Talking about UKIP on the doorstep...

Out campaigning during the recent Rotherham by-election I, and many other Labour activists, encountered first-hand the rise in support for UKIP; I’ve met the occasional UKIP supporter here and there on the doorstep, but nothing like the number I was meeting here. According to a recent ComRes poll, most of UKIP support is not coming from those who voted Labour in 2010, and anecdotally I’d be inclined to agree.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that there are former Labour voters who are turning to UKIP; enough that Labour activists need to know what to say to them on the doorstep. And, I think, there’s still a lack of understanding about UKIP policies and what UKIP really stands for; and there is so much there for us to attack.

Because these voters might support UKIPs policies on the EU and immigration – and of course there are serious issues there we need to address – but I doubt that Labour/UKIP swing voters support grammar schools (or a voucher system for schools, for that matter), or increased privatisation of the NHS, or a 20% flat tax and the resulting cuts to public services. UKIP’s far right economic policies are quite, well, right wing, and if the person you’re talking to is a libertarian then fine; not much you’re going to be able to do about that.

But to those who are supporting UKIP because of their immigration/EU stance, or as a protest vote, Labour activists need to start talking about what else UKIP stands for; the libertarian-leaning, free market party is far from on the side of the working class (or, you know, most people).

Additionally, there’s the interesting (and admittedly, impressive) issue of UKIP getting former none-voters to vote; these voters most likely part of Labour’s target demographic, but where Labour has failed to get them out to the ballot box. And although I may not be thrilled at their party preference, it is good that these people are engaging with the political process. And we should be talking to them. Because now they are engaged, hopefully, they’ll be more inclined to talk us, both about what UKIP really stands for (because, like the former Labour voter, I’d hazard a guess that they wouldn’t be a fan of large chunks of UKIP’s policy program) and about what Labour stands for, and what Labour can offer them in government.

None of this is to dismiss the reasons people are turning to UKIP; as well as the issues of the EU and immigrations there’s, of course, a general disenchantment with mainstream politics and politicians, and we should take seriously how we address these issues.

But we must also start properly attacking UKIP’s dangerous economic policies; and get our activists talking about them to voters who are unlikely to support such policies if they are made aware of them.  

The Labour Party vs The Democratic Party; the courage of our convictions and what we stand for.

“If [the party] can’t articulate what Labour stands for, voters will lose interest.”, says Jenni Russell in a recent article; and the sentiment here seems to be one that is shared by much of the electorate. Why is it such a struggle for Labour, and Ed, to say what we stand for? I spent the past month-and-a-bit working on a Congressional and Senate campaign in the US. Of course my experience was of one campaign in one state, but during that experience something that struck me was that the Democrats knew what they stood for, and the voters I spoke to knew what they stood for. This is a party with far less party unity, where candidates do not all communicate the same “message” and quite openly have differing views on certain issue; but there was a far clearer sense of what made them Democrats, and what they stood for and were fighting for, than, I think, there currently is in the Labour Party.

Of course, it is easier when you’re in government; it is far easier to have a concrete policy agenda when it consists is what you’ve done, from which point it is easier to say what you will do. And it helps that there is a massive divide on social issues; to be socially liberal becomes a far more defining feature than it ever would be in the UK. But these factors don’t go the whole way towards explaining why the Democrats seem so much more successful at communicating, as well as fully understanding themselves, what they stand for, than the Labour Party.

Firstly, they have a coherent economic plan. Now, on one hand, so do we; the fundamental divide between Labour and the Tories; stimulus vs austerity; is clear. But the Democrats have a far clearer vision on what money will be spent where, which taxes will be cut and where that moneys going to come from. Of course, this is easier when you’re in government; and it’s easier when the election is in site, and the economic circumstances in which you will take power are (relatively) clear. Of course Labour can only say, “this is the plan; but that may change as the circumstances change”. But we can still form more of a plan; VAT cut, house building, jobs for young people…what else? What other, concrete things will Labour do? And in forming our economic plan, it may take the courage of our convictions, when it comes to where the money will come from, to say, “some will be raised through taxes, but some will come later; when the economy is growing and we are generating more income. And we can afford to wait for that to really tackle the deficit”.

The courage of their convictions is something the Democrats are displaying in spades, right now. And that is something that has alot of weight, politically. Trying to be all things to all people, or seeming to be apologising for yourselves, makes you look weak. The Democrats were guilty of this in 2010; Obamacare being treated as this shameful issue of which they must not speak. By contrast, the at the Democratic National Convention, Obamacare was celebrated; even if you did not like the policy, you could not doubt that Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama, or Stacey Lihn, the mother of a child she feared would die without Obamacare, or Barack Obama himself, liked the policy. Labour has its moments of conviction and self-belief, but all too often it can seem to be trying to appeal to everyone. We need to courage to say “this is our policy; this is why it’s right”.

And the Democrats, without a doubt, have values. As does the Labour Party. But the power in the values the Democrats communicate, and in the rhetoric they use, is that they relate it back to people. Very specific examples of how this college grant helped his person succeed, or this healthcare expansion saved this person’s life; be they hypothetical or real people. And if I were to summarise the values that the Democrats stand for; it would be enabling people to be able. Empowering people to be as limitless as they can be; not letting circumstances get in the way of their potential. And beyond this, the Democratic Party has been broadly pragmatic; to achieve this goal, they approach individual issues not as ideologues but as problem solvers. This puts them in stark contrast with a Republican Party that is, currently, fiercely and stubbornly ideological.

The Labour Party could so easily paint ourselves in the same way; the Tory’s economic policies are horribly, stubbornly and idiotically ideological. But it is tempting to try and counter this with a grand vision of our own. But no one knows what will happen while you’re in government. And portraying a Labour government that tackles each knew problem, with values, but also with pragmatism; and looking at, fundamentally, how decisions will really affect individuals and communities, is a strong message.

A lot of this is about conviction and coherence. There are times when we have alternative policies, but we attack the Tories rather than express them; times when we could develop more policies but shy away because we do not know what’s coming; times when we could paint a picture of ourselves as the competent problem solvers of British Politics, and instead we attack the Tories. In an ideal world, the Labour Party would get Bill Clinton to explain to the electorate who we are, what we stand for, what we will do in government and the attitudes with which we would do it. But, since that is unlikely to be a realistic option any time soon, we should probably work out how to do it ourselves. 

A few thoughts on the Queen's Speech...

So council seat losses left, right and centre (including in Cameron’s own constituency), senior Lib Dems thinking of pulling out of the coalition agreement early and a situation where the two parties appeared to be agreeing that each would drop their policies in exchange for...well, the other also dropping their policies (the imagine of this manner of coalition government continuing, with continued policy shedding until all that is left of the coalition is Osborne and Alexander sharing a copy of the Financial Times is highly amusing) ; that whole Tory-Lib Dem coalition thing is going excellently, isn’t it?

But the timing was excellent; the Queen’s Speech; a perfect opportunity for the government to redeem itself by laying out its key proposals for how it would improve the lives of currently dissatisfied British electorate.

And there was a promise to establish a Green Investment Bank, measures to “ensure supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers”, promises of banking regulation and increasing the flexibility of parental leave (and if we’re looking at general positives of the speech, might as well mention the foreign policy promises; although “we don’t like nuclear proliferation and like the spread of democracy” is not really a stance that anyone’s likely to disagree with).

There was also the symbolic but still meaningful promise of modernising the governing succession to the Crown (although, and I may just be being really ignorant about constitutional law here, but the need to “take it forward”, implying a gradual change, rather than, well, just do it, seems slightly odd to me), which is...well, quiet nice. Not all that helpful for most people’s lives, but it should be done, and it’s good that they’re planning to.

A bill to “reduce burdens on charities” is no bad thing; although a funny proposal from a government that has recently decided to tax charitable donations. Promises to ensure energy prices are “fair”, again, are clearly good in theory; but what fair means to the Tories in comparison to most people’s understanding of the word, and how exactly they intend to ensure prices are fair, has yet to be seen.

Beyond that, however, this speech was at worst bad and at best bland.

Of course suggestions we should help children with disabilities and special needs are positive suggestions, but given the government’s current record on disability benefits and funding to education for kids with special needs them implying that they want to help these children...unless it’s followed by a real policy U-turn are nothing short of disgusting.

That “legislation will be introduced to reduce burdens on business by repealing unnecessary legislation and to limit state inspection of businesses” is genuinely worrying in terms of workers’ rights. Of course, the exact legislation will need to be seen; it may prove fine but the implications of this statement are a serious cause for concern.

“Legislation will be introduced to reform public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the independent commission on public service pensions.” ...because, clearly, the coalition, thus far, has been so excellent and fair in their attitude to public sector pensions, I’m sure this legalisation will continue to be so!

Above all, however, it is not what the bill says, but what it does not; where is the plan for jobs and growth? How does this speech show any kind of departure from what the government is doing at the moment? It doesn’t. The economy re-enters the recession and the coalition ploughs on with their economic strategy. Surely by doing the exact same thing, they’ll produce a different result this time! Because that is in accordance with all logic!

House of Lords reform is, apparently, after much dithering, still going ahead. I’m...not going to talk about my opinions of House of Lords reform here, because they’re somewhat against the general left-wing grain and I think might require a full blog post...but my own opinions aside, it’s just so...we have massive unemployment and an economy that’s going no where. And the government has no real plans to fix this. But they have plans to introduce House of Lords reform! Making a real difference to people’s lives in hard times, right there!

Individual voter registration seems like nothing but a cheap political move; when turn out as low as it is why on earth should we make it harder for people to vote? Labour will need to respond with a massive drive to ensure our voters are registered; those who require postal votes especially.

Ed Miliband was probably the best I’ve ever seen him in the Commons today. He was really funny (from yougov to penguins) but also really strongly on message; really clear about the problems with this speech and with this government. Cameron’s attempts at rebuttal were poor (and his attempts at humour even worse...); increasingly he has shown himself to be an over-schooled and under-skilled Etonian in his ability to hold this government together (and his claim that Labour did “nothing” during the financial crisis deserves a brief mention for its sheer historical inaccuracy...).

Aside from settling the will they won’t they question regarding House of Lords reform, this speech, then, this speech was mostly just...rather rubbish....at a time when the coalition needed to deliver something spectacular.

So well done, Cameron.

Well done, Clegg.

Clearly this whole thing’s proved to be a match made in heaven.

Cheer up, guys?

Am I the only one confused by the pessimism of some in the Labour party regarding our electoral prospects, and the general condition of our party? I’m not advocating complacency, or less awareness of how Labour could improve.

But I just think some people should be…happier?

I grew up in a world where the Tories were…irrelevant. I remember my confusion, at a young age, learning about Thatcher, that such a powerful figure could emerge from a party that, in my memory, had always been entirely useless.

By contrast, Labour isn’t irrelevant now. People are aware of us. People are dissatisfied with the government and see Labour as the potential alternative. We have, on average (Cameron’s “veto” moment as an exception) been ahead in opinion polls.

And yes, things could be better. People still trust the Tories more on the economy. But that’s not a reason for panic; Labour were less trusted than the Tories on the economy before the 1997 election! And yes, Ed could, personally, be polling better, although he’s been great on issues such as phone hacking and the NHS.

And, most importantly, if there was an election today, Labour would have a damn good shot. And that’s if there was an election now. We still have years to campaign, to knock on doors, to keep renovating and pushing our message. Years for the government to keep screwing up the economy and pushing through more unpopular policies.

Not to mention the fact that there’s a strong change that Ken will win the London mayoral election…and even if he loses, how close a race it is, as far as I’m concerned, is amazing; since the candidates are exactly the same as the previous election that Labour lost.

And just the things that I’ve heard on the doorsteps and on the phones in support of the Party…there’s a good amount of it out there.

Labour are still, relatively, a very new party. The Tories history has entrenched them in the British establishment…Labour are, realistically, still babies by comparison. But in that time, they have established themselves as one of the two main British Political parties, they have done so much to change society for the better, have just had their most successful electoral streak and after that ended, even with a bad defeat, are still fighting, still relevant, while the Tories failed to even form a majority, despite all circumstances being in their favour, and are making themselves, day by day, increasingly unpopular.

I do think Labour should be constantly critical of itself, constantly working to be better than its being. But I don’t understand hopelessness. For a party that, in historical terms is still, really, finding its feet, things could be a lot worse.

Labour are the party of responsible capitalism, but we need to be work out exactly what measures we're proposing.

Post the Fabian Society conference on the 14th January, everyone was shouting about “predistribution, not redistribution”; that Labour should advocate an economy where the distribution of wealth is fair and equitable without the government having to step in with wildly redistributive policies, as part of the wider campaign for “nice” capitalism…I saw some rather over excited tweets claiming that if Labourites simply kept pushing that phrase from now to the election, we would defiantly see a Parliamentary majority.

And then Cameron decided he was a nice capitalist too.

This isn’t hard territory to outflank him on, though; yes, the Conservative’s Co-operatives bill is no bad thing, but largely Cameron’s words are far more rhetoric than substance, while it has been Ed Miliband who has been framing this debate, Labour who are the sister party of the Co-operative party; it was the Co-operative Party in partnership with Labour which secured the legislation that is to be consolidated.

But while a Cameron focused more on benefit caps than pay increases might not be hard to outflank on nice capitalism, Labour needs a really coherent, strong, responsible capitalism policy package to show how we would go about reinventing the markets once back in power; many key Labour figures have put forward various ideas, but these need expanding and consolidating.

 Ed Miliband has put forward five key proposals:

- Banks lending to the businesses that need it; and this being their primary goal, above the pursuit of short term profits.

- Greater power to shareholders with long-term holdings greater power, particularly at times of takeovers, to refocus the emphasis on long term sustainability and growth, rather than short term profits.

- Encouraging vocational skills, to meet unmet market needs.

- Restraints on executive pay.

- An end to "large concentrations of unaccountable private power that lead to higher prices, exploit consumers and lead to inefficiency".

We need to look further at how Labour would actually make these things happen; how would they been encouraged…or would they be legally enforceable?

Should banks have to lend a certain minimum to businesses…if so what types of businesses? Would all companies have to give greater power to long term shareholders…should there be some sort of minimum length of time that shareholders would have to hold shares in a company? What kind of educational reforms would be put in place to encourage vocational training? How far should the government go in actively breaking up monopolies to avoid concentrations of power?

As for high pay, we should certainly adopt the High Pay Commission's recommendations for greater transparency…

-Publishing the top ten executive pay packages outside the boardroom

-Forcing companies to publish a pay ratio between the highest paid executive and the company median

-Companies to reveal total pay figure earned by the executive

…but is that enough? Will business pay its top level people less just because it’s all out in the open? Some, probably, but it’s very unlikely all would.

If we’re not looking at taxation as a way to curb top tear pay (although the five point plan’s bankers bonus tax could probably find a place in a responsible capitalism package), then instead maybe we should examine linking the amount that the highest paid earner can earn to the amount the lowest paid earner can earn…potentially enforcing this through legislation.

Meanwhile Labour can go a lot further in supporting and encouraging co-operative enterprise than Cameron is currently doing (although we should, of course, fully support what he is doing), and outside of the cooperatives movement we can still work to put employees in a far more central position in regards to decision making; for example, making businesses put employees in remunerations committees.

Finally, and I’m starting to sound like a parrot here, but Labour should actively support, as in, say we will pass legislation making it law kind of support, the Living Wage. Not just saying “well, hopefully; we’d like to do it”; saying that we will.

Labour are the party of responsible capitalism, but we need to prove that, unlike Cameron, this is substantial and not just rhetorical, by sitting down and working out exactly what that means in terms of what actions we would and will take in power, to great a better, fairer capitalism and society, and presenting this to the public as a fully thought out, coherent proposal.