. After all, Labour's last victory in 2005, which saw it win a majority of 66, was achieved on a vote share of 35.2 per cent. Miliband will rightly aim to improve on this performance but with the boundary changes now abandoned, it is true that Labour only needs a small lead to secure a stable majority. The divided right (UKIP is now certain to improve on its 2010 share of 3.1 per cent) and the collapse of support for the Lib Dems in Tory-Labour marginals are strong points in the party's favour. There is no contradiction in wanting Labour to win on its terms, while also recognising these advantages. The disdain for Miliband's alleged "35 per cent strategy" says much more about the disagreement some have with his political choices (a different debate) than it does about Labour's prospects of victory. 

Ed Miliband addresses workers at Islington Town Hall on November 5, 2012 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Forget gaining £350m a week, Brexit would cost the UK £300m a week

Figures from the government's own Office for Budget Responsibility reveal the negative economic impact Brexit would have. 

Even now, there are some who persist in claiming that Boris Johnson's use of the £350m a week figure was accurate. The UK's gross, as opposed to net EU contribution, is precisely this large, they say. Yet this ignores that Britain's annual rebate (which reduced its overall 2016 contribution to £252m a week) is not "returned" by Brussels but, rather, never leaves Britain to begin with. 

Then there is the £4.1bn that the government received from the EU in public funding, and the £1.5bn allocated directly to British organisations. Fine, the Leavers say, the latter could be better managed by the UK after Brexit (with more for the NHS and less for agriculture).

But this entire discussion ignores that EU withdrawal is set to leave the UK with less, rather than more, to spend. As Carl Emmerson, the deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes in a letter in today's Times: "The bigger picture is that the forecast health of the public finances was downgraded by £15bn per year - or almost £300m per week - as a direct result of the Brexit vote. Not only will we not regain control of £350m weekly as a result of Brexit, we are likely to make a net fiscal loss from it. Those are the numbers and forecasts which the government has adopted. It is perhaps surprising that members of the government are suggesting rather different figures."

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, to which Emmerson refers, are shown below (the £15bn figure appearing in the 2020/21 column).

Some on the right contend that a blitz of tax cuts and deregulation following Brexit would unleash  higher growth. But aside from the deleterious economic and social consequences that could result, there is, as I noted yesterday, no majority in parliament or in the country for this course. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.