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
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496