David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby before the Queen's Speech on June 4, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour and the Tories are both framing 2015 as a two-horse race

But which will benefit the most?

After last year's "summer of silence" (in the words of one shadow minister), Labour is aiming to hit the parliamentary recess running. Ed Miliband's speech tomorrow marks the beginning of a "summer offensive" that will feature more than a dozen major speeches by members of the shadow cabinet in the next five weeks. 

The campaign will be framed around "The Choice" between a "Labour future" and "Tory threat". The aim, as I write in my column this week, is to present the general election as a diametric battle between the two main parties, deterring former Lib Dems from returning home and traditional Labour supporters from defecting to Ukip. Having previously spoken of a new era of "four-party politics", Labour has returned to acting as if there are just two. 

It is a message that the party badly needs voters to hear as they find alternative receptacles for their discontent. Lord Ashcroft’s most recent marginals poll found that Ukip is now in first place in Thurrock (Labour’s number-two target seat) and in Thanet South (where Nigel Farage will likely soon announce his candidacy). The Greens are polling at their highest level since 1989. If the election produces a second successive hung parliament for the first time since 1910, it is this fracturing of the anti-government vote that will explain why.

Labour's attempt to present itself as the only vehicle for anti-Tory voters makes sense, but it is not without risk. By framing the general election as a contest between itself and the Conservatives, it helps to reinforce the equivalent Tory message that the only way to stop the opposition taking power is to vote Conservative (not Ukip). If enough Ukip supporters return to the Tory fold, Labour could struggle to win many of the Conservative marginals it has targeted. 

For the Tories, the danger of presenting the election as a Manichean battle between itself and the opposition is that the 25 per cent of 2010 Lib Dems who have defected to Labour are even less inclined to return (as I've written before, Tory MPs recognise that they need a partial Lib Dem recovery to remain the largest party).

If there is cause for Labour optimism it is that the number of anti-Tory voters is higher than the number of anti-Labour voters. As recent polling by Ipsos MORI found, 40 per cent of the electorate would never consider voting Conservative, compared to 33 per cent for Labour. With a far stronger brand, it is the opposition that has the most to gain if voters come to view 2015 as a battle between red and blue. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.