Go Ed!

With the election of Ed, rather than David Miliband the Labour Party has obviously taken a risk. This risk has many Tories either professing themselves to be laughing over their Notting Hill gastro-pub lunches or bizarrely flinging vitriol about ‘Red Ed’ or ‘Brown Ed’ or whatever smear it is they think it is particularly opportune to use at that moment in time. This may seem strange, how can Ed Milliband be an unreconstructed Brownite and a Leftist usurper ? After all the Labour left and Gordon Brown’s version are about as close together as the ideologies of Vince Cable and George Osbor… oh hang on. Seriously though the cheers and the jeers do represent the two sides of the Ed Milliband gamble. Those cheers come about because Ed is not David, he doesn’t pose the obvious problems that David would pose the Tories. However the jeers come about because of the opportunity. In the eyes of the public, if not politicos, Ed is a blank canvas. Similar to Cameron he can be associated with past failures, in fact they are very similar in that respect, both had a hand in a failed manifesto that lost the election before the next they will fight, both could be tangentially associated with past policies (ERM, Golden Rules etc) but neither are fatally tied to them. This is why the right jeer, they want to paint him as an inevitable failure, a union man and an indecisive dullard. One should in this respect remember Labour’s taunts at Cameron: toff, lightweight, unable to take the right of his party with him, etc. That went well.

So Ed represents a risk but also a great opportunity: a chance for new policy, new thinking and in the shameless words of Cameron and Clegg a new way of doing politics. In this respect Ed Milliband should copy some (but not all) of David Cameron’s manoeuvres. By this I don’t mean triangulate in ‘the heir to Blair’ mode Cameron, tough political times call for tougher politics. One must have a look at Cameron’s end destination: 25-40% cuts, free schools, a half privatised NHS. Cameron reached this point by dodging needless battles, identifying the government’s weak spot and convincing people he is on their side while not fighting needless battles where and when the coalition is strong, even when you think you may have a case, the political weather is likely to change and this is when to strike. When Cameron and co. did strike, boy did they strike, here is where public opinion may be won for measures of the left: where Cameron and co. have failed.

Which policies would do this? Ones that capture the divisions and contradictions in the coalition (both Tory-Tory and LD-Tory) as well as setting out a quite different direction where the coalition can be characterised as wrong. In order to do this he should

1. Agree with the coalition (in general) on Civil Liberties. With the proviso that, as Labour did it will come up against the compromises of power in this area. The continuation of ASBOs and reductions in police should be seen as dividing lines.

2. Support a similar, though distinct version of IDS welfare reform. The biggest disincentive to getting off benefits is not that benefits are astronomically high but the fact that taking low paid work means that one loses all of one’s benefits rather than it being incrementally reduced as one works more. Labour should praise IDS for realising this and back him and the Lib Dem’s consciences against Osborne and Cameron’s urge to plunder this budget.

3. Back the Lib Dems in their opposition to Free Schools program making the argument that it is a centralisation of power rather than representing localism, and that it is a waste of money that could be better spent improving schools for all, without resiling completely from the original idea of academies which was to direct much needed funds and expertise into failing schools.

4. Flesh out his statement that Alistair Darling’s deficit reduction plan is a ‘starting point’ keep the bulk of the plan but introduce a policy of an ‘escape hatch’ if growth struggles and state that more would be done to raise money from tax rises rather than spending cuts. A Tobin tax should be strongly considered as well as Andy Burnham’s proposal for a LVT replacing council tax, focus on this in the second half of the parliament.

5. Shame the coalition on their green record. Not only is this an important issue and source of division amongst the coalition, it exposes the completely shameless difference between their PR and their policy. Promote green industries as the centre of the campaign to cut the country’s energy use, the people’s bills and create new skilled manufacturing jobs. The aborted ‘Green New Deal’ perhaps?

6. Don’t jump the gun on trident. State that it should be a part of the Defence Review.

7. Don’t get caught ought on immigration: one of the oldest wars of attrition in politics. Let it be seen in the context of the government’s failings rather than as a moral crusade, an immigration cap rather than points system will likely provide ample examples of unfairness while giving the coalition a chance to fail on its own terms.

8. Get tough on the NHS: supposedly protected but facing real cuts and a top down reorganisation when the NHS is a great achievement of New Labour. A bad case of coalition hyperactivity could well result in a trump card for Labour.

9. Get some goodies ready for 2015. Labour will think that George Osborne will not manage to reduce the deficit entirely by 2015. If this is the case Labour will have a ready made argument that they need to promote growth. If he does manage it, the argument will be about how much destruction has been wrought on the country by the cuts and how to improve slashed public services and improve the lives of those hurt by the cuts. Either way this can’t just be done by spending promises, but by targeted tax cuts to the poor and middle class, such as lowering VAT

10. Keep calm and bide your time!

Coulson & Tory Defences of him.

I don't have a clue about what went on in the Andy Coulson case. He may be an innocent know-nothing who miraculously rose to edit one of the nation's newspapers and subsequently be talented enough to be appointed as the main press advisor to the PM whilst not knowing the reprehensible tactics that his reporters were using in his newsroom. Inquiries into the matter so far (from the police, the PCC, and parliament) haven't proved this, nor have they proved the opposite, that Coulson was and is the unscrupulous ogre many people imagine him to be. (He has some form on this with an £800,000 bullying claim accepted against him.) Quite rightly people like Iain Dale point out that he hasn't been formally charged with any wrongdoing, a perfectly legitimate defence, one which until the NY Times article on this sorry business came out was perfectly acceptable. One might call it the 'You hate him anyway defence' which in the absence of proof or significant suggestion of wrongdoing invites the unbiased observer to view the accuser's bias towards the accused. It works well with Coulson. People on the left have every reason not to like him, he works for a Tory PM, he worked for Rupert Murdoch, specifically the NOTW and doesn't seem a pleasant chap. Added to this is the accusation of mischief making by those with nothing personal against Coulson and you have potent reasons for questioning the motives of those calling for his head.

The reason the NY Times Article challenges this point is that it isn't about Coulson. Coulson may be the focal point, and the claims against him are damning if true, but central to the point is the idea that the original investigations were either lied to or were given inadequate evidence. In the case of the CPS there is a prosecutor who claims not to have been given the correct evidence from the Met, a very serious allegation. The PCC are exposed as the supine press apologists that they are and the article accused Coulson of lying to a parliamentary inquiry that already accused him and the News International of 'obfuscation'. Add to this the fact that a huge number of people had their phones hacked, many with no connection to the work of the 'lone bad apple' who has been imprisoned, the massive payouts to those who looked like getting their day in court and accusations of excessive closeness between the news organisation and the police, as well as those who may not have been told by police that a crime was committed against them having their day in court if this is the case there is a need for an inquiry. The daft ad hominem attacks of Alan Duncan and Iain Dale merely express worry about the political cost such an inquiry would incur. Since when was it the role of a member of a government to trash the testimony of a prospective witness to a possible crime committed by a News Organisation? Really it shouldn't be a political issue. It should be a case of finding out whether initial investigations were told the truth, whether it was hidden or whether they were lied to. This is what the NY times alleges, with witnesses to back this up. The veracity of what these witnesses say should be determined by a judge, not a member of HM Government with a vested interest in them being untrue. Really an inquiry into this matter should be a no-brainer, it should be non-political. Tory attacks, their ad-hominem nature and deliberate ignoring of the real issue show that their closeness not just to Coulson but Murdoch mean that it isn't.