Show Hide image

Labour hit Cameron on debates - but the status quo favours Miliband

Labour have released a video attacking David Cameron for ducking out of the debates. But it may well be Ed Miliband who has the most to gain if they don't take place. 

Labour have released a video contrasting the David Cameron of 2009-10 - who thought televised debates were the best thing since sliced bread - with the David Cameron of 2014-5 - who has absolutely no intention in taking part in the debates. 

The party badly needs the issue to stay in the news if they're to have any hope of securing the debate that the Labour leadership believe will allow Ed Miliband to overcome the public's negative perceptions of him. But in the absence of a particularly striking third-day angle for the story, it seems likely that the Prime Minister will get away with sabotaging the debates.

That might not be as bad news for Labour as either Team Miliband or Downing Street suppose. Yes, some of the public opprobium towards Miliband is due to a hostile media. But the some of it is down to Miliband and his team. It wasn't the fault of the Sun that Miliband was unable to name the price of a weekly shop, something that, in the words of one Labour strategist: "I would never let even a council candidate leave the office without that information" or the malice of the Mail that caused Miliband to claim he "feels respect" when he sees a white van.  The danger for Labour in the debates is it is easy to imagine Miliband beating Cameron heavily - but it's equally plausible that he could self-destruct.

As for the Conservative campaign, yes, the messaging is disciplined and the campaign is slick. But the polls don't seem to be moving, their only plausible coalition partner is flatlining, they have realistic hopes of making Labour gains in just five seats, and will certainly lose at least twice that to Labour. A lot of the narrative around the Tory campaign is based on the idea, as I say on this week's podcast, that when the voters see the whites of Miliband's eyes, they will vote Conservative. If that doesn't happen, CCHQ's campaign will go down in history as a bore-a-thon that was too scared of Ed Miliband to take him on directly. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496