Read John Harris on Labour's crisis from this month's Prospect
Ed Miliband has taken a huge risk giving a major speech about the deficit; but it is a risk he could not avoid. If anything, it is a risk he should have taken earlier.
Conventional wisdom holds that politicians should stress those things in which they are strong and ignore those things on which they are weak. Labour’s stance on the deficit is its weakest card of all. By three-to-one, a recent YouGov survey found that voters think a Cameron-led government would tackle the deficit better than a Miliband-led government. Surely, Labour’s leader would have done better to talk about the health service (where Labour is ahead) or jobs, homes and living standards (where it is running level with the Tories)?
The trouble is that the deficit is a gateway issue. It speaks to the vital matter of competence. An opposition leader seeking to become Prime Minister must persuade enough voters that he and his party are up to the job of running the country. If they are not deemed to be sufficiently competent, then it matters not a jot how popular their specific policies are. They won’t be elected.
Labour discovered this the hard way in 1992. Voters loved its promises to increase spending on the NHS, pensions and child benefit. But, fairly or unfairly, too many voters thought a government led by Neil Kinnock would screw up the economy and not afford to redeem its pledges.
If he is not to be a latter-day Kinnock, Miliband must persuade voters that he and Ed Balls would manage government finances prudently. That is why they must shift their terrible polling numbers on the deficit.
[gallery ids="29115,29114,29112,29111,29110,29109"]
Personally, I felt his speech makes a lot of sense (though I would have preferred him to omit the point-scoring against the Conservatives: his jibes were cheap distractions from a serious argument about the nature and timing of a target for getting the government’s finances into balance). Had the same argument been made by, say, the Governor of the Bank of England, or the head of the International Monetary Fund, or the director of the Confederation of British Industry, it might have done real damage to the coalition’s strategy.
The thing is, they have earned the right to be taken seriously on the big macroeconomic issues; Miliband hasn’t, at least not yet. Can he do so in time? With less than five months to the next election, it’s a tall order. He may end up regretting that he did not make this speech last year, when Labour still held a clear lead over the Conservatives, and had the chance to consolidate its advantage. Better late than never – but far, far better early than late.
Ed Miliband has taken a huge risk giving a major speech about the deficit; but it is a risk he could not avoid. If anything, it is a risk he should have taken earlier.
Conventional wisdom holds that politicians should stress those things in which they are strong and ignore those things on which they are weak. Labour’s stance on the deficit is its weakest card of all. By three-to-one, a recent YouGov survey found that voters think a Cameron-led government would tackle the deficit better than a Miliband-led government. Surely, Labour’s leader would have done better to talk about the health service (where Labour is ahead) or jobs, homes and living standards (where it is running level with the Tories)?
The trouble is that the deficit is a gateway issue. It speaks to the vital matter of competence. An opposition leader seeking to become Prime Minister must persuade enough voters that he and his party are up to the job of running the country. If they are not deemed to be sufficiently competent, then it matters not a jot how popular their specific policies are. They won’t be elected.
Labour discovered this the hard way in 1992. Voters loved its promises to increase spending on the NHS, pensions and child benefit. But, fairly or unfairly, too many voters thought a government led by Neil Kinnock would screw up the economy and not afford to redeem its pledges.
If he is not to be a latter-day Kinnock, Miliband must persuade voters that he and Ed Balls would manage government finances prudently. That is why they must shift their terrible polling numbers on the deficit.
[gallery ids="29115,29114,29112,29111,29110,29109"]
Personally, I felt his speech makes a lot of sense (though I would have preferred him to omit the point-scoring against the Conservatives: his jibes were cheap distractions from a serious argument about the nature and timing of a target for getting the government’s finances into balance). Had the same argument been made by, say, the Governor of the Bank of England, or the head of the International Monetary Fund, or the director of the Confederation of British Industry, it might have done real damage to the coalition’s strategy.
The thing is, they have earned the right to be taken seriously on the big macroeconomic issues; Miliband hasn’t, at least not yet. Can he do so in time? With less than five months to the next election, it’s a tall order. He may end up regretting that he did not make this speech last year, when Labour still held a clear lead over the Conservatives, and had the chance to consolidate its advantage. Better late than never – but far, far better early than late.
