Sunday, 26 September 2010

"Red" Ed has the Tories worried


Red Ed?

It didn't take long for the Conservative attack dogs and right wing media to lay into Ed Miliband once it was announced he was leader.  Labelling him "Red Ed" and claiming the unions now have a hold over him.

Headlines have appeared such as:

'Red' Ed Miliband says New Labour is dead but vows to stand up for the 'squeezed middle'  Daily Mail
RED Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader last night after snatching the crown from under his big brother's nose. & Left-winger Ed, 40, was catapulted into the job thanks to the backing of union barons who urged activists to vote for him. News of the World
The fact it that there is nothing "Red" about Ed Miliband.  He is a centre-left politician, admittedly to the left of his brother David and some of the Blairite old-guard, but this is not a bad thing.  The policies Ed has proposed are not leftist policies which will alienate the electorate.

A graduate tax will speak to many middle class as well as working class families in the UK who are worried about increasing student debt, debt which may well increase significant if tuition fees rise later this year.

Saying it was wrong to go to war with Iraq is not a leftist policy.  The majority of the country now believe it was wrong, and I believe one of the reasons why David lost was that he continued to defend it.

Ed wants the banking industry to make a bigger contribution to reducing the deficit.  This is hardly radical, and again the majority of the country will agree, especially once the cuts really kick in after the spending review.

It is rare for me to quote Norman Tebbit, but he was right in his Telegraph blog when he said:

The narrowness of David Miliband’s defeat and his brother Ed’s victory says more about the closeness of their views than any deep split in the Labour Party at the present time. Ed is the man most likely to get Labours five million lost voters back to the polls. He is unlikely to neglect the chance to feed off the discontented Lib Dem supporters, but he will not neglect to strengthen the party’s natural constituency.


I think this is why the Tories and right wing press are worried.  Ed really does have the potential to win back lost voters, particularly the many who stop supporting Labour after the Iraq invasion.


He is also helping to continue the rise in Labour party membership, as a recent @uklabour tweet said:
Since @ was announced as our new Leader at 5pm yesterday 726 people have joined Labour. One new member every 1 min 48 secs 


The voting system


Some are questioning how fair the voting system is, as the union votes from the electoral college sealed Ed's win in the 5th round.  But union members are not mindless automatons who blindly follow their leadership.  If you look at the results many union members did not give Ed first preference.   


If the voting system is to be reviewed, it will be important to also look at the 1/3 of the electorate college which is given to MPs and MEPs.  Surely this is less democratic with a few hundred voters having a significant say on the outcome of the election.

Wednesday, 1 September 2010

We should never go back to Blairism

Recently I have seen numerous Labour activists defending Blair on the basis that he won us 3 general election.  A quick look at the polling figures show that this defence is not so black and white:

Labour Party results

Year    Popular Vote    Percentage of the vote
1997    13,518,167       43.2%
2001     10,724,953      40.7%
2005     9,552,436        35.2%

If Blair was so popular with the electorate why did Labour lose 4 million votes between 1997 and 2005?  The only reason Blair won the election in 2005, was that the alternative was Michael Howard.

The argument is that we should continue to use Blair's policies to attract back Tory voters.  In reality we did not lose that many votes to the Conservatives.  In 1997 the results for the other two parties were as follows:

1997
Cons: 9,600,943
Lib Dem: 5,242,947

And in 2010:

2010
Cons: 10,703,954
Lib Dem, 6.836.824

This shows that of the 4 million lost votes the Conservatives have only taken about a million votes and the Lib Dems about a million and a half.

This means that many who no longer vote Labour have either stopped voting or have opted for smaller parties.  It is these parties and the Lib Dems who we need to focus on.  Many of whom will have stopped voting Labour because of Iraq and attacks on civil liberties. 

Blarism may be good for targeting Tory voters, but that is not where we should be directing our efforts.