by Renie Anjeh
Ed Miliband has finally set the political scene alight and he should be praised for it. It has been several weeks since Miliband announced the energy price freeze policy in his conference’s speech, putting an end to the party’s reticence about future policies.
In spite of attacks from the Tory press (and a recalcitrant New Labour grandee), the policy didn’t look particularly socialist but it became popular. I am not sure whether an energy price freeze will actually work but the public love it!
80% of the public back the policy leaving the Tories on the backfoot. Honourable one nation Conservatives, such as Sir John Major and Robert Halfon, have sought to address their party’s problem by calling for a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to fund measures to reduce utility bills (as suggested by Labour’s Manifesto Uncut). Fortunately for the Labour party, their wise advice has fallen on deaf ears and a coalition split has emerged over green taxes.
However, despite of Ed Miliband’s laudable attempt to shift the debate onto cost of living, the party is still not where it needs to be if it wants to be certain of a majority in 2015.
Labour’s lead is beginning to shrink with just eighteen months to go until the general election. One poll saw our poll lead over the Tories cut from 11% to 6%, even though the party has announced its new popular policy.
This seems to be because, although the party has relentlessly focused on the cost of living (an issue where it is already on strong), it is doing little to regain trust on issues where the party is not so strong such as the economy and welfare.
On the economy, polls show that 33% of the public trust Cameron and Osborne on the economy whereas only 25% trust Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. 43% of those who voted for us at the last election say that they too do not trust the Labour Party on the economy.
And then there’s welfare. A TUC commissioned poll showed that 64% of voters in swing Labour-Tory seats support the drive for welfare reform. Attitudes amongst the public on welfare have been hardening putting Labour on the wrong side of the argument. This is why I was astonished that Ed Miliband did not mention spending or welfare in his conference speech.
Rather than pretending that the party’s problems can just be solved by talking about the cost of living, Labour needs to neutralise Tory attacks on the economy and welfare. Rachel Reeves said that Labour would be “tougher than the Tories” on welfare. Her problem is, as Frank Field pointed out, that the public “don’t believe us”.
Perhaps Rachel Reeves should get some advice from Frank Field and others, on how to create a contributory welfare state in the 21st century. That is something that would be widely popular with the public but will also be true to Labour’s vision of the welfare state. The SMF’s proposal for “Facebook welfare” and IPPR’s proposed National Salary Insurance scheme could make that a reality.
On the economy, Labour needs combine “responsible capitalism” with fiscal responsibility. Ed Balls should make it absolutely clear that there is nothing responsible or progressive about running huge deficits when the money could be spent on schools, hospitals or pensions. Labour should be absolutely clear with the public that it will stick to the coalition’s spending plans and hold a zero-budget spending review.
The shadow chancellor could also propose a new fiscal rule to run surpluses at a time of economic growth and to achieve a budget surplus by the end of the first Parliament. Such rules would be monitored by an even tougher OBR, overseen by a new parliamentary select committee that was be chaired by an opposition MP.
If Labour starts making the case for genuine welfare reform, responsible capitalism and fiscal responsibility then it will begin to neutralise Tory attacks on welfare and the economy and start winning back trust. Then the party could focus on priorities such as the cost of living and the NHS where it is already on very strong ground against the government.
That is the way for Labour to win in 2015.
Renie Anjeh is a Labour party activist
Tags: cost of living, economy, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, polls, Renie Anjeh
As last nights BBC 4 Programme on Populations’ showed theres an even more serious problem that the West is not facing up to. OK the World Population will beak around 11 m and then remain static as income levels rise in developing countries and birth rates fall aas Health and Education and Jobs increases. But the fact is The West is living far beyond its means and cannot continue to use 80% of the worlds Energy and resources, while 90% of the population continue in poverty. Well the Poor will not put up with that situation and who can blame them. There will have to come a point when The West will have to drastically reduce its consumption of Energy and give it to the Poor. The Cost of Living Debate is a mere trifle when it comes to making the huge sacrifice that must be made, and that sacrifice should be starting to be made now.
“Perhaps Rachel Reeves should get some advice from Frank Field and others [on how to be tougher than the Tories on welfare]”
Splendid suggestion. May I suggest that Iain Duncan Smith be roped-in to help Labour out on this matter, he can be one of the ‘others’ from whom advice is drawn. There surely can’t be a more direct path to winning credibility and therefore victory in 2015.
“Labour’s lead is beginning to shrink with just eighteen months to go until the general election.”
Incorrect: Labour’s lead is finally starting to creep up after a catastrophic collapse in the polls earlier this year due to the two Eds doing exactly what this article recommends: being “fiscally responsible” (by fully accepting the Tory spending plans) and being “tough on welfare”. And that wasn’t a one-off either: the only time in the past 3 years that Labour have been behind in the polls was in Jan/Feb 2012, after Ed Balls accepting the public-sector payfreeze. By contrast, their latest poll bounce comes on the back of some leftwing populism, just as their biggest leads of this parliament came after they were bold enough to say they opposed the 50p tax cut outright, rather than being too scared to say the rich should pay a high tax rate because they’d look “anti-aspiration” (presumably the main writers on this site and the New Labour grandees also disapproved of that at at the time).
Labour are never, ever going to be seen as tougher on spending or nastier to benefit-claimaints than the Tories: they are just iron laws of politics, just as Labour will always be more trusted with the NHS than the Tories no matter what. It would be utter folly to alienate core Labour voters by adopting Tory rhetoric on these issues in a hopeless attempt to chase voters who are never going to believe anything we say on those topics anyway, and the polling movements whenever the party has taken tentative steps in that direction bear this out.
No. IDS should not be roped in. Terrible idea. Labour needs to establish an old Labour tradition on welfare – popular with the public. Copying the quiet man is no solution.
The British welfare state is not particularly generous. It basically provides people with enough money to stay alive until they get another job. This government’s reforms are making it even less generous, so Labour should not promise anything on welfare apart from correcting outcomes that are blatantly unfair.
On the deficit, Labour should promise to eliminate the deficit by the end of the Parliament. This should not slow the economy down excessively but it will involve difficult decisions, which might include not spending as much as Labour would like to on areas such as education and health.
Another contributor to Labour Uncut from the far right of the party.
Have the editors heard of striking a journalistic balance?
This confirms what anyone with an iota of sense already knew. Labour Uncut represents only a tiny section of the Labour Party; a section of people in awe of New Labour and a way of politics that the electorate wants never to see again.
You only need to look at the appalling writing of people like Julian Ruck and the writer of this article to ascertain without doubt that they were not selected for their journalistic flair or linguistic talent. Poorly written drivel, but it correlates nicely with Labour Uncut’s Toryesque desires for the Labour Party.
You really need to drop the name Labour in your website’s title. People might think you actually represent the majority view of those associated with the Party. Fortunately, for the party and for the nation, you absolutely don’t.
People like Dan Hodges and Rob Marchant would probably compliment your article. Which should tell you absolutely everything you need to know.
Renie: “Labour needs to establish an old Labour tradition on welfare”
Ah yes, you mean like in the 60s and 70s when you could go down the employment exchange, fill is a form and get money handed to you over the counter once a week. No pressure to find a job and housing benefit paid even if you were a student. No tuition fees as well. Those were the days, I remember them well.
But can’t see how that’s going to out-flank the Tories on the Right.
@ Mike – Well if you have looked at the polls you will see that our poll lead is shortening. I know that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls believe in the whole welfare reform/fiscal responsibility thing but the public don’t and it is the public who will be going to the ballot box in 2015. As for ‘leftwing populism’, it was not very leftwing (just party-pleasing stuff) but the essential things were not there.
“Labour are never, ever going to be seen as tougher on spending” – well we trusted with spending in 2001 and 2005, because the public believed that we could manage the economy. Tories ended up matching our spending plans. If you actually read the article, you will see that there are proposals on how to shoot Osborne’s fox whilst sticking to a broadly Keynesian economic policy (surpluses when the economy is growing). On welfare, look at Labour voters and there attitudes, then come back to me. Try some doorknocking and then think again.
@Robert – I broadly agree with you but on welfare but the public do not trust us on welfare and they do not trust the welfare state. If we are to be the defenders of the welfare state, we have to reform it to meet growing demand but also public satisfaction. For eg. why should someone who has never worked get the same as someone who has worked for 10 years but has been made redundant?
@Danny – I have heard people from across the party praise this article saying “that’s exactly what we’re thinking”. I think if anyone is not in touch with the real Labour party out there, it is you not me. Whole point of writing this article is because I want a Labour government (i.e. the Tories out). Your politics does not even represent the views of Clement Attlee yet alone the views of the party out there. As for New Labour, this article is calling for contributory welfare whereas New Labour relied heavily on means-testing. Perhaps you need to get your facts right.
Labour also needs to gain trust on the issue of fair migration.
If it is to win in 2015 then labour needs to accept it was wrong
to let migration drift to levels seen in the period 2004-10 and
it has learned the lessons.
This is a big test for labour.
My fear is those who were responsible still sit on labour’s front bench.
This will make winning the election in 2015 difficult.
” Well if you have looked at the polls you will see that our poll lead is shortening.”
Compared to when? Compared to a year ago, yes the lead has shrunk, with the main movement (coincidentally or not) being over the spring/summer where the party came out with all the Tory-lite rhetoric on spending and welfare. Compared to a couple of months ago (after aforementioned Tory rhetoric), the lead has increased.
Ed is bang on – he is tapping the public mood which is – for especially families across the board its getting more difficult to manage. But it’s about both the increasing cake (GDP) & how the cake is shared out ; The media, business and wealthy do not like that different approach because it asks questions about tax fairness, profit, dividends, growing inequality across our society..but many voters are aware that the gaps in our society are getting wider; it will get nastier never in history do the wealthy go down without a fight. Moreover its not simplistic because the next Labour govt. will have to focus on an aging society demanding more & the need to spend public money on productive investments like technology or infrastucture and less on social transfers.
@Renie Anjeh
The public don’t believe in fiscal responsibility and welfare reform ?
For goodness sake have you been living on a different planet for the last couple of years ? The two Ed’s lag behind Osborne and co in every single public opinion poll and welfare reform is equally popular with the voters as the polls have shown time and again.
If you truly think your orginal statement is correct then there is no hope for Labour in learning any lessons from the past.
Mike, you are desperately trying to justify a move to the Left. Look at our poll lead from last month – it went down. No point trying to deny it and actually it had nothing to do with the rhetoric on spending/welfare (you made a terrible argument about how we can never be trusted on spending) but failure to neutralise attacks. The party never carried on with its change of tactics. No party has won without accepting the spending plans of its predecessor or doing something similar to regain credibility. I’m afraid your solution would lead to the re-election of David Cameron as PM – something I certainly do not want to see.
“Look at our poll lead from last month – it went down.”
Again, it went down compared to when? Compared to the previous month, no it didn’t go down.
“No point trying to deny it and actually it had nothing to do with the rhetoric on spending/welfare”
So you think it’s purely coincidence that EVERY SINGLE TIME Labour embraces Tory rhetoric on welfare/spending, their poll ratings go down? I’m really shocked so many Labour supporters refuse to see the clear correlation. The reality is, their disastrous “centre-ground” positioning over the summer just pissed off Labour voters and at the same time did absolutely nothing to win over people who hated us.
Renie, regarding people who have never worked and people who made redundant after 10 years. I was unemployed for 18 months during the late 1980s but did not get unemployment pay because I had not worked before (I got something called Supplementary Benefit instead). I have since worked for more than 24 years and would have paid for any unemployment pay many times over. If I lost my job now, I would get redundancy pay.
The contributory principle would be very little help for unemployed people aged 18-24. The job guarantee proposal would help them and that should be Labour’s main proposal on welfare. It is odd that nobody, including me, has mentioned it above.
The spending plans of the Tories aren’t credible.
That’s why the recovery of 2010 was choked by them off and why it took massive government intervention in the riskiest part of the UK economy – the housing sector – to get some signs of growth into it.
As for this:
“there is nothing responsible or progressive about running huge deficits when the money could be spent on schools, hospitals or pensions.”
…is massively financially illiterate.
There is a deficit *because* the government is spending on schools, hospitals and pensions at a time when revenues are depressed following a catastrophic private sector economic collapse.
@Robert – Contributory principle would be very little help for unemployed aged 18-24. Not necessarily if contributions also include social contribution but many young people support the contributory principle if you look at their views on welfare. Whole point of welfare is that you should get out what you put in. As for the Jobs Guarantee, I’m a supporter but the current policy is bonkers. 2 years after being guaranteed a job? It’s literally a joke. If we said one year or six months, then it would have some traction with the public.
@Mike – Our poll lead has been up and down for various reasons but I am noting that in recent months, we have announced a hugely popular policy with the overwhelming majority of the country in support of it and we have seen a REDUCTION in our poll numbers. As for ‘Tory rhetoric’ rubbish, I think it is fanciful to suggest that moving onto the ground occupied by the majority of people is somehow ‘Tory’ and the problem is that Labour has not continued with its drive on welfare, the economy etc. Labour just has an odd statement and moves back to its comfort zone.
@Ex-Labour – You clearly made that up as I said no such thing and you know full well that I said no such thing. I said: “I know that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls believe in the whole welfare reform/fiscal responsibility thing but the public don’t and it is the public who will be going to the ballot box in 2015.” That means that the public do not believe that the Eds believe in fiscal responsibility and welfare reform. Not hard to understand.
@ Renie Anjeh
Obviously you clearly dont understand what you have written. Perhaps some English lessons are in order. You said:
“I know that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls believe in the whole welfare reform/fiscal responsibility thing but the public don’t and it is the public who will be going to the ballot box in 2015.”
Your grammar clearly indicates that the public does not believe in reform. What you meant and what you wrote are two different things. 4/10 go to the corner and put on the Dunce hat.
Let me correct it for you so that its what you mean:
“I know that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls believe in the whole welfare reform/fiscal responsibility thing but the public don’t… [BELIEVE THEM]… and it is the public who will be going to the ballot box in 2015.”
Now this actually says what you mean. Not hard to understand is it ?
Renie, the vast majority of unemployed people get a job within a year, so it is sensible for the job guarantee to be aimed at the very small minority of people who are unemployed for two years or more (it is a year for 18-24). I am not sure if you realise that 2.5 million unemployed is due to the financial crisis rather than an outbreak of laziness!
To be honest, I am not a fan of the contributory principle because of my personal experience and it would be expensive, so the country would not be able to afford it after 2015.
Lastly, I agree with the late Jim Callaghan when he said that Labour should lead public opinion and not follow it.
@Ex-Labour – Slip of the finger not slip of the mind. If you actually bothered to read the article rather than just make points of little substance, there is no way you could come to the conclusion that I think that the public do not believe in welfare reform or fiscal responsibility. The simple fact remains that you made a claim which was untrue and you are throwing your toys out of the pram because you’ve been caught out! I’m waiting forward for you to write a piece on this site.
@BenM – What would be illiterate (politically and just generally) is for the Labour to go into the next election repeating the mistakes of the past. Name a party that has not in some way stuck to the spending plans of its predecessor? How did Clement Attlee create the NHS and run a budget surplus at the same time?
“Labour’s lead is beginning to shrink…”
oops!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/guardian-icm-poll-labour-lead-tories-miliband-cameron
Labour lead up to 8 points in the Gold Standard of pollsters.
I get the feeling out there that the public aren’t buying the relentlessly rosy propaganda put out by the Tories, their press fanclub and internet cheerleaders.
I get the feeling the public are sickened by a Party so colossally out of touch that it feels it can claim victory and vindication for its policy framework when so many are suffering.
Labour doesn’t want to go there. Let the Tories drown in their self-delusion.
mike If labours lead has goine up its due too, the Energy bills chapter, and Daivd Cameron dithering on deciding to either face upto this as A concern or whether he could get mileage by portraying Ed as A marxist,excluding the UKIP vote going from the toires at the Euro elections, come next summer, the Topries will be in the lead again, the reason labour had a dip in the polls last year wasn’t due to Ed trying to be new labour,it was due to Falkirik,
@Robert –
“Renie, the vast majority of unemployed people get a job within a year, so it is sensible for the job guarantee to be aimed at the very small minority of people who are unemployed for two years or more (it is a year for 18-24).”
Sorry, Robert but that is MORE of a reason to put the Jobs Guarantee at one year, rather than two years. People out of work for more than a year tend to find it harder to get back into the jobs market and the public (as well as those in receipt of JSA) will not understand why the limit is two years as opposed to one.
“I am not sure if you realise that 2.5 million unemployed is due to the financial crisis rather than an outbreak of laziness!”
No one seriously believes that everyone is on benefits due to laziness but there are some people who are not taking up their responsibility to work and I am not sure that you accept that. It is a major public concern because people think that they pay into a Fund that goes to support people who don’t want to work. Surely you can understand that? Also, the proposals set out by IPPR, the SMF and Demos are cheap and fully-funded so the whole “it’s expensive” argument doesn’t stand up.
As for Jim Callaghan, how many elections did he win? Oh wait..
@ Renie Anjeh
Oh dear, I think if you read your last retort you will find its you that seems to be throwing your toys and missing (or rather ignoring) the point of course. All I was doing was correcting your grammatical mistake which I gathered from reading your article and your subsequent sarcastic comments.
For what its worth I agree that Labour are focusing too much on the cost of living arguement, but your statement I commented on clearly contradicted the point you were making.
My psychic powers deserted me originally. Clearly I should have understood what you were thinking rather than what you wrote. My bad. As for being “caught out” ? I think you will find thats you again Renie.
And of course you wrote this “I’m waiting forward for you to write a piece on this site”. Shall I use my psychic powers again ?
Perhaps you should get somone to read it before you post it ? Just a thought.
Renie, Jim Callaghan was the only politician who has held the offices of Chancellor, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. Of course, he did not win any elections but he held those offices because Harold Wilson won four elections in the 1960s and 1970s. Labour was in office for about eleven years between 1964 and 1979, which is not much less than between 1997 and 2010. Labour did win elections before Tony Blair!
The job guarantee will be at a year for people under 25 and it is right that they should be given priority. To be honest, my is view that people who are want to live on benefits are welcome to them. They are existing rather than living and who would want to employ them?
Hi, just to say on the typos , that’s actually our fault at Uncut towers. Most pieces have a few typos and it is our responsibility to iron out then out. We sub and proof each piece and moderate the comments, but every now and then we’re not as thorough as we should be. Bear with us – best, Editor
Renie:
When was the last time you have had to pay a utility bill (or any other for that matter)?
Shrinking lead? This morning, according to YouGov, the Labour party is at 42%, the Conservative party at 32%.
@Ex-Labour – Sorry, but typos happen all the time. We can’t all live up to your standard of perfection. I am glad that we agree on the basic re. cost of living but for the mean time, I await your article with bated breath.
@Kevin – This morning? I was referring to a week ago. Nice try but I wish you’d actually engage in the issue at hand. Asking about “the last time you I’ve had to pay a bill” isn’t a response, it’s just patronizing.
@Robert – From 1997 until 2010, Labour won two landslide majorities and a decent majority in 2005 (after the Iraq War)! Callaghan (who you quoted) never won an election. The same Jim Callaghan who was behind progressive opinion on equality and liberation issues. Labour learnt under Kinnock, Smith and Blair that in order to win elections, you have to meet the public half way. You don’t want Labour to meet the public at all, hence your call for us to let some people stay on benefits at the expense of their neighbours who go out to work. That’s not what Attlee had in mind when he founded the welfare state.
BROKEN BRITISH POLITICS – THE NEVER ENDING SAGA OF LIES & DECEIT OVER ENERGY
Both the Industry and the Government are both lying over the cost of fuel .A typical breakdown is as follows ;
Wholesale Price 42%
Delivery to Home 25%
Operating Costs 11%
Corporation Tax & Vat 15%
Environmental Tax 05%
PROFIT 02%
The suppliers own the Power Stations so if they are advocating that there is a Standard wholesale price it means they have all colluded to set that standard ,basically a cartel .Delivery to your home ,unless it is hand delivered is by the substations and cables that are owned by the supplier who own the basic source the Power Stations .Environmental Tax = Public Purse Money .
A company called Theft Electric own a Power Station they set up a company called Steal Electric whom supply it .Another company is formed called Robbery Electric which deals with repairs and maintenance .A further company is set up called Daylight that is the Top Company that oversees their umbrella companies of Theft ,Steal and Robbery .
Simply put I own an apple tree it cost me 25p for upkeep I pick an apple and deliver it to you at home and charge you £1 .Delivery cost 25p take out growing costs and my profit is 50%
.Now if I bought that apple from an orchard I pay 25p get someone to deliver it to you at a cost of 50p and charge you £1 my profit is 25p instead of 50p .The fuel companies actually use the first apple example but tell us they have to use the second apple example .
cost 25p take out growing costs and my profit is 50%
.Now if I bought that apple from an orchard I pay 25p get someone to deliver it to you at a cost of 50p and charge you £1 my profit is 25p instead of 50p .The fuel companies actually use the first apple example but tell us they have to use the second apple example .
So the overall cost to Theft company missing out Steal ,Robbery and Daylight companies and pay the Taxes leaves the cost of product plus tax means a profit in excess of 50% if not more .
Feel ripped off its worse than that its Daylight Theft and Robbery and the Government let them get away with it .
http://brokenbritishpolitics.com