The coalition’s honeymoon is over, the Lib Dems have collapsed in the polls and Labour membership is up by more than 25,000. David Cameron’s weakness without a script has been exposed on his gaffe-ridden foreign tour and Michael Gove’s reputation has been seriously damaged.
But while Labour has exposed the coalition and scored some early hits, this is also a dangerous time for our party. There are three traps we must avoid in the coming months: one laid by Mr Cameron, one by the media and one that we risk laying for ourselves.
First, we risk falling into Mr Cameron’s trap by focusing our fire too much on the Liberal Democrats. Yes, they have ditched their manifesto and sold their principles for power — and done so on the backs of the unemployed, public sector workers and the poorest in our communities.
But while we must win back voters lost to the Lib Dems, we must not let the Tories off the hook. Even if Lib Dem ministers are wheeled out by Downing Street to defend the most unpopular decisions, we must not forget this is fundamentally a Conservative Government. The reason why the fiasco over school building cuts and the rushed Academies Bill is so damaging for the Government is that a senior Tory is in the frame. So Labour must focus its fire on the Tories, not just on the Liberal cannon fodder shielding Mr Cameron.
Second, Labour must avoid the media trap, encouraged by the coalition, that the first and most fundamental question in British politics is cutting the deficit.
This is what happened in the 1930s when the media and political elites, backed by the Governor of the Bank of England, insisted that the Government cut spending as quickly as possible. The economy spiralled into depression and we paid a heavy price. Yet this Government seems intent on repeating these deflationary mistakes, describing its decisions as unavoidable.
Labour needs strong leadership to make a credible argument against slashing public spending and raising VAT, which will increase unemployment and risk a double-dip recession. Labour must have the confidence to set out an alternative based on a more sensible timetable for deficit reduction, fairer tax rises and a plan to boost jobs and growth.
The third trap is the one we risk setting for ourselves. In the best of our 13 years in government, we dominated the radical centre ground of British politics, and we must not cede that territory now.
There is no doubt that Mr Cameron wants to use his alliance with the Liberal Democrats to achieve what he failed in opposition — to detoxify the Conservative brand in the public mind. At its heart, this will remain a neo-liberal government of the Right, but Mr Cameron will seek to present the coalition as dominating the centre ground, while caricaturing Labour as irrelevant, reactionary and retreating to the left.
That’s why all of us as leadership candidates, as we seek the votes of Labour and trade union members and the praise of leftwing think-tanks and newspapers, must beware of departing from the centre ground, by making unwise promises or losing touch with our constituents on issues such as crime.
But there are risks in the other direction too: the idea that to be centrist and credible we must return to safety-first triangulation and hanker after the approval of the rightwing press and conservative business groups. We’ve ridden that tiger before and it didn’t get us very far.
Neither should we fall for the myth that our biggest challenge is to “win back” middle-income voters. They largely stuck with us at the election while we lost the support of too many people on lower incomes who felt we were no longer on their side.
If we are to win back those voters, Labour must be clearer about what it stands for, bolder about whose side it is on and which vested interests it is prepared to tackle.
We must set out radical policies — such as a graduate tax to replace top-up fees and starting the top rate of tax at £100,000 — but make sure they are realistic and in touch with the aspirations, concerns and values of ordinary working people.
It’s no good simply being credible if we reach the next election and nobody can distinguish between David Cameron, Nick Clegg and our new leader; but it’s no good just being radical if we lose touch with the mainstream views of working people.
The Labour Party must not fall into the trap of thinking it needs to choose between the heart and the head. Our next leader must have the judgment, strength and experience to be both radical and credible. Otherwise we will play into the Tories’ hands — and languish in opposition.
In a small number of words Ed has articulated how I feel about things. Lesson from 30’s is really important – did Keynes live and write in vain?
“…we lost the support of too many people on lower incomes who felt we were no longer on their side.”
I think this is a key point. I fear that lower income earners don’t currently see any credible party to represent their views. The Labour Party, in my opinion, has been pulled just a little too far to the centre in a bid to reach out to voters who may, previously, have looked elsewhere for representation. While I appreciate it’s important to reach out to new voters, it’s also important to keep hold of the core Labour support and not take them for granted.
I love this turn of phrase, by the way: “We’ve ridden that tiger before and it didn’t get us very far.”
Ed Balls is a genuis. Pls make sure that David Milliband and other contenders to become leader of the opposition read this very excellent article. I have never voted Labour in the past. Always voted Conservative but will now be voting Labour bec the coming savage cuts is a nightmare. We have been very impressed that during the 13 yrs of Labour our public services have become the envy of the world. Our NHS has been saved from the ravages of underfunding during the Conservative era. Our NHS now ranked second in Overrall ranking in the latest 2010 “Rankings of Countries Healthcare System on Various Measure” ie quality care, access, equity, long healthy productive linves, and health spending per capita. Our Crime rate has gone down by 45%. We are now seriously worried that the coming unnecessary savage cuts will in time destroy the efficient public services we are enjoying…our NHS privatized, crime increases , children discouraged from going to universities
Ed Balls idea of ” investment vs cuts” is the answer to lower unemployment and avoid double dip recession . Savage cuts and raising vat are wrong.
Whoever is next Labour leader must listen to Ed Balls . He has a brilliant strategy. Labour must not be in opposition for long. And as Ed Balls wrote in the Times “Continue dominating the radical centre ground of politics and not cede territory now”
Ed your article is spot on. I agree with everything you say. Labour in the past tried too hard to keep the press “on board”. They are not interested in Labour, never have been, never will be and as a result I believe the party lost their way with the core voters. The press would blame Labour if next door’s cat had kittens!!
You are also right when you say “Labour must focus its fire on the Tories, not just on the Liberal cannon fodder shielding Mr Cameron”
“Ant” and his party must take the blame alongside “Dec” and his “cannon fodder”. I think we should have a “mantra” for the “victims” of Ant and Dec’s policies, what about Michael Jackson’s song “They really don’t care about us”, very apt I think.
I wish you all the best in your leadership campaign.
[...] But as I wrote in The Times a few weeks ago, my one word of warning is this: we’re not going to win the next election simply by persuading former Liberal Democrats to vote for us and we’re not going to win by focusing all our fire on Nick Clegg for betraying progressive principles. [...]
But shouldn’t Labour be planning for the AV vote to be lost and at that point Liberal Democrat MPs would run back to their constituencies knowing that only by distancing themselves from the coalition government will their seats be kept. Clegg would have to go and the coalition would end then. Shouldn’t Labour be getting ready for next May for this to happen. Agree that attacking Liberals too much is a way to lose their potential to jump ship as you just put them between a rock and a hard place and even with a general election next year then a Lab/Lib coalition is the most realistic outcome. Within all that though, I do feel that pushing at Clegg who is not well liked is a worthwhile tactic, just don’t tar every Lib dem with the same brush and you may get divisions to weaken his personal position when AV is lost.
Ed, you are the only leadership candidate attacking current policies and because the others aren’t there is a feeling that Labour are simply not defending against cuts well enough, almost as if they don’t know how to be an effective opposition. Gove is weak around the numbers of Academies and the number, and nature, of free school applications and he remains a key target but there is suspicion and anger around health service policies as well.
There are other ways to attack them, instead of saying “don’t cut”, how about stating the many instances where they could cut more sensibly but they don’t seem to want to. Sometimes that is simple blind ideology but they also have has suggestions about reducing costs that they have simply ignored. I can give you only one personal example but I am sure there are many others of a more significant nature.
I work in a public body supplying digital resources to schools and last year with some support from Jim Knight we collected all the digital learning resources publicly funded to distribute to schools saving them at least £30M. Despite asking several new ministers to simply say some words of support so we can publicise to schools, we get no reply. Now we have helped a UK company include the resources in winning a multi million pound contract with Malaysia. The Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia expects a UK Ministerial contact to seal this partnership between his company and the UK, can we get a response from anyone in the coalition, no. They seem unable to listen even when it saves money and requires very little assistance, suspicious of any idea coming from a sector they wish to destroy, even when it makes no economic sense to do so.
So how about some ideas of how labour WOULD have cut, more sensibly and less painfully to show that there was another way where cuts were kinder, less severe and frankly more intelligent. Instead of attacking a proposed cut, offer the less painful alternative every time but still showing that cuts are needed, it’s just where, how and how quickly which make the difference between parties. You can’t win a “don’t cut” argument as clearly cuts are needed, but you can win a “how to cut” argument by showing alternatives that make people say “hang on we know that a reductiion is needed but isn’t it better if its done to that/that way instead”. Then you become a credible government during tough times and a credible alternative to what is on offer.