Ed Miliband the Thatcher of the left?

Ed Miliband the Thatcher of the left?

Margaret Thatcher, an idol of the right and a devil to those on the left.  Whether you loved or hated the Iron Lady you have to admit she dramatically altered the political, economic and social landscapes of the UK.  And if Ed Miliband is serious about his proposed economic policies and his plans to cut the cost of living if he wins in 2015 he could be potentially as revolutionary as Thatcher.  Ed Miliband is obviously totally different politically to Thatcher my comparisons between Miliband and the UK’s only female PM end at the fact he could be a shock to the UK.

Critics have already lined up to land blows against Ed for his proposed banking cap and his energy price freeze, and yes these critics have a point and I agree with them, however this does not mean Ed’s policies don’t appeal to voters.  It also does not mean his economic policies are incorrect, this current Conservative government’s economic policy was derided as poor last year by many leading economists right up until it started showing results and then it was good again.  The same goes for Thatcher’s economic policies, the point is most revolutionary economic policies are incorrect up until the moment they are correct.

Although I find Labour’s economic policies crazy in an economic sense, politically they are rather clever.  They show that Labour cares about the cost of living and is willing to do something drastic to combat it.  It also taps into public hatred of banks and most importantly that banks have not suffered enough for causing the financial crisis, Labour could have just came out and bashed the banks which would not be politically very clever.  Instead they have said the banks are too big, powerful and corrupt and to solve this we are going to make the market more competitive so the customers get a better deal.  Whether this will work in an economic sense is debatable, (I don’t think it will) however politically it’s savvy.  It attacks and enemy in the form of the big banks, but has a positive message in a better deal for British business and the British people.

The potential consequence of such policies on the UK economy would be colossal and as I have mentioned already I believe negative, but at least Labour has filled its policy void and is trying to solve the problems of voter.  However, the Conservatives have also finally got going on the cost of living crisis saying they will raise minimum wage, a very appealing prospect for a large section of voters.  It looks like 2015 is about to offer up a really exciting race to number 10, Labour are offering some quite revolutionary policies while the Conservatives are using more conventional economic policy to solve the UK’s problems.  Although I believe Labour ‘s policies would adversely affect the UK economy  the dividing lines between the main parties are the clearest they have been for years, and I think a Labour win could change Britain as much as a Conservative win did in 1979. 

UKIP Can be the Ross Perot of the 2015 election

UKIP Can be the Ross Perot of the 2015 election

UKIP has seen a huge rise in its popularity since the 2010 general election when the party won 3.1% of the vote, now in the latest YouGov opinion poll they would win 12% if there was an election tomorrow.  They are currently more popular than the Lib Dems, and are expected to win the upcoming European elections.  Despite this the Conservatives are not mounting a sustained attack on UKIP instead there are talks of pacts like they are some sort of distant cousin rather than a party that could ruin any chance of a Conservative majority come 2015.  To illustrate my point I am going to compare UKIP with Ross Perot the independent candidate who derailed two Republican campaigns in the 90’s.

There are several similarities between Perot and UKIP, firstly they are rebels against the established main parties, they both offer policies that people want to see (financial restraint in the case of Perot and lower immigration in the case of UKIP).  They both reach sections of the public who feel ignored and most importantly they both never really stood a chance of winning an election.  However this does not make them unimportant and UKIP have the potential to decide who gets into Number 10.  I am going to show UKIP’s significance by looking at Ross Perot’s impact on the 1996 election, in 96 Ross Perot won 8.4% of the vote significantly less than in 92 when he gave Clinton the election.  In 96 if Ross Perot was not present Bob Dole probably would have won Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri,  Nevada, Ohio, and  Tennessee,   now this would still not  have won Dole the election however it would have been significantly closer and the effect of Perot on keeping Republicans at home in the belief their candidate had already lost is not measurable.  Despite what I just said it is important to note a few differences between Perot supporters and UKIP supporters, Perot drew significant support from both Democrats and Republicans.  While UKIP draws most of its support mainly from Conservatives, although there is support from Labours lost working class vote as well.  Ross Perot was involved in the Presidential TV debates, UKIP so far will not be involved in any leadership debates in 2015 which will cut their media exposure significantly.  Also UKIP is has engaged many voters who have lost interest in politics under New Labour and are significantly more populist than Ross Perot and draws a large amount of working class support while Perot’s support was mainly middle class.  So although there are some similarities and I believe the election impact could be similar it is important to stress that I am not saying that Perot and UKIP are the same.  The link with Perot is largely to illustrate how reasonable support for UKIP candidates in swing seats will lose the Conservatives the election and could give Labour a significant majority.

If the Conservatives intend to damage UKIP they need to attack them just as they would attack Labour, the European referendum is not enough.  As I have wrote before UKIP are more than just an anti-Europe party they are anti-establishment and anti-politics  they are a base for people who are disgruntled with the main parties.  This does not however make them any harder than Labour to attack, UKIP have some fundamental weaknesses.  One is they lack details on their economic policy Conservatives need to find little holes and then ask can we afford UKIP?  They also lack a plan for what to do when they leave the EU they are making it seem simple, this needs to be attacked  showing UKIP up as amateur inexperienced and unsuitable for government.  The Conservatives can also try to entice UKIP supports by showing the rise in the tax

threshold and the fall in immigration as well as trumpeting the return to economic growth.  American style targeting of potential UKIP voters is also needed, show them all the populist right wing policies the current government has enacted.  Lynton Crosby has slowed the advance of UKIP by making Cameron focus on more right wing policies that attract UKIP voters, but at election time these policies need to be trumpeted to show potential UKIP voters they can get what they want with the Conservatives.  Finally scare tactics need to be implemented, many of these UKIP voters will not want to see Labour in government after all they are the party of Europe and mass immigration, the link between voting UKIP and getting Labour needs to be established.  It may already be too late to kill off  UKIP as the Conservatives were arrogant in their attitude towards UKIP for too long, and although it is almost certain UKIP will not win in 2015 they can lose the election for the Conservatives.

Bad news for Conservatives study shows ethnic minority vote could decide 2015

Bad news for Conservatives study shows ethnic minority vote could decide 2015

The Black and Asian community in the UK is a rapidly growing group and is slowly becoming an important group of voters who could decide who is in number 10 come 2015. By 2015 the Black and Asian vote will have grown by 70% compared to 2010, this is a huge rise and the Conservative party should be worried as this is a group of voters which they fail to connect with.   The Conservative Party’s lack of appeal amongst Black and Asian voters was evident in 2010 when they only received 16% of Black and Asian votes compared to Labour which received 68% of this groups votes.   It is argued by Oxford University’s Professor Heath that the Conservatives failed to get a majority in 2010 because they failed to connect with the Black and Asian vote.

in 2000 and 2004 George W Bush greatly increased the Republican party's share of the Latino vote by running an election strategy that attempted to reach out to this group, the Conservatives may try something similar in 2015.

This problem will only get worse as the ethnic vote now is greater than the sitting MP’s majority in 168 marginal seats this has increased from an estimated 99 seats in 2010. The Ethnic vote is clearly important if the Conservatives intend to win in 2015 and beyond it looks like it could come as important as Americas Hispanic vote.  There are clearly similarities between the groups both are growing rapidly and both have the power to swing an election result but most importantly for the Conservatives they both prefer left wing parties.  The only good news for the Conservatives it that in the USA the Republicans in 2000 and 2004 made an effort in George W Bush’s presidential election campaigns to get win over the Hispanic vote and it is fair to say he was successful. David Cameron and the Conservatives are going to have to make a similar effort to win votes from the UK’s own ethnic vote or face a long period out of government.  The Conservatives can win over large chunks of the ethnic vote if they focus on key Conservative ideas of aspiration, hard work and social mobility because these ideas resonate with all ethnic groups.  It is defiantly possible for the Conservatives to increase their share of the ethnic vote and if the party intends to remain the natural party of government it will need to and this might mean trying to make immigration a lesser issue in 2015.    

Will Ed Risk Increasing Spending?

Will Ed Risk Increasing Spending?

Rumours are circling that Labour could reject austerity at the next election and increase government spending in an attempt to restart the economy.  This could see Ed Miliband reverse conservative cuts and offer the electorate a radical choice in 2015, one thing is certain if Miliband does end up rejecting austerity the 2015 election will offer the electorate the starkest choice since 1983.  It will soon be time for Labour to start unveiling some policies and most importantly setting out its spending plans this is going to be a tough decision for Miliband as not matter what he chooses he will face criticism.  

If Miliband accepts austerity he risks being branded a hypocrite and losing plenty of support, this is mainly down to the fact that under his leadership Labour have been strong critics of every coalition cut.  If Miliband says, Labour won’t reverse the cuts and will stick to Conservative spending plans it will likely win Labour some economic credibility.  However Labour has gained plenty of support from opponents of the cuts, it is reasonable to say that most of Labours new found support since 2010 has come from people who oppose the cuts.  It is likely that Labour will be unsuccessful with their plan to win over former Lib Dem supporters if they start to support cuts and can’t promise to reverse austerity.  So surely  Labour should promise to increase spending and roll back austerity, but in reality this option is just as dangerous for Labour.  Labour is already trailing when it comes to opinion polls on economic competence and on their ability to make tough decisions, if Labour comes out against austerity then further questions will be raised about their economic competence.  Conservatives will also be able to level blistering attacks at Labour reminding the electorate of how Labour ran the economy into the ground and their new plan is to bankrupt Britain again.  If Labour chose to reject austerity, they face the prospect of a 1992 re-run, there are questions about whether Labours leader is fit to be Prime Minister, and there are big question marks on Labours Economic competence.

Miliband is in an unenviable position he risks losing support no matter which way he goes,  the best thing he can do is chose the route he has the most belief in because come 2015 he will have to explain his economic plan and protect it from opposition attacks.  There is no point of Miliband winning the election if he does not win it on a platform he believes in at the end of the day if Ed Miliband becomes Prime Minister he does not want to implement the same policies as the Conservatives.  If he does choose to go against austerity and offer the electorate a real choice the next election will be a fascinating battle of ideas and which will probably increase turnout, which has fallen since 97 with a slight bounce in 2010.  However, I believe whatever Labour decide to do the Conservatives will win the next election with a small majority, as Labour will lose some of its new found support to the Lib Dems and UKIP’s vote will collapse in favour of the Conservatives.  Furthermore, if the economy picks up before 2015 it will be a Conservative landslide. 

For Labour to be taken seriously they need credible policies

For Labour to be taken seriously they need credible policies

Since Thatcher’s death on Monday, the left has been split, between those who have remained silent and respectful and those yobs how have gone out to celebrate.  Thatcher managed to win 3 general elections and this was down to two main reasons, the first being she understood the majority of British people and the second being that Labour were so left wing their policies were laughable.  Although the Labour party currently lead in the polls, they may once again become the party of protest again if they don’t come up with some credible policies.

Today I read an interesting article about what Britain could have been like had Thatcher lost in 79, the conclusion was we would have been like Cuba without sunshine, and worse cars.  I am not saying this articles conclusion is accurate, but it illustrates how out of touch Labour became in the 80’s.  When a party is out of touch, they fail to produce policy that can win election, such as Labours old policy of nuclear disarmament.  In the 2000’s the Conservatives also suffered from out of touch syndrome, when the vast majority of people cared about greater public sector investment the Conservatives wanted tax cuts which would have reduced investment in our public sector.  They also put too great an emphasis on the anti EU policies which most people cared very little about.  

The modern day Labour party is falling into the same traps as the 1980’s Labour party and the 2000’s Conservative party.  Their policy to tackle the deficit is currently to protest about everything the coalition is doing and offer no alternative.  Labour are currently only in the lead due to anger about the cuts but come 2015 if they have no alternative they will struggle.  Another problem with Labour is they are focusing in on things people don’t really care about, like the fact most Conservative front benchers are millionaires.  This attack is ineffective mainly because when was the last time the majority of a governing party front bench was not made up of rather rich people, plus the Labour front bench is not exactly earning minimum wage.  The other problem with Labour is that they continually focus in on the cut to the top rate of tax, they forget it is still higher than it was for the majority of the time Labour was in government, plus the raise of the tax allowance is giving everyone else a massive tax cut.  Both these things can be used to attack Labour with at the next election.  To conclude the point I am trying to make is that if Labour fail to come out with some credible policy and continue being the party of protest, they will not win the next election.

Don’t Despair Dave Remember 1992

Don’t Despair Dave Remember 1992

The 1992 election was historic for two reasons, the first being it was the fourth Conservative victory on the bounce and no party had done that since the war.  The other reason was that John Major’s Conservatives were not meant to win, at best they were looking at being the biggest party in a hung parliament.  The current mood in the press is a Labour victory in 2015, but even if things don’t pick up the Conservatives can still fight the next election and stand a chance of winning, by doing what they did in 1992.

David Cameron will be more than aware of what happened in 1992, he was after all one of the masterminds behind the campaign.  The question he has to ask himself is can he do it again?  The short answer is yes, all he needs to do is pick holes in Labours economic plan, and that is not exactly hard as the plan Labour current plan is more like a list of complaints about the Tory cuts than a credibly economic plan.  In 1992 the Conservatives showed that Labour was not yet ready to govern by picking holes in their economic plan, basically showing were the sums don’t add up and also how much tax people would pay under Labour and it worked.  This time round showing Labour is not ready for government should be easy.  The Conservatives simply need to attack the fact Labour have not backed a single cut, they refused to cap benefits but capped public sector pay, they could also play the tax card saying how Labour wants the 50p tax despite it raising less money than the current 45p tax.  They can also point out they want to continue borrowing more and more money so they can repeat the “Kinnock’s Double-Whammy” campaign because like in 1992 Labours economic policy will lead to high tax and high inflation.

In 1992 John Major ran a very personal campaign he held rallies on his soapbox and this showed he was more in touch with people than Neil Kinnock who held his rallies in large stadiums and came across as arrogant.  This type of in touch with people campaign will most likely to pay dividend again, David Cameron has a big image problem, he is seen as an out of touch posh boy and using rhetoric like skivers vs strivers is not helping his cause.  For David Cameron to show he is in touch with the voting public he needs to change the tone of his argument rather than skiver vs strivers he needs to explain that welfare reform is a necessary evil  and it is essential to balance the nations books.  Many people will not like this but they will understand it, and it comes across as more compassionate and understanding.  It is the kind of language that says, we understand that many people who draw benefits are just down on their luck.  However, you also have to understand the current system is unsustainable.  Cameron’s current rhetoric makes people on benefits sound like devils that refuse to work and are draining the country dry, the aggressive language used currently will not work in the long run and will further demonise the Tories in the inner cities and in Scotland, it also won’t help win votes amongst those who have recently found themselves unemployed.  So in the run up to the election Cameron needs to change his tone back to the tone of compassionate conservatism, many people do see the argument for his policies but he needs his language to be more in line with, this is essential rather than we don’t care about the poor.

The final piece of the 1992 Conservative victory was Labour leader Neil Kinnock, he just was not prime ministerial, and people just did not trust him.  Luckily the current leader is suffering from the same problem, he is still a figure of fun in many of the papers, many people don’t like the Conservatives but don’t like the idea of Prime Minister Ed Miliband and finally polls say that David Cameron is seen as more Prime Ministerial than Ed.  In the age of the internet and 24 hour news a parties leader is important and it may just like in 92 prove a huge stumbling block for Labour.

So to conclude I would like to see the next election campaign fought on economic grounds, and for the Conservatives to win they need to launch a sustained attack on Labours economic policy as well as showing them up as not ready to govern.  David Cameron needs to change the party rhetoric to a more compassionate tone, to show the conservatives are in touch with voters no more skivers vs strivers move onto the tone of painful but essential.  This compassionate conservatism worked for Major in 92 and it worked for George Bush in 2004 and 2004, it is a tried and tested way of getting Conservative policy accepted by the public at large.  The final point is to emphasise on the party leaders David Cameron is seen as more compassionate and more electable than his party.  The Prime Minister is an asset and one that should be used to show the caring side of the Conservative party, just as Major used his soapbox to show he understood people better than Kinnock, Cameroon must do the rounds to show he understands voters concerns and that they can trust him, in other words dust of the soapbox.  Fighting the next election using a mix of 1992 tactics and compassionate conservative rhetoric will not necessarily win the next election, but it will lead to a much better result than fighting it on right wing rhetoric of the workers and the shirkers.  Which shows the Conservatives to be out of touch and will help Labours cause, it will also do further damage to the Conservative brand.