Conservative ministers at the party's conference in Manchester in 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The Tories are obsessed with Miliband’s “weakness”. They’d do better to reflect on their own

Rather than rejoicing at the Labour leader's unpopularity, the Tories should ask themselves why they continue to trail in the polls.

When David Cameron was forced to disown Rebekah Brooks at the height of the phone-hacking scandal, he despatched an emissary to express his regret. “Sorry I couldn’t have been as loyal to you as you have been to me, but Ed Miliband had me on the run,” was the message relayed to the former News International chief executive. The Labour leader had forced Cameron to play catch-up by breaking one of the unwritten rules of British politics and declaring war on Rupert Murdoch.

But if the Prime Minister felt threatened by Miliband then, he doesn’t now. A “profound apology” was what Cameron promised if Andy Coulson, whom he appointed first as director of communications of the Conservative Party and then to the same role at No 10, was found guilty of phone-hacking. But there was nothing profound about the terse, matter-of-fact message that the Prime Minister recorded shortly after the legal verdict was announced. The banality of his response reflected the Tories’ belief that any damage from the affair had already been done. “We’ve cauterised the wound,” a Conservative MP told me.

It was also evidence of Miliband and Cameron’s changed fortunes. When the former had the Prime Minister “on the run”, his net approval rating stood at -21 to Cameron’s -25. It now stands at -43 to Cameron’s -13. More than the economic recovery, the incumbency factor and Labour’s spendthrift reputation, it is Miliband’s parlous personal ratings that give the Tories hope that they will emerge victorious in May 2015.

That an increasing number in Labour take the same view has reinforced their confidence. Jon Cruddas’s call in an interview with me for an end to political “top trumps”, and his declaration that “it’s not about Andy [Burnham], or Ed [Balls], or Yvette [Cooper]”, offer a glimpse into the conversations that some of the party’s MPs are having in private about the leadership. Although there is no outright disloyalty to Miliband, the subject of defeat and what it would mean for Labour arises with ever-greater frequency.

Yet Miliband heads a party that has led in the polls almost continuously for three years. When the Tories moved ahead after George Osborne’s deft Budget in March, many predicted that Labour’s lead had ended permanently. However, the party’s slight but stubborn advantage has returned.

Rather than rejoicing at Miliband’s subterranean personal ratings, the Tories should ask themselves why. The optimistic reading is that the Conservatives’ vote share is a “lagging indicator” that will shift as the fruits of the economic recovery are shared more widely and as voters properly consider whom they want to run the country. It is one echoed by some in Labour. Veterans of the Kinnock era recall that the party led the Tories for years in opposition but that John Major’s lead as “the best prime minister” proved decisive. Their Scottish colleagues note that the same was true in the case of Iain Gray and Alex Salmond in the 2011 Holyrood election. No party leader has ever won while trailing on both leadership and economic competence and few Tories believe that Miliband will be the first.

The pessimistic reading is that the Conservatives’ depressed ratings reflect the long-term structural weakness of the Tory brand. This is the party that won just 36 per cent of the vote against Gordon Brown’s government in 2010, that 57 per cent of the public “dislike” (compared to 43 per cent for Labour and 47 per cent for the Liberal Democrats) and that just 31 per cent think is “on the side of people like me”.

It was the belief that such uncomfortable truths had to be confronted, rather than ignored, that underpinned Cameron’s modernisation project. The Tories’ centrist shift enabled them to win their biggest swing since 1931 and to avoid a fourth successive general election defeat. But just at the moment when Cameron should have consolidated his advantage, he retreated. In the months following the 2010 election, the view hardened that the Tories had failed to win a majority because they were insufficiently “tough” on immigration, welfare and Europe, not because too few trusted them to manage public services and to govern in the interests of all voters. After this, the party’s rightwards trajectory in office became inevitable.

In his leaked attack on Cameron’s EU strategy, the Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski (an old Bullingdon Club contemporary of Boris Johnson at Oxford) lamented that he had “ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him”. The same is true in almost every other area. The man who once declared that his priorities could be defined by the three letters “N-H-S” now avoids mentioning the subject in deference to the Conservatives’ election strategist Lynton Crosby. After trying and failing to erode Labour’s lead on the issue by pinning the blame for the Mid Staffs scandal on them, Crosby has concluded that even to acknowledge the existence of the health service only gives succour to the opposition.

William Hague is fond of joking that the Conservative Party has only two modes: panic and complacency. Having exhibited plenty signs of the former (as displayed by the intermittent briefing wars over Cameron’s putative successor), the Tories are now lapsing into the latter. The monomaniacal focus on Labour’s weaknesses, rather than their own, is evidence of a party that is in danger of forgetting why it did not win a majority in 2010. “We have made a series of mistakes collectively because we have always underestimated him [Miliband],” said Eric Pickles recently, in a rare moment of Conservative self-criticism. But even more than that, the Tories need to avoid overestimating themselves. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 25 June 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Who was Franz Ferdinand?

Getty
Show Hide image

Debunking Boris Johnson's claim that energy bills will be lower if we leave the EU

Why the Brexiteers' energy policy is less power to the people and more electric shock.

Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have promised that they will end VAT on domestic energy bills if the country votes to leave in the EU referendum. This would save Britain £2bn, or "over £60" per household, they claimed in The Sun this morning.

They are right that this is not something that could be done without leaving the Union. But is such a promise responsible? Might Brexit in fact cost us much more in increased energy bills than an end to VAT could ever hope to save? Quite probably.

Let’s do the maths...

In 2014, the latest year for which figures are available, the UK imported 46 per cent of our total energy supply. Over 20 other countries helped us keep our lights on, from Russian coal to Norwegian gas. And according to Energy Secretary Amber Rudd, this trend is only set to continue (regardless of the potential for domestic fracking), thanks to our declining reserves of North Sea gas and oil.


Click to enlarge.

The reliance on imports makes the UK highly vulnerable to fluctuations in the value of the pound: the lower its value, the more we have to pay for anything we import. This is a situation that could spell disaster in the case of a Brexit, with the Treasury estimating that a vote to leave could cause the pound to fall by 12 per cent.

So what does this mean for our energy bills? According to December’s figures from the Office of National Statistics, the average UK household spends £25.80 a week on gas, electricity and other fuels, which adds up to £35.7bn a year across the UK. And if roughly 45 per cent (£16.4bn) of that amount is based on imports, then a devaluation of the pound could cause their cost to rise 12 per cent – to £18.4bn.

This would represent a 5.6 per cent increase in our total spending on domestic energy, bringing the annual cost up to £37.7bn, and resulting in a £75 a year rise per average household. That’s £11 more than the Brexiteers have promised removing VAT would reduce bills by. 

This is a rough estimate – and adjustments would have to be made to account for the varying exchange rates of the countries we trade with, as well as the proportion of the energy imports that are allocated to domestic use – but it makes a start at holding Johnson and Gove’s latest figures to account.

Here are five other ways in which leaving the EU could risk soaring energy prices:

We would have less control over EU energy policy

A new report from Chatham House argues that the deeply integrated nature of the UK’s energy system means that we couldn’t simply switch-off the  relationship with the EU. “It would be neither possible nor desirable to ‘unplug’ the UK from Europe’s energy networks,” they argue. “A degree of continued adherence to EU market, environmental and governance rules would be inevitable.”

Exclusion from Europe’s Internal Energy Market could have a long-term negative impact

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Amber Rudd said that a Brexit was likely to produce an “electric shock” for UK energy customers – with costs spiralling upwards “by at least half a billion pounds a year”. This claim was based on Vivid Economic’s report for the National Grid, which warned that if Britain was excluded from the IEM, the potential impact “could be up to £500m per year by the early 2020s”.

Brexit could make our energy supply less secure

Rudd has also stressed  the risks to energy security that a vote to Leave could entail. In a speech made last Thursday, she pointed her finger particularly in the direction of Vladamir Putin and his ability to bloc gas supplies to the UK: “As a bloc of 500 million people we have the power to force Putin’s hand. We can coordinate our response to a crisis.”

It could also choke investment into British energy infrastructure

£45bn was invested in Britain’s energy system from elsewhere in the EU in 2014. But the German industrial conglomerate Siemens, who makes hundreds of the turbines used the UK’s offshore windfarms, has warned that Brexit “could make the UK a less attractive place to do business”.

Petrol costs would also rise

The AA has warned that leaving the EU could cause petrol prices to rise by as much 19p a litre. That’s an extra £10 every time you fill up the family car. More cautious estimates, such as that from the RAC, still see pump prices rising by £2 per tank.

The EU is an invaluable ally in the fight against Climate Change

At a speech at a solar farm in Lincolnshire last Friday, Jeremy Corbyn argued that the need for co-orinated energy policy is now greater than ever “Climate change is one of the greatest fights of our generation and, at a time when the Government has scrapped funding for green projects, it is vital that we remain in the EU so we can keep accessing valuable funding streams to protect our environment.”

Corbyn’s statement builds upon those made by Green Party MEP, Keith Taylor, whose consultations with research groups have stressed the importance of maintaining the EU’s energy efficiency directive: “Outside the EU, the government’s zeal for deregulation will put a kibosh on the progress made on energy efficiency in Britain.”

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.