The Bewilderness

Volatility and unpopularity in the polls

All three mainstream leaders are now suffering from low ratings. All that has changed is that Cameron now joins Clegg and Miliband. Perhaps it was only a matter of time and adverse publicity. As Mike Smithson points out it is unprecedented for all three leaders to suffer from such disillusionment on the part of the electorate.

Yet, this may prove most dangerous for Miliband. With a Labour lead in the polls and an unpopular leader, the temptation to look for a more popular candidate will increase. An unpopular budget and a week that undermined notions of competence have wounded the Coalition. None of these indicate that we have faced a change in polling or a swing to Labour, when Galloway's victory points to increased volatility.

Labour's leader declares the momentous 'Miliband moment'

In his interview with 'The Observer' today, Ed Miliband, the Labour party leader, capitalises upon the misfortunes of the government. In strategic terms, this is an interview designed to set an agenda: a redescription of media perceptions (with public following) in Labour's favour. Could one even view this as an unholy alliance between Miliband, an opportunistic camp follower of Gordon Brown, and Rupert Murdoch, whose press, after the demise of the 'News of the World' is directed with fervour against the Tory party?

Miliband argues that the Coalition (though he never mentions the Liberal Democrats) or, the Tory government, will only last for one term and that Labour will rule thereafter. This is stated with such force as a political prediction. He also hails the end of the "Cameron project", a unity of purpose, plan and principle that flatters his opponent.

Where Miliband's judgement rings with a true note is the unique victory of George Galloway in Bradford, caused mainly by anti-tactical voting against Labour, as Tory voters switched to Respect. Yet, he must ask himself why was there a tactical vote in this manner: a reverse from the anti-tactical vote against the Tories from 1997 onwards? This by-election may yet hold nasty surprises yet.

Miliband faces his own weaknesses and his triumphalism at others' incompetence may yet be premature. In his interview, he does not mention the Liberal Democrats: a silence that confirms he is not confident of gaining a majority at the next General Election and anticipates a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Nor did he reference the London mayoral election, as Ken is no shoo-in.

Miliband's Achilles heel may have been obscured by Francis Maude's public relations disaster, but the unions will act in a radical fashion as cuts in public exepnditure begin to bite. The more that they campaign and strike, to the silence of the Labour leadership, the more that question marks over Miliband's leadership will emerge. Just as Cameron reached a high point in December with the EU 'veto', so Miliband gains strength over the torrid week and a poorly presented budget. The jury is still out as to whether this is a permanent turn against the Coalition or another high mark or low mark (depending upon perceptions) in a volatile time, as the electorate views all political parties as a plague. George Galloway's victory suggests the latter.

UPDATE: Further reflections on Miliband's interview only highlighted his omissions. Where were his thoughts and ideas on the London mayoral election, Scottish independence and European changes? Any mention of these changes could potentially topple the thin veneer of control that he projected to his chosen audience. 

With the number of potential disruptions that could adversely affect Labour's electoral advantages, Miliband's public silence disguises private misgivings (at best), and more likely, palpitations. 

The health bill gathers pace

The most contentious bill currently on the Coalition's agenda is the watered down health and social services bill. This anodyne, diluted echo of Blairite reform is now opposed by both Labour and left-wing Liberal Democrats ("we should be in Labour but ended up in the wrong party).

The bill has faced a series of motions set down by the Labour party ("Official Opposition") and Liberal Democrat party ("In power but opposing"), both in the Commons and, soon, in the Lords. All of the current motions against the bill have been defeated, quite comfortably. Liberal Democratic outrage at the activist edges is not derailing the government plans on health. 

The Wrong Leader (with more cheese, please)

As I was on my way to meet the Sandman last night, I decided to enter into the spirit of conference season and indulge my inner political anorak. Navigating the BBC website, I clicked on that newsworthy oil painting: Edward Miliband plagiarising Wallace & Gromit in "The Wrong Leader". My initial reaction was that I had entered into an awards ceremoy: political Oscars perhaps.

The speech, though rhetoric is sullied by the comparison, proved an amalgam of plagiarised gratitude, modelled on the mediocrities that pollute the airwaves. Pauses, doe eyed appeal to the audience, and some choked prayer of thanks to Harriet Harman and his family, an odd combination! The lashings of sentiment only fostered cringes, as the cartoon face tried to emote. How remote from the gravitas and skill of previous leaders. Where was the steel? Where was the passion? Where was the principle?

Some would say that this was a cynical exercise in positioning. Opportunistically attack the coalition, oppose every cut and talk the economy down without bothering to temper attack with policy. Parliamentary poses which had garnered some respect were frittered away in an abasement to the Labour left, embracing change with a reactionary embracing of the past. After all, Blair was jeered and the audience compared Miliband to Kinnock or Smith.

A party that does not like winning elections and cannot learn the lessons of the past are bound to repeat them. No doubt, at the conference next year, we will be served with yet again, "More cheese, Gromit".

Miliband's comfort zone: New Labour lite

Ed Miliband's conduct during Prime Minister's Questions showed how far the opposition had drifted from their years in office. On policies for policing and the NHS, Miliband called for the coalition to halt both bills and reinvest the monies earmarked on frontline services. The hooting then degerated into New Labour exchanges over money, numbers, targets, waiting times and the misinformation of management information systems. Was this not the style that debased political conversation in a policy free environment.

If neither Miliband nor Cameron can move beyond Blair's malign presentations in their exchanges, then further shit will stick to their characters. But it is Miliband's view of Labour's role in this crisis that has proved most interesting. With a smallish lead in the polls, Miliband has been tempted to tread the path of the amnesiac: Labour's culpability in public sector spending is conveniently forgotten and a blanket opposition to every cut is instituted. Why make waves and alienate potential voters? In this tactic, Miliband copies the puerile populism of New Labour, unleavened by any manifesto for change. His policy review promises to provide context for this tactic in the near future, but firming up a position will undermine Miliband's opportunity to attack all facets of government. I would expect Labour to remain a defender of the public sector without exception for many months to come.

Labour: the economic harlots of Britain

The economy grew at 0.2% in the second quarter, a stagnant result and indicative of the huge debt burden spread across the public and private sector. Even worse, the size of the public sector is far vaster than 2005 following uncontrolled expenditure during the Brown administration. Whatever problems faced by Britain were culpably magnified by the members of that government.

Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a member of that government, an unrepentant member. There is an irony in his responses. He accuses the Chancellor of "breathtaking complacency" and being "in denial". Such accusations could have been and were flung at Gordon Brown, with cause. One could ask Balls whether this describes his own accountability for the previous government's actions. The selective choice of memories and facts do little to commend Labour as an alternative. But, at least, Balls is more coherent (if wrong) than his paymasters:

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said: "It's hurting, but it isn't working. Ministers told us that deep rapid cuts would get the economy back on course and leave the private sector room to grow. But the treatment has turned out to be worse than the disease, and with the government borrowing more last month than they did a year ago they are not even tackling the deficit effectively. The detail in the figures is even more worrying. There is no sign of an export-led recovery with productive industries falling by 1.4%. And the cuts are now beginning to bite as the government made no contribution to growth last quarter."

Barber attacks the government strategy on cuts, then acknowledges they have not begun, and eats his own cake with a blindside on not getting the deficit under control. Not a coherent narrative.  

The government should be criticised for its inaction, its failure to commence supply-side reforms and for continuing the burdensome taxes of its predecessors. Tax less, cut harder, deregulate more and free markets. It isn't rocket science. And ignore the harlots of Westminster, who still look back on their red boxes as a time of power without responsibility.

A 'coalition of the disaffected'?

The Liberal Democrats are facing unprecedented division over the issue of tuition fees, a level of disagreement that could lead to a spilt within the party. Yet, the leaks and torture whilst the parliamentary party agonises is not the main show.

The number of student sit-ins continues to spread. Many major universities have witnessed sit-ins, with the protests ending after legal moves and police action. The issue of the tuition fees has catalysed a process of radicalisation amongst a group renowned, until now, for its apathy.

Despite the defection of some Liberal Democrats to the abstention party or Labour (expect a few now!), the tuition fees increase is expected to pass. Will this period of protest then fade away?

The dangers this poses for the coalition are probably twofold. Something which will be key, and probably needs to be polled, is the scale of broader public support for students. If this wave of protest can be coalesced into a broader movement involving other public-sector unions - and make no mistake about the level of student desire to make that happen - things have the potential to get very uncomfortable indeed for the Government. It may not even necessarily require a national figurehead like the NUS to achieve, depending on how unions feel about demonstrating solidarity.

The distributional coalitions that have developed over the last thirty years during the Gramscian reinvigoration of the state are key for the development of the coalition. The Tory party wishes to avoid a coalescence of opposition forces acting via extralegal means and testing the governability of the current administration. 

The public sector unions and the students are aware of the power that lies in unity. Whilst student radicalism has outstripped the National Union of Students, we have not seen a similar level of mobilisation in other parts of the public sector. Nor is it clear that a wider movement of students and local council workers would increase public sympathy. Parents have a soft spot for their children, not their binmen.

As of now, public protest is a useful guage for testing whether coalition cutbacks are effective. If it isn't hurting, it isn't working. Cameron, Clegg and Osborne will wish to avoid a 'coalition of the disaffected' in opposition to them, a position that Ed Miliband hints that he could support but is not opportunistic (or principled enough) to stand his ground on. He was insulted as a student politician but this tacking to support people, not policy, would be more populist, hence more popular.

The outlines of the coalitions are hinted at this autumn.

Labour's gripe fails to grip

Labour have criticised the government for "failing to get a grip". As this is the worst snow since 1965, it seems an unfair criticism. Even worse is the unwillingess to reflect upon their own role in this matter. Did we not face the same problems last year? Who was responsible then? One could place the lack of improvement at Labour's door.

A more realistic story is that preparations for severe weather are not usually viable, but that organisations had time to prepare and have been found wanting. Local councils and train operating companies do not cope well with emergencies. A low level of management capability is clear.

Labour thinks that you can wave a magic wand to resolve these problems. That is why they were the worst government for a generation.

Individuals with soft neural tissue damage may 'protest' again

Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was embarrassed by the lack of police protection at the demonstration by students two weeks ago. A smaller level of violence was witnessed at yesterday's protest: a decrease that can be attributed to the larger police presence. Attempts by the students to occupy property and carry out a similar trashing as two weeks ago were prevented. The marches do not fit my definition of peaceful: since they result in the destruction of property and attacks on police and innocents.

The condemnation of the violence on the Left has been half-hearted and replaced by opportunistic encouragement. Through voicing opposition to tuition fees, Labour hopes to garner support from the universities and supplant the Liberal Democrats.

Sir Paul Stephenson has stated that this could herald a new era of unrest. This has been attacked as a "self-fulfilling policy" by Labour and Green politicians. Since the role of police commissioner was politicised under Blair, Stephenson is in the realm of management expectations: anticipate a higher level of unrest and hold hands up if it causes error in policing levels.

Yet, this is a single issue campaign; already tarred by the violence of the student protests. Whatever sympathy, the National Union of Students may have sought, has been eroded or removed by the violence. If students can protest, they can work; if they can work, they can pay for their own education. It is a line of argument you hear more often. No government will cave in to such demonstrations and, therefore, the campaign has already failed. The political party which will suffer the electoral damage from the tuition fees protest is Clegg's. Unpopularity will force them to cleave more tightly to the coalition, unless the uncompromising Left under Simon Hughes opt for principled oblivion and try to bring the government down. The subsequent schism will prove that the Liberal Democrats could not be a party of government.

Discounting this unlikely option returns us to the prophecy that we are entering a new era of unrest. For now, this still seems unlikely. It depends upon two further developments: the radicalisation of a proportion of the student body, turning to the hard left and, perhaps, following the nihilistic path to terror (the "the class enemy don't listen to us, let's bomb anyone through cleansing violence" school of argument); and, the move towards more violent protests and wildcat strikes on the part of the public sector unions.

Unless we see clear signs of radicalisation in these areas, I suspect that the single issue campaign will eventually follow comparable predecessors and fizzle out. A pity for Stephenson; perhaps he wanted some excitement...

   

Red Labour revived?

A concerted union effort has placed Ed Miliband in the driving seat of Labour, defeating his brother and swinging the opposition party towards the Left. Cue the shrill stereotypes of extremism, a 'lurch to the left' and generational unelectability. Predictions that rely upon the assumptions that the British electorate enjoy innate sage advice and that the coalition will remain a viable option for both parties.

Only with his speech as new leader to the party will we see how far 'Red Ed' remains wedded to the promises that he made on the campaign trail. He has already maintained that he is not a pawn of the unions, despite their all-out support on his behalf. The prospects are not good: a combination of anti-Blairite rhetoric ("New Labour is dead") and a continuation of Brownonomics, deficit denial and the reactionary defence of unreformed public services remain the hallmark of Labour's arrogance. As the author of their manifesto, Ed Miliband, more than most, is responsible for opposition. Yet, the statements remain a mantra: spending cuts bad, public spending good.

Within a few years, this mantra will appear as outdated as Thatcherism was by 1997. All political culture changes and, unless salvaged by crisis, Labour will be playing catch up, since the springs of renewal do not appear to command the opposition front bench. But politics can surprise....