Ed Miliband must put forward a bold strategy to win the next election

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/18/ed-miliband-be-bold-win-election

Version 0 of 1.

Lord Ashcroft's recent poll shows Labour with a commanding lead in the 40 key marginals it needs to snatch from the Conservatives in 2015 to have any chance of a majority. On the same day the poll was published, Richard Grayson, the former director of policy for the Liberal Democrats, defected to Labour. Both potentially speak to a bigger story: a realignment of British politics may be taking place and it could well work in Labour's favour.

For many years, political scientists have referred to a "progressive dilemma" on account of divides between different strands of centre-left politics. A reunification of centre-left forces has been elusive. Social liberals have been attracted to both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, hampering a broad centre-left alliance. Suddenly social liberals, social democrats and conservative Labourites find themselves tantalisingly moving towards each other. A bold political statecraft would fuse them – for one election at least. That's Ed Miliband's big opportunity.

British politics is swirling around the dual forces of the politics of austerity and of reactionary populism. Social liberals, social democrats and conservative Labourites share a belief that there is a mutual responsibility to ensure all have a fair shot and a decent standard of living in any just society. Much separates them. Social liberals are far more meritocratic and decentralist. Social democrats are more statist. Conservative Labourites are driven more by a sense of solidarity and moral responsibility – which drives some concern with the current welfare state, immigration, and what they see as community decline. Yet, a driving sense of unease and notion of fairness leads them all to recoil from the coalition's brand of austerity.

Meanwhile, the right is facing what might be called a reactionary dilemma. Ukip's populist challenge to the Conservative base is considerable. The blithe Tory assumption is that the Ukip vote will come home under the bombardment of a "vote Ukip, get Labour" message. Undoubtedly, much of it will do but it would be surprising if Ukip didn't at least take some of the Conservative vote. At the very least it will drag the Conservatives on to Ukip's reactionary agenda and, among pragmatic, young or black and minority ethnic voters, this will be at a considerable cost.

Despite these enormous advantages for Labour, it would be a big mistake to assume that this potential realignment is secure. While it enables Labour to start from a higher potential base than 2010, this emergent coalition is not enough by itself. Support from the pragmatic centre will also be necessary for a majority. Labour will have to show that it can be trusted to govern. This is especially true when it comes to the economy, welfare and immigration.

An economic recovery could weaken the gravitational pull of social liberals, social democrats and conservative Labourites. A strong recovery could lessen Labour's claims to competence and strengthen those of the coalition. We are not currently in a stable political universe.

Moreover, liberals, social democrats, and small "c" Labour conservatives don't naturally sit well together at all. The question is, when will they start to pull away from one another? Miliband's "one nation" theme has the potential to appeal to all three. Yet, other than welcome relatively minor policy shifts on the living wage and zero-hours contracts, what this one nation might comprise remains a bit of a mystery. There is a sense that one nation in Labour's mind is simply a nation that is not governed by the Conservatives. That is unlikely to be enough.

Even if this realignment is more solid than it first appears, there is a bigger challenge. It would quickly begin to crumble in a post-election environment where the inherent tensions of the liberal, social democratic and conservative outlooks come into conflict rather than confluence. Tough issues like welfare, immigration, counter-terrorism, Europe, tax and the environment would start to prise this coalition apart. Social liberals may start to drift back to a Vince Cable, Ed Davey or Tim Farron-led Liberal Democrats. Conservative Labourites could be attracted to Ukip or the stay at home party. Social democrats may stay but lose enthusiasm – disappointed by tough choices in power.

The challenge for Miliband then is to be an agenda-setting leader – beyond broad themes such as the "squeezed middle". On some issues, there will have to be agreement to disagree. The major opportunity though is to argue, in very constrained times, that a different type of economy and society can be built over time to spread wealth and opportunity. In this regard, new economic institutions to increase investment, the skills base, mitigate financial risk and give workers a better deal will form the architecture. However, the political sell is bigger than a set of symbolic policies, important though these may be: Britain can do better than a desperate short-term, consumer credit, unsustainable mortgage-backed return to business as usual.

Voters deserve a genuine choice in 2015. If Labour goes for the fairly small politics of "cost of living", it's not clear that there will be one. An Osborne pre-election tax cut with something counter-intuitive such as a minimum wage increase and wider wages growth would easily burst Labour's argument. Instead, Labour should see the magnitude of the opportunity that it has and go for a big argument about painstakingly changing Britain. The odd defection or positive opinion poll is good for morale. Turning them into a coalition for change is another thing altogether. Yet that is precisely the opportunity that Labour now has – to realign British politics and change the country for good.

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.