Cameron's Trap

Christmas is such a good time of year; not only do you get to catch up with family and friends but the blackberry stays silent. It happens once every twelve months and by goodness it is welcome.

I have spent lots of days catching up with friends, family and former political campaigners and have been careful to drop the politics for a week or so.

I note today two interesting pieces of news that are on the face of it bad news for the Labour Party but are actually nothing of the sort given the position in the electoral cycle. Firstly the relative failure of the 'registered supporter' project established in September 2010, and secondly the paper by Gregg McClymont and Ben Jackson published today on the 'Cameron Trap' which has some very strong warnings on Labour economic re-positioning which does need to take place.

Firstly, I shall deal with the obvious Tory spin on the membership question.

Whilst it is true that the number of registered supporters are small it is worth remembering this was established only last year and as a result of the relative success of the French scheme and those in North America. It is worth noting that the French scheme has seen success as a result of over a decade of right-wing dominance in France and at a time when the French left are selecting a potential presidential candidate. In North America, the established political networks and partisan support base is particularly pronounced; unlike in the UK people actually register their political alliegiance and fund parties through 'Action Committee's.' It is therefore utterly inappropriate for journalists (who are currently fawning over Cameron) to compare the scheme in the UK with other countries when we have had 18 months of Labour opposition. Keep the scheme in place and nurture it; it will reap rewards slowly and surely...

Incidentally what the right wing journalists wont tell you, because that would be balanced, is that whilse the Labour membership (those that pay) has increased from 156,000 (2009) to 193,000 (2011) the Conservative Party membership has actually been declining since the election of David Cameron. The Tories have been clever not to reveal membership figures but it is almost certainly going in the wrong direction - as a result of ageing / death of the blue rinsers and the unattractiveness of the Tory brand to young peoply. So for sake of clarity the Conservative Party membership number is carefully guarded, but we can guess it is below the 177,000 reported in September 2010. I would hazard a guess that it even could have gone below the 156,000 figure.

What should worry the Conservatives is that Labour now has a period in opposition to attract new members (and we see them locally just on twitter alone); the same was not said for David Cameron who lost a third of his own parties support as a result of stitching up local selections and gerrymandering A-lister selections (who failed to get elected in the most part). As a result the modern Conservative Party is totally reliant on money from the financial services sector (that is the same bankers who caused the crash) and very rich hedge fund speculators. There is a rich seam here to be reaped by Labour at a better time...

Incidentally, whilst we are talking about membership figures; the Rochester & Strood CLP last tally was higher than the local Conservative Association and more importantly we know where the funding comes from; so Boris Island believe me is worth the Tories worrying about. We know the numbers and the contributions from moles and sources. The talent attraction that has occured locally to the Medway Conservatives almost exclusively comes from the English Democrats. Hoovering up extremists on the right is a dangerous move...

Which brings me onto the second question is the conclusions of 'Cameron's Trap' paper from Policy Exchange, which are endorsed I would add by the majority of Labour members.

Whenever I am told the membership of the Medway Labour Party is very left wing (which is not often) I merely point to the the CLP votes at the leadership elections in 2010. The Blairite candidate won the majority of member support across Medway and second was the next most Blairite candidate.

That tells you that the Medway Labour membership is wedded to the centre and is distrustful of very left wing positions.

The message therefore from Gregg and Ben can not and should not be ignored by those who want a Labour Government and who also want to appeal to our membership support.

The conclusions are not to be driven into a Council of despair:

•Refuse to be driven into a simple defence of the public sector and public spending and instead mount a patriotic appeal to the nation to improve growth and living standards.

•Put forward a more convincing strategy for private sector growth than the Conservatives. A key element of a credible growth strategy would need to be a widely-supported active industrial policy. In this way “Labour can evade the trap of the ‘tax and spend’ argument of 1992, by making the key measure of governing competence the creation of new and sustainable jobs that improve living standards. Labour is more comfortable than the Conservatives with the idea of an activist state: the Conservatives have reason to fear a political contest organised around which party can best promote growth rather than which party can best reduce spending.”

•Aggressively highlight the Coalition’s preference for regressive charging mechanisms to fund public services. Labour can counter this by offering more progressive funding mechanisms, and developing new welfare policies that reduce economic insecurity by pooling risk. Crucially, these approaches need not require significant additional spending.

Labour must: “embrace the successful electoral pitches of victories in 1945, 1964 and 1997. Each of these elections involved an attack on a Conservative party that had presided over a period of economic decay. 1964, with its focus on economic underperformance and relative decline, presided over by an out of touch Tory elite, is particularly resonant given the likely electoral battleground in 2015. A patriotic, national growth appeal is therefore essential to highlighting the inadequacy of Conservative political economy.”

Following on from my post on the economy on growth I believe the above to be absolutely correct; the Tories will of course try and de-stabilise Ed Miliband because they realise the threat.

Rule number one; ignore your opponent if they do not represent a threat. The fact Tories are moving onto rule number two, which is to undermine Ed Miliband, shows full well they can see the threat. And so they should; they see the same polling we do...

Beyond the Bubble: Ipsos MORI at the Labour Party Conference

View more presentations from Ipsos MORI

What the papers wont tell you is that most people think Labour actually the argument right on the economy since 2010 and the warning of the double dip. Most people also think Labour are articulating their views and is the party most alligned to them. They also rate Labour as united as it was under Tony Blair (a record for us given the usual period of lefty antagonisms which come about after loosing government).

The Tories can also see the economy worsening and the electorate warming to the economic argument from the left on the squeezed middle. The Tories also know (and it is constantly trumpeted by the right wing press) that they have a lead on economic trust or credibility which they must maintain at all costs.

The issue is trust on the economy but it is one best solved by reasoned change on deficit reduction and continuing to bang the drum on growth, spreading fair deficit reduction on the broadest shoulders and listening to people. Remember; the last spending review announcement in November saw George Osborne move the goal-posts to effectively following the Darling deficit reduction strategy... so no lectures required.

Ed Balls is the most effective spokesperson on finance Labour has and we have articulated the correct economic argument. Regaining the trust of the electorate will take time and is best reinforced by a stable and united party not gazing inwardly, at either safety first positions, or by having another leadership election. Irrespective of who wins in London in May 2012; we have the best team at the helm for the times we are in, and are polling well given the underlying lack of trust in the economy the electorate still has with Labour (see time based polling demographics above on government satisfaction).

There will be no leadership election just a sensible and rational opposition articulating the sensible middle ground and undermining the Tory argument from a position of sense.

Keep on focusing on the econony; set out a vision for growth and continue to highlight the Tory failures on the squeezed middle and remember Cameron didnt get a majority last time with all the fair winds at his disposal; 2015 will be even harder and a united Labour team with a consistent and strong message to the voter segment most targeted by the current, out-of-touch Tories may see us win.