Londoners suffer the most from the Tories cuts

As we head into an avoidable cost of living crisis caused by the Tories' tax rises and cuts, evidence shows that Londoners will lose badly. The poorest will be worse off than the wealthy. Yet more evidence that we're not "all in this together" after all, but its much more a case of "I'm alright Jack" from George Osborne.

The cost of living is so much higher in London than elsewhere in the UK that any hits to living standards will be harshly felt. As the graphic shows, Londoners get a raw deal from the cuts. Couples with children will lose 8% of their income by 2014/15. The poorest Londoners will be 7% worse off, the wealthiest only 5%.

Ed Miliband's job is to make this clear, in simple language to ordinary people. The cuts are not fair or even. The Tories hit those who can afford it least in the pocket.

Budget 2011: plus ca change

Today's budget has done little more than tinker around the edges of plans already announced by the Tories' emergency budget. The Tories are not about to change tack on the economy and today's budget demonstrated that. There was some window dressing, such as painting changes to personal and fuel tax as reductions when they are far from that. Tomorrow's newspapers with personal budget calculators will show that.

Pickpocket Gideon Osborne has some nerve. When he claims that moving personal allowances for tax will mean we will be better off. We're all paying more in VAT, higher fuel costs and the inflation it causes. Everyone pays VAT. VAT goes on fuel so even though some items like food are excluded the cost of food goes up as the fuel required to get food to consumers costs more. VAT on fuel means any tinkering with fuel duty is more than wiped out.

Ed Miliband's response highlighted the holes in the Tories' strategy. Their medicine is painful. Disposable income, earnings and living standards are falling while unemployment and inflation are rising. Gideon wants people to thank him once this aggressive treatment has worked. I'm not sure it will and whatever happens most people won't thank him for hitting them in the pocket.

If ever there was an example of why you can't afford the Tories, this is it.

Do problems lurk for Labour?

Which Ed will succeed in making Labour credible again? Ed Miliband is continuing to grow into leadership and fight for his status while Ed Balls is carrying Labour's fight to the Tories.

Last week saw discussion about whether Miliband's lack of support will damage Labour's chances of success under him. The jury is still out. It is clear that the media will continue to paint Miliband fatal to the party's chances of success. This early into the job and with so many unknowns ahead it is hard to say. There is the reduction in the number of MPs, the AV referendum and the risk of a double-dip recession. It is certain the political landscape will change dramatically over the next two to three years. Many paint this is a huge threat to Labour but Miliband should see this as a huge opportunity.

Much of Tim Montgomerie's weekend Telegraph article resonated with me. Yes, he writes for the Telegraph and runs Conservativehome. Yes, he is also right even though he is a Tory. He highlighted several issues that Labour needs to address to succeed, one of which included Miliband himself, but also:

• Are Labour too reliant on Tory failure to grant them success by default
• How will Labour win in the South? Just as Cameron had to win outside the South
• Ed Balls seems to have the answers that (he suggests) Miliband lacks

The Labour Party has to address these problems. The party cannot rely on the other side messing up - that is not a long-term and stable basis for power. It might work in the short term but will only lead to problems. If you win by default you will have nothing positive to offer the country with your power. 

Continuing to highlight falling living standards and hammering home that it doesn't have to be like this is one part of that strategy. There needs to be more, which includes fighting the claim, that currently sticks, that Labour and not the global financial crisis is to blame for the country's deficit.

Which Ed comes out of that struggle with the most to show isn't clear. They can do it together, or one of them could do it alone. Could it be that another Ed scuppers the other Miliband's chances of leading Labour in the future?

Does it matter if Miliband isn't loved?

Looking beyond the headline opinion polls that currently show Labour with a healthy ten point lead over the Tories it appears that Ed Miliband is the least popular of the three main party leaders. Even less than Nick Clegg. He hasn't been in the job very long which is certainly a factor, together with him not having been the most high profile minister in the former government.

As Miliband's recognition grows I expect his rating to improve. He will benefit from not being a Tory or Nick Clegg. That isn't enough to sustain him though. He needs to be liked and must be seen as a credible prime minister if he is to take Labour to victory. He has more time though the media will try and put him on the football manager style pedestal and stir up suggestions that he isn't up to the job.

The forthcoming Scottish, Welsh and English local elections provide the first test. The AV referendum is interesting too, for two reasons. First, if Labour are popular but Miliband less so Labour could "win" the next election much like the Tories did in 2010 - without a majority. Second, under those circumstances but with AV he would have to do a deal with the similarly unpopular Nick Clegg's Lib Dems. Right now that seems like a very odd scenario but it could well come to fruition.

Ed Mili-Balls would tax the banks again - divided Britain

I'm sure the headlines will focus on Labour's announcement today that a bankers' bonus tax should be levied for a second time. This was just a part of Eds Miliband and Balls presenting their alternative to the savage cuts of the Tories.

I'm personally interested to see how well this plays with the public. Bankers were a popular and easy target a year ago. The bosses of the main UK banks have called on the media, public and politicians to "move on" and let the industry and economy progress. This has been in the face of fierce and continued criticism from certain politicians, notably Chuka Umuna and Lib Dem Matthew Oakeshott.

I suspect that the extra bankers' tax will come in for some media and political criticism from those on the right. The timing is also interesting though, coming just a couple of weeks before thousands take to the London streets to protest against the current government's programme of cuts.



This all points us in the direction of partisan politics and a divided country. It feels like politics is getting argumentative and Ed Balls will be central to this - a role I'm sure he is relishing.

Miliband's momentum?

I had been waiting for Ed Miliband to grow into his role as Labour leader. Watching PMQs today positive signs were apparent. He comes across clearer that in his early days in charge, though there was no killer punch. He has a little bit to go before he is able to match Cameron's wit and ease at the despatch box. None of this matters too much as we can all remember William Hague repeatedly getting the better of Tony Blair at PMQs yet he got nowhere because he just wasn't credible.

What matters for Ed Miliband is whether he and his team can take advantage of the Tories' unpopularity. For that to make an impact a clear and consistent narrative has be repeatedly communicated. His media image is improving with a real test around the corner in May's local elections. That is his first opportunity to gain momentum. All successful opposition leaders need to gain that to show that are heading towards power and that the government is on the way out.


  Labour has opened up a consistent five plus point lead over the Tories. That is the kind of killer punch and momentum Ed Miliband needs. I hope it is reflected in the real opinion poll in May.

Does anyone actually read election leaflets?

There was a minor media furore when Phil Woolas was booted out of parliament for telling lies on his election leaflets. Last night Labour won Oldham East and Saddleworth and increased a slender majority of the shameless Lib Dems. What particularly struck me is that almost none of the reporting or TV  interviews with voters mentioned the Woolas "scandal". People weren't interested it seems. This suggests that nobody really cares about political leaflets, other than for the nuisance they cause to porches and doormats. If they really mattered there would have been a backlash against Labour, but there wasn't.

The media have also reported the drop in support for the Lib Dems and Tories as "expected" and typical for a government at this stage. When Labour lost by elections it was always magnified to be a huge setback for Brown. The real test, for the media and Miliband's Labour, will come when there is a by election in a Tory-Labour marginal. The result and how that is reported will then give a good indication of both the political and media mood.

Despite everything, Labour expected to win Oldham East and the only "disastrous" result for any party would have been for Labour to lose. Miliband has passed his first test with this by election a good demonstration of the enthusiasm that seems to be back within the Labour Party. Victor Debbie Abrahams reported that there were over 1400 Labour volunteers helping her campaign. That is phenomenal. Onwards to the next one. More of that sort of turnout from the Labour ranks and a win over the deeply unpopular Tories in a future by election is a real possibility.

UPDATE: just to be clear, this isn't a defence of Woolas' actions, merely me noting that despite the gravity of his expulsion this wasn't that important in the campaign.

What wins elections?

Is it enough to be an opposition to a disliked government to win elections? Of course not. Neither is it enough to complain but not to offer an alternative. Perhaps the least likely path to electoral success is by heading into ideological extremes. Whenever Labour or the Tories have been perceived as occupying the left or the right respectively, they have been rejected by voters. 


YouGov's Peter Kellner has argued that while politicians and parties need to be seen to be centrist to be accepted by the electorate there were other reasons that were more significant in seeing a change in government since 1945. Kellner's advice is that Ed Miliband should be careful where he positions himself: follow current public opinion and look weak - the perceived centre shifts over time; "give swing voters solid reasons to hope their lives will get better if you win. Then they will vote for you". The point is simple and echoes what I've said for some time - opposition isn't enough for Labour. Labour needs to be a credible alternative and needs to set out some specifics about what would be different in a Labour Britain to a Tory one. As Dan Hodges states: "There is protest. And there is power. Labour cannot be the party of both".


Labour must not just shout, it needs to show it can act, in the centre ground but sensibly, to show it understands what people want and how their lives will be better if they vote for the party.

Opposition is not enough

I wrote on Monday that it will be insufficient for Labour simply to oppose everything the Tories do. The 1980s showed that not being the Tories just wasn't enough to put Labour into power when Labour wasn't attractive to voters in itself.

A Politics Home survey of "informed political opinion" (yes, I did take part) released today bolsters this view. Asked what Ed Miliband and Alan Johnson should do in response to today's spending review, 60% stated that Labour should focus on providing alternatives, including cuts, to show how they would do things differently. Only 35% thought Labour should focus on the pain the cuts will cause. "Simply bashing the government for cutting spending will not work for Labour."


Notably Labour "insiders" were split almost 50-50 on which course of action to take. Those identifying with other parties much more forthright. This just highlights that a core-vote strategy won't work. Labour needs to persuade those who voted Tory and Lib Dem who feel let down and will be let down by this spending review and in the next four years. Their views are clear. I await Ed and Alan's response eagerly.

Is it enough to not be the Tories?

This week's spending review is likely to unleash a nasty raft of cuts to government spending. The real effects of this will be felt over the next two to three years as services are gradually withdrawn. The mirror with Geoffrey Howe's deeply unpopular budget of 1981. Despite tax increases and public spending cuts being incredibly unpopular Labour failed to benefit because it wasn't focused on offering a feasible and credible alternative. What makes George Osbourne's spending cuts any different from those of Howe almost 20 years prior? Will an unpopular Tory government automatically propel Labour back into power in five years?

There are many arguments against the Tory plans:

• Osbourne's plans will hurt and I don't expect the cuts to be "fair". The botched cuts to child benefit recently announced show that many of the plans will be ill thought out. 
• The cuts are too hard and too fast not just from the Labour Party. This is my view. Taking so much money out of the economy will stall growth. It is also short-sighted to suggest that £1 spent by the government is £1 gone from the coffers. Much of that £1 will come back in VAT, corporation and income taxes. That won't happen now. Instead the economy will shrink, meaning recovery will become recession.
• The state's finances are not worse than expected. It is disingenuous of ministers like Vince Cable to claim that the current government finances are worse than expected. The state of the public finances are public and widely known. He is simply playing the fall guy for cuts and policies, such as tuition fees, that the Tories wanted to put in place anyway.
• The political problem for Labour is that the cuts will be blamed on the poor state of the nation's finances, which is Labour's fault, according to the Tories. That narrative will ignore the huge investment made to recapitalise the banks and in public spending to keep the economy going. Labour needs to respond that this was unavoidable. 

Significant though these are, none of these counter claims are sufficient for Labour to benefit from the Tories' unpopularity alone. Current polls show Labour edging into a small lead. To build on and sustain this, Labour needs to present a viable and credible alternative.  With a new leader that may take time, but having a leader at all is progress from the previous five months of an "empty chair." The quicker Ed Miliband can start setting out his alternative plan the better.

What does a credible alternative plan look like? It needs to show that both the deficit and growth are important. Cutting the deficit so fast could be a zero sum game, cancelling out growth that will itself increase tax receipts and reduce the deficit.

Labour's plan has to, and will, accept that the deficit needs to be tackled. It also needs to show that the better off would pay more than those in the middle and at the bottom. It needs to be fair and sensible.

If Labour's response is good enough perhaps David Cameron will start looking for a "popularity" war like the Falklands...oh, we can't afford one.

A loss to politics

Like many I am disappointed that David Miliband has relegated himself to the backbenches. I mentioned before his decision was announced that many politicians before him have been defeated in leadership contest then gone on to serve under their conqueror.

In the 1980s Denis Healy lost the Labour leadership election to Michael Foot but became his deputy. Kenneth Clarke lost the Tory contest three times, yet didn't shy away from the front line. In today's Telegraph Peter Oborne argues that there is more vanity in politics today than back in the day. He is partially right. I think the party and cause matters more than anything else.

Perhaps the family dimension makes this case different. I hoped that a commitment to the Labour cause would have won through. The media might get tired of the soap opera allowing MiliD a path back in the future under his brother - also for former leading light James Purnell.

Labour: a family party. Part two (of many?)

As David Miliband prepares to tell the world what he plans to do after losing out to his brother, Ed, in the Labour leadership contest there are a plethora of views about the benefits to the party of him staying or not. 


What is clear after David yesterday rebuked Harriet Harman for applauding Ed's denouncement of the Iraq war (she voted for the war remember) is that were he to hang around he would likely be a focus for the media, keen to spot any division and dissent. Blair versus Brown becomes The Miliband Brothers. The Times ran a poll yesterday suggesting that more people in the country feel that David has leadership qualities than Ed. This reminded me of the poll before the 1992 election that showed voters preferred John Smith to Neil Kinnock. We could do without these distractions. 

The key question is whether Labour can do without its (arguably) biggest hitter on the front bench? I'd argue not as does Mary Riddell, among others; though David himself and many others disagree. If he did stay there would need to be some convincing rubbishing of any split between the Milibands. How to do that? Ed can show that he wants to lead a strong team and to give his brother the profile and portfolio he deserves. The media might continue to show up the differences between the two but Ed can counter that by being a strong leader. This wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time that a heavy hitter has been beaten to a party leadership but has carried on in a significant post. That is what politics is all about. 


And so to Ed. What should he do? He would do well to heed Alistair Darling's advice on tackling the deficit. Darling as Chancellor took the deficit seriously, he wanted to go further than Brown to tackle it, but in order to protect the fragile recovery, understands that the Tories are going too far, too fast. Ed Miliband says he wants to move on from New Labour but he should heed to key lesson of the Blair/Brown years: that to win an election Labour must occupy the centre ground. 

Ed's first leader's speech yesterday shows that he can forge his own agenda. Having overcome the formidable barrier of his brother and the party he now needs to start talking language that will appeal to the country. The early signs are encouraging. His brother is feared by the Tories because he most closely resembled David Cameron but would have faced a divided party from his proximity to Blair. Ed will be more likely to take Labour to the centre ground precisely because of his distance from Blair/Brown which will mean he will lead a united party.

Ed Miliband's opportunity

One of Ed Miliband's undoubted strengths is that he isn't as closely associated by the public with the Blair-Brown years as his brother or Ed Balls. He worked closely with Gordon Brown for a number of years but is seen as a "new man" and his focus on a "new generation" leading Labour is right. He needs to draw a careful line under the previous regime(s) in today's conference speech.

Ed Miliband also needs to be very careful. Several times during the hustings for the leadership other candidates Ed Balls and Andy Burnham were forthright in criticising other candidates for "rubbishing the record" of Labour in government. Miliband needs to tread a careful path between presenting a vision for the future but not trashing New Labour's achievements. If he goes too far in criticising the past I fear he will give credibility to Tory attacks that Labour's years in government were a failure. If that narrative wins then it will be very difficult for him to claw Labour back into power.

He has a tremendous opportunity demonstrated by today's YouGov poll showing that Labour has overtaken the Tories in opinion polls for the first time in over two years. His speech needs to win more gruond on the Tories to ensure that his lead isn't gobbled up by the Tory conference next week. The perfect start? We'll wait and see...

Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband beat his brother by the narrowest of margins. If you read the early comments of some this means that Labour is lurching to the left with "Red Ed" at the vanguard. I admit that I didn't vote for him as I felt David might present himself better to the media and to the country. I would have been happy had any other candidates won with the exception of Diane Abbott. Interestingly he is Labour's first English born full time leader since Michael Foot.

I watched the new leader's interview with Andrew Marr this morning and was impressed. He came across better than many have given him credit for and also showed that he understands the pressures faced by many in the country. He also has decent credentials and will contrast sharply with David Cameron, whose actions in government are likely to be unpopular. Perhaps the Tories should stop gloating and take him seriously. To have got this far and beaten the favourite shows that this he is no fluke.

What is clear is that Ed will face questions unlikely to have been asked of his brother, had the result been slightly different. Gaining victory through the trade union section was unfortunate, making it easy for detractors to claim that he is some sort of 1970s Jack Jones. Ed was right to point out that he was voted for my more individuals than any other candidate. The union block vote was abolished almost 20 years ago.

Ed also has as much experience as Tony Blair or David Cameron did when taking their respective leaderships. What he now needs to do is show that he can talk centre-ground policy to ensure that he broadens Labour's appeal. I hope this starts immediately, with Tuesday's leader's speech to conference. He had the guts to talk about Labour's lost votes repeatedly during his leadership campaign. I hope this conference shows he knows where to find them.

The early signs are that he does. He chose to begin his leadership by writing for the Sunday Telegraph, with a hostile Tory audience. He used that article to stake a claim for the centre of British politics, the right move. I'm impressed and suprised by him so far, though he will face a hostile media and will need to convince many more people than just myself to make a difference.

"Hi it's Ken Livingstone"

I was feeling a little undervalued by both the Labour leadership and mayoral candidates as none had courted by votes by phone. I tend to ignore emails and papers that come in the post. You can blame the bank and my many online lottery wins for that. I don't ignore text messages. Yet.

That all changed last week when "Ed Milliband" texted me to court my vote. I said I wouldn't support him and was promised a call back within five days. That was five days ago, so I'm looking forward to tonight's call with his team.

The texting now never stops. "Ken Livingstone" has just texted seemingly everyone I know in the London Labour Party asking for their vote. Again, I said no and have been promised a call from his team. Lets see whether who, if anyone, calls me first?

I think connecting with members through a range of channels is commendable. I'd like to know how much this costs. Can we get the same from Oona King? I certainly hope so, as Ed Milliband's claim to have recruited over a thousand campaign volunteers this way would be valuable. 

Hi it's Ed Milliband

At a wedding for a Labour party friend on Saturday I received a text from "Ed Milliband" canvassing my vote for the Labour leadership election. I replied with "N" though according to his official page 45% of respondents wet the other way and voted "yes". I suspect that might be because those who responded were more inclined to show their support than those who didn't bother at all - because they were not backing his campaign.

Text messaging members was dubbed groundbreaking by Ed's campaign. That it may beand any further means of easily communicating with party members is a good thing. It doesn't give me a reason to vote for him. I worry that he is playing to the Labour Party gallery to gain favour in the leadership election. I don't believe he is strong enough to stand up to the party and ensure that Labour takes back the centre ground, without which no party can win power in the UK.

"Ed" replied to my "no" asking for my support as a second preference. "He" asked if there was anything he could do to convince me. I replied with my worry that he won't be able to stop Labour lurching to the left, keeping us in opposition. I have been promised that his team will be in touch with me in the next five days. I'm looking forward to engaging with his team, even though I doubt there is much they, or "Ed", can do to make me change my mind.

I praise Ed's campaign for engaging me in this way, one of several text message canvasses by his campaign according to Labour List. Now is the time to see if he has the balls to do the right thing for Labour.

UPDATE: I have also been informed by someone who replied "yes" that their follow up text from "Ed" asked if they were willing to volunteer for his campaign. This is likely to be the source of the large number of additional volunteers his campaign has announced.

It will be all about the second preferences

The race to be the next Labour leader will be decided by the second preferences votes of candidates falling out of the contest. Milliband and Milliband will have to fight over the second preferences of Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Diane Abbott.

Gordon Brown apparently thinks Ed Milliband will win. The Sun's YouGov poll suggests that David will nudge him out slightly. The strong union support for Ed puts him in the chair to win. To win any candidate doesn't need the majority support of the membership but needs to win the electoral college. There are several unanswered questions as Peter Kellner points out.

MPs have the most individual power in the college as they make up their own third and the second preferences of those nominating Abbott, Balls and Burnham are unclear. My hunch is that the most of the votes will go to David as he is the more publicly credible candidate and MPs will want a leader that is most likely to deliver power. MPs would be foolish not to pick the most popular candidate.

Again I'm reminded that Labour loses out significantly by Alan Johnson's absence from the contest. He was rated as Labour's biggest vote winner. He is such an asset whoever wins needs to keep Johnson close. It saddens me that he has held himself back from both this and the London mayoral candidacy race. It doesn't matter who his second preference is - he is backing David Milliband.

UPDATE: I've just spotted Luke Akehurst's analysis of the MP/MEP part of the electoral college. That puts David in the lead.

Five Live Labour leadership hustings

This morning I listened intently to Five Live's Labour leadership debate. I've not yet been to any hustings so this was my first opportunity to see all the candidates together. Otherwise I've had emails from the candidates, David Milliband leaflets in the post and various friends trying to encourage me to support David Milliband but mostly Ed Milliband.

All through I heard a great deal from Ed Balls and Andy Burnham and not much from David and Ed Milliband or Diane Abbott.

I was surprised and impressed by Balls. He was bullish about Labour's record in government, where many of the other candidates wanted to mention where Labour had gone wrong. He came across well from a Labour Party perspective though I'm not sure that his style would appeal to floating voters. I think he should be given a central role in the shadow cabinet but perhaps wouldn't give Labour the widest appeal as leader.

Andy Burnham spoke well about wanting the Labour Party to trust its members and suggested that the cost of membership, at £39 per year, was too much. He pointed out when asked about the public deficit that under Labour public spending grew less than economic growth. I was pleased when he dubbed the ConDem cuts "public sector vandalism." He also stated when asked that he thought he had more chance of becoming Labour leader than Everton of winning the championship. I doubt either will happen but I really like his personable style and his frankness.

David Milliband talked about wanting to ensure Labour was embedding in communities - something we do in Islington. He was one of several candidates to jibe Abbott, stating: "why trash (Labour's) record?". He admitted he (like many others) was wrong about there being WMDs in Iraq though he thought Iraq not to be an issue in 2010. Sounds most like a leader though we heard little of him for a frontrunner.

Diane Abbott isn't worth much of a mention. Her interjections were rare and predictable. She speaks for a section of the Labour Party and has a rightful role to play in that, just not my section of the party. The country has just voted for more Tories than Labour so I don't agree that moving to the left will help at all.

Ed Milliband disagreed with David. He was right to suggest that Labour kept losing voters over the noughties, through issues like tuition fees and Iraq.However, I heard so little of him that I remain thoroughly unconvinced that he is leadership material.

I suspect that the election will produce a Milliband versus Milliband run-off. If that were the case I'd opt for David. However on today's showing I'm going for Andy Burnham then Ed Balls.