Ed Miliband delivers his speech on banking reform in London on January 17, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Miliband is right to keep banging on about living standards

Voters will still be worse off in 2015 than in 2010 - Labour's "cost-of-living" strategy remains its best hope of victory.

Ed Miliband needs to find a new script - that has been the response of most of Fleet Street to the Labour's leader Budget reply. Eight months after Miliband made the "cost-of-living" his party's defining theme (and years after he first used the phrase), commentators are desperate for him to change the subject. In part, this reflects the natural journalistic desire for novelty but it also reflects the belief that, with the economy recovering, this attack line has run its course. Yet for at least two reasons, Miliband (to invert David Cameron on Europe) is right to keep "banging on" about living standards. 

First, while the gap between average wages and prices has narrowed in recent months, real incomes are still declining. As the ONS figures published yesterday show, average weekly earnings rose by 1.4 per cent from November 2013 to January 2014, 0.5 per cent below the current rate of inflation. For most people, in other words, there is still no recovery at all. And in an economy as unequal as Britain's, the headline average (hugely inflated by high pay at the top) is an imperfect guide to living standards. Even after wages finally creep above inflation (as they are forecast to do this year), there will be no rise in real incomes for the millions of public sector workers who have had their salary increases capped at 1 per cent and for those most reliant on benefits. 

For the rest, after five years of falling living standards, it will take more than a few months of growth to make up the ground lost since the crisis. In 2015, as the IFS has repeatedly pointed out, real incomes will still be far below their 2010 level, with voters currently an average of £1,600 a year worse off. As Ed Balls noted at his post-Budget briefing yesterday, this will be the first time that living standards have ever been lower at the end of a parliament than at the start (paving the way for Miliband's "Reagan moment"). Indeed, based on the RPI measure of inflation, the OBR forecasts that wages will be flat until 2019; there will be plenty of people who feel no better off in the next decade, let alone in the next year. 

This leads to the second reason why Miliband is right to maintain his "cost-of-living" focus: voters believe Labour is most likely to make a difference. While the Tories enjoy a large lead as the best party to manage the economy and the deficit, Labour continues to lead as the party best-placed to improve living standards (with a five-point advantage in the most recent YouGov poll).

The key for Miliband is to shift political debate towards the latter and away from the former (as he did in his conference speech). It was this strategy that Barack Obama successfully deployed during his 2012 campaign. In meetings with the Labour team in London and Washington DC, Obama aides including his pollster Joel Benenson emphasised how important the president’s stance on living standards had been to victory in tough times. A report on the election by the veteran Democrat Stan Greenberg for Miliband pointed to polls showing that while Mitt Romney had led on "handling the economy"(51-44%) and "reducing the federal budget deficit" (51-37%), Obama had led on understanding "the economic problems ordinary people in this country are having" (51-43%) and on "looking out for the middle class" (51-40%). That Obama triumphed should not be surprising. As one Labour strategist told me, "for most voters, living standards are the economy". The Tories would like nothing more than for the opposition to stop talking about how voters are worse off than they were in 2010, which is precisely why it would be madness for Miliband to do so. 

If Labour is to win the election, it won't be enough to convince voters that they're poorer under the Conservatives. It will also need to convince them that they'd be better off under Labour. In the 2012 US election, Mitt Romney similarly resurrected Ronald Reagan's famous line - "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" - but the electorate stuck with Obama because the numbers were moving in the right direction and they doubted Romney could do any better. The Tories hope and expect UK voters will take the same view of Labour in 2015. 

But the challenge for Miliband is continue to develop his party's offering on wages, jobs, housing and energy, not tear up the script entirely. Labour's "cost-of-living" strategy still represents his best hope of victory in 2015. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

A swimming pool and a bleeding toe put my medical competency in doubt

Doctors are used to contending with Google. Sometimes the search engine wins. 

The brutal heatwave affecting southern Europe this summer has become known among locals as “Lucifer”. Having just returned from Italy, I fully understand the nickname. An early excursion caused the beginnings of sunstroke, so we abandoned plans to explore the cultural heritage of the Amalfi region and strayed no further than five metres from the hotel pool for the rest of the week.

The children were delighted, particularly my 12-year-old stepdaughter, Gracie, who proceeded to spend hours at a time playing in the water. Towelling herself after one long session, she noticed something odd.

“What’s happened there?” she asked, holding her foot aloft in front of my face.

I inspected the proffered appendage: on the underside of her big toe was an oblong area of glistening red flesh that looked like a chunk of raw steak.

“Did you injure it?”

She shook her head. “It doesn’t hurt at all.”

I shrugged and said she must have grazed it. She wasn’t convinced, pointing out that she would remember if she had done that. She has great faith in plasters, though, and once it was dressed she forgot all about it. I dismissed it, too, assuming it was one of those things.

By the end of the next day, the pulp on the underside of all of her toes looked the same. As the doctor in the family, I felt under some pressure to come up with an explanation. I made up something about burns from the hot paving slabs around the pool. Gracie didn’t say as much, but her look suggested a dawning scepticism over my claims to hold a medical degree.

The next day, Gracie and her new-found holiday playmate, Eve, abruptly terminated a marathon piggy-in-the-middle session in the pool with Eve’s dad. “Our feet are bleeding,” they announced, somewhat incredulously. Sure enough, bright-red blood was flowing, apparently painlessly, from the bottoms of their big toes.

Doctors are used to contending with Google. Often, what patients discover on the internet causes them undue alarm, and our role is to provide context and reassurance. But not infrequently, people come across information that outstrips our knowledge. On my return from our room with fresh supplies of plasters, my wife looked up from her sun lounger with an air of quiet amusement.

“It’s called ‘pool toe’,” she said, handing me her iPhone. The page she had tracked down described the girls’ situation exactly: friction burns, most commonly seen in children, caused by repetitive hopping about on the abrasive floors of swimming pools. Doctors practising in hot countries must see it all the time. I doubt it presents often to British GPs.

I remained puzzled about the lack of pain. The injuries looked bad, but neither Gracie nor Eve was particularly bothered. Here the internet drew a blank, but I suspect it has to do with the “pruning” of our skin that we’re all familiar with after a soak in the bath. This only occurs over the pulps of our fingers and toes. It was once thought to be caused by water diffusing into skin cells, making them swell, but the truth is far more fascinating.

The wrinkling is an active process, triggered by immersion, in which the blood supply to the pulp regions is switched off, causing the skin there to shrink and pucker. This creates the biological equivalent of tyre treads on our fingers and toes and markedly improves our grip – of great evolutionary advantage when grasping slippery fish in a river, or if trying to maintain balance on slick wet rocks.

The flip side of this is much greater friction, leading to abrasion of the skin through repeated micro-trauma. And the lack of blood flow causes nerves to shut down, depriving us of the pain that would otherwise alert us to the ongoing tissue damage. An adaptation that helped our ancestors hunt in rivers proves considerably less use on a modern summer holiday.

I may not have seen much of the local heritage, but the trip to Italy taught me something new all the same. 

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear