This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/ed-miliband-labour-local-government-election

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ed Miliband must rebuild trust in Labour street by street Ed Miliband must rebuild trust in Labour street by street
(about 3 hours later)
One of the few advantages to being in opposition is meant to be immunity from the hatred voters reserve for governing parties. So one of Ed Miliband’s biggest frustrations is that a residue of office still clings to his party: no rhetorical wardrobe changes or laundering of policy seem to shift it.One of the few advantages to being in opposition is meant to be immunity from the hatred voters reserve for governing parties. So one of Ed Miliband’s biggest frustrations is that a residue of office still clings to his party: no rhetorical wardrobe changes or laundering of policy seem to shift it.
To some extent this is normal. The mass jilting of Labour by millions of voters was relatively recent, and limiting exile from power to one term is pretty rare in British politics. But Labour’s task of renewal is made harder by the anti-Westminster mood across the country. This new cultural animosity ignores profound differences between Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, lumping them together as practitioners of a corrupt trade called politics.To some extent this is normal. The mass jilting of Labour by millions of voters was relatively recent, and limiting exile from power to one term is pretty rare in British politics. But Labour’s task of renewal is made harder by the anti-Westminster mood across the country. This new cultural animosity ignores profound differences between Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, lumping them together as practitioners of a corrupt trade called politics.
At least ruling parties have some obvious justification for their existence; someone has to be in charge. Labour’s lifeblood, by contrast, is being drained by a kind of zombie incumbency. Miliband wears the taint of power without the aura of potency.At least ruling parties have some obvious justification for their existence; someone has to be in charge. Labour’s lifeblood, by contrast, is being drained by a kind of zombie incumbency. Miliband wears the taint of power without the aura of potency.
The dynamic is strongest in Scotland, where Nationalists have routed blame for bad government away from their own actions in Holyrood on to a phantom conspiracy of all the London parties. In England, Ukip poses a similar threat, depicting Labour as co-architects of a metropolitan betrayal that led Britain to economic and ethnic ruin at the hands of Europe. On that front, the complexity of Miliband’s task is expressed in the saga of an anti-Faragist campaign manual that was circulated among Labour MPs and leaked to the Daily Telegraph. The document used polling analysis to argue that undecided voters with Ukip tendencies will more easily be won over to Labour if the conversation is steered towards areas where the party gets a warmer hearing – the quality of public services, for example. Someone who is aggrieved by the number of foreigners in Britain will not be won over by a Labour candidate banging on about immigration. The Tories can confirm that this is the case. David Cameron has tested to destruction the theory that Ukip voters’ anger is soothed when mainstream parties play their anxieties back to them. This basic insight was unfairly portrayed as instruction to duck the issue of immigration altogether. That interpretation was then corroborated by Labour MPs, who either hadn’t read the document or saw it as a handy weapon in skirmishes for control of the party’s election message.The dynamic is strongest in Scotland, where Nationalists have routed blame for bad government away from their own actions in Holyrood on to a phantom conspiracy of all the London parties. In England, Ukip poses a similar threat, depicting Labour as co-architects of a metropolitan betrayal that led Britain to economic and ethnic ruin at the hands of Europe. On that front, the complexity of Miliband’s task is expressed in the saga of an anti-Faragist campaign manual that was circulated among Labour MPs and leaked to the Daily Telegraph. The document used polling analysis to argue that undecided voters with Ukip tendencies will more easily be won over to Labour if the conversation is steered towards areas where the party gets a warmer hearing – the quality of public services, for example. Someone who is aggrieved by the number of foreigners in Britain will not be won over by a Labour candidate banging on about immigration. The Tories can confirm that this is the case. David Cameron has tested to destruction the theory that Ukip voters’ anger is soothed when mainstream parties play their anxieties back to them. This basic insight was unfairly portrayed as instruction to duck the issue of immigration altogether. That interpretation was then corroborated by Labour MPs, who either hadn’t read the document or saw it as a handy weapon in skirmishes for control of the party’s election message.
Less widely noted, but no less significant, is the manual’s suggestion that MPs target their message as locally as possible. “The best way to re-establish trust with voters,” it argued, “[is] moving away from what is perceived as ‘national, ambitious and unrealistic’ to ‘local, modest and achievable’.” That advice reflects a wider trend in Labour thinking towards the value of street politics as a way back to national rehabilitation. With limited campaign resources, a decision has been made to prioritise boots on the ground. Party strategists estimate that the Tories will outspend the opposition by a three-to-one ratio, and that Labour will have the equivalent advantage in terms of bodies working in marginal seats.Less widely noted, but no less significant, is the manual’s suggestion that MPs target their message as locally as possible. “The best way to re-establish trust with voters,” it argued, “[is] moving away from what is perceived as ‘national, ambitious and unrealistic’ to ‘local, modest and achievable’.” That advice reflects a wider trend in Labour thinking towards the value of street politics as a way back to national rehabilitation. With limited campaign resources, a decision has been made to prioritise boots on the ground. Party strategists estimate that the Tories will outspend the opposition by a three-to-one ratio, and that Labour will have the equivalent advantage in terms of bodies working in marginal seats.
The local message is also filtering through in policy terms. Last month, a delegation of council leaders was invited into a shadow cabinet meeting.The local message is also filtering through in policy terms. Last month, a delegation of council leaders was invited into a shadow cabinet meeting.
The spur for the encounter was George Osborne’s announcement of a new devolution deal for Manchester, prompting fears that Miliband was being outflanked by the Tories on what should have been a core Labour policy area. Miliband has also been swayed by shadow cabinet colleagues who have argued that a commitment to giving away power – giving communities control over how services are run – is one way that Labour can find something optimistic to say about governing with scarce resources.The spur for the encounter was George Osborne’s announcement of a new devolution deal for Manchester, prompting fears that Miliband was being outflanked by the Tories on what should have been a core Labour policy area. Miliband has also been swayed by shadow cabinet colleagues who have argued that a commitment to giving away power – giving communities control over how services are run – is one way that Labour can find something optimistic to say about governing with scarce resources.
Since throwing more money at services is no longer an option, improvements must come from reform. That, it is argued, will come about only by relinquishing central controls and celebrating local innovation: getting more for less is a more enticing way to talk about fiscal discipline than the language of axes and cuts. A line to that effect made its way into a speech Miliband made last week pledging to deal with the deficit.Since throwing more money at services is no longer an option, improvements must come from reform. That, it is argued, will come about only by relinquishing central controls and celebrating local innovation: getting more for less is a more enticing way to talk about fiscal discipline than the language of axes and cuts. A line to that effect made its way into a speech Miliband made last week pledging to deal with the deficit.
So far, Miliband’s commitment to a localist agenda has looked half-hearted. His instincts are shaped by an apprenticeship in Gordon Brown’s Treasury, where local government was a byword for amateurism and incompetence. Old hierarchies die hard. At that November meeting all shadow cabinet ministers made their usual presentations (which the leader is notoriously reluctant to cut short) before the local government visitors were allowed to contribute. They had more experience of running services on tight budgets than most present but were still subordinate to the shadows of Whitehall.So far, Miliband’s commitment to a localist agenda has looked half-hearted. His instincts are shaped by an apprenticeship in Gordon Brown’s Treasury, where local government was a byword for amateurism and incompetence. Old hierarchies die hard. At that November meeting all shadow cabinet ministers made their usual presentations (which the leader is notoriously reluctant to cut short) before the local government visitors were allowed to contribute. They had more experience of running services on tight budgets than most present but were still subordinate to the shadows of Whitehall.
There are reasons not to be misty-eyed about localism. When neighbourhood services fail, national politicians still get the blame, which makes them reluctant to cede control; especially financial control. Another concern is that the focus on keeping politics local becomes a way to avoid the task of restoring Westminster’s reputation as a place where good things may happen. There are reasons not to be misty-eyed about localism. When neighbourhood services fail national politicians still get the blame, which makes them reluctant to cede control, especially financial control. Another concern is that the focus on keeping politics local becomes a way to avoid the task of restoring Westminster’s reputation as a place where good things may happen.
Next May every candidate from every party will tout whatever personal connection to the constituency they can muster and, if possible, denounce rivals as carpet-bagging outsiders. Everyone who can credibly make the claim (and quite a few who can’t) will promise to stand up for local people against the forces of elsewhere. It is a rational impulse for the individual candidate but disastrous if everyone does it, since the aggregate effect is to trash the idea of politics as a collective enterprise. Next May every candidate from every party will tout whatever personal connection to the constituency they can muster, and if possible denounce rivals as carpetbagging outsiders. Everyone who can credibly make the claim (and quite a few who can’t) will promise to stand up for local people against the forces of elsewhere. It is a rational impulse for the individual candidate but disastrous if everyone does it, since the aggregate effect is to trash the idea of politics as a collective enterprise.
There is a dilemma here for Labour. The anti-politics mood cannot be dissipated by speeches from Westminster. The groan of zombie incumbency drowns the message. Trust has to be rebuilt street by street; earned in bins collected and bus routes preserved. But modesty of ambition is also a trap. If Labour is complicit with the idea that Westminster is rotten, it promotes the idea that real change is not available from national politics. That is an invitation to vote Conservative. There is a dilemma here for Labour. The anti-politics mood cannot be dissipated by speeches from Westminster. The groan of zombie incumbency drowns the message. Trust has to be rebuilt street by street – earned in bins collected and bus routes preserved. But modesty of ambition is also a trap. If Labour is complicit with the idea that Westminster is rotten, it promotes the idea that real change is not available from national politics. That is an invitation to vote Conservative.
The challenge is to find a way of going local that doesn’t imply shrunken national ambition; to avoid unrealistic promises while convincing voters that modest-sounding pledges, combined seat by seat, can make a big difference to the way Britain is governed.The challenge is to find a way of going local that doesn’t imply shrunken national ambition; to avoid unrealistic promises while convincing voters that modest-sounding pledges, combined seat by seat, can make a big difference to the way Britain is governed.