You are here: Home » Comment »

Why Ed Miliband’s speech won’t make much difference

January 11, 2012 9:59 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Late last year when Republicans called Obama “weak” on national security, the President had a blunt response: “Ask Osama Bin Laden… whether I engage in appeasement.” There’s no come-back to that.

Unfortunately politics isn’t an area of subtle nuance. Of course there are minor, technical changes that make huge differences to people’s lives. But as a general rule if you want to set a narrative then it has to be painted in big, bold letters not through subtle positions.

And this is why Ed Miliband’s speech yesterday on the economy will make little difference with the public. It was a speech mostly aimed at that part of the Westminster bubble obsessed with how Labour will address the deficit in 2015.

But the left and right of the Labour party cling to the fantasy that a straightforward line on spending cuts can be conjured up. It simply can’t. Barring that, they cling to the fantasy that even if there’s no simple line, the public can be bought over if the message is hammered relentlessly.

Forget it. Alan Johnson was absolutely bang on earlier this week in the Daily Mirror when he said: ‘We need a bit less Professor Miliband and a bit more Iron Ed’.

Labour’s narratives sound like they’re prepared for a debating society. They sound like they’re prepared for Guardian readers with the assumption people will pay attention to detail or get the main jist.

They simply won’t. Tony Blair knew this: hence he deliberately made symbolic gestures like getting rid of Clause 4. Cameron learnt from him and went out to hug hoodies and ride with huskies.

Left-wingers might like to pretend they’re above this gesture politics but they’re not. They are the first to complain they don’t know what a leader stands for when he gets too nuanced. And if lefties are complaining – is anyone surprised the public are confused?

Back to yesterday’s speech. Ed Miliband’s alarm bells should have started ringing when journalists asked if he now admitted the need to make spending cuts if in power in 2015. The fact that Labour was fighting over this over a year ago should have alerted him to the fact political journalists also have short memories and only pay attention to big, bold gestures.

The Labour leader is likely to be rewarded with some headlines but they won’t be enough. Most of the public won’t pay attention to such subtle shifts and the polls will reflect that. People will continue to say they don’t know what Ed Miliband stands for.

He has two choices: either take an extreme position on the cuts (completely for them or against them) with a big gesture to go with it so people think it’s credible, or shift the debate on to safer territory: the lack of growth, inflation and unemployment.

But even taking the second route (which I favour), Ed Miliband needs some big gestures to make the point and force the public to take notice. The time for debating is over.

Related posts:

  1. What a difference the whips make…
  2. It’s not too late to make a difference
  3. You have 12 hours to make a difference
  4. How your campaigning will make a difference next week
  5. The labels may be lopsided – but look at the difference we can make
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    But doesn’t this sum up the actual problem wiuth contemporary politics? Big gestures are meaningless and actually may be exactly the opposite to what is required

    Its like trying to say there are easy answers when there are none.

    Perhaps we are just too stupid and babyish as a society to be able to handle anything more than the milk-and-rusks of soundbites, but they will provide no answers, just empty slogans (which was, ultimately, the problem with Blairism – it was flaccid, empty, little beyond the gestures and no way of cementing any lasting impact as the reversal of public spending now indicates)

    We really should be ready for nuance and start learning to think. If we want baby solutions, then maybe we do deserve to be treated like babies? Or perhaps the sheep metaphor is more accurate – the pathological admiration for ‘leaders’ which seems to be a national psychological afflication. I don’t wish to be led. I’m not a sheep. I’d rather be treated as an adult which means an expectation of trying to understand and deal with difficulty – not have it watered down into “Big Gestures”

    • Duncan

      I agree – it’s such a frustrating feature of modern politics that everybody bangs on about leaders and leadership all the time.  We are quite an anti-democratic society in many ways, but it starts from the top.  People are taught to distrust themselves.

      • Anonymous

        They are not taught about distrust, I trusted labour and look what we got Blair, then Brown and now Miliband, the bunch of them had serious problems with expenses,  you would not take a politician seriously if they swore and oath on a stack of bibles because you  know they end up doing what they think is right

  • Anonymous

    There are times I  honestly despair of the  writers on Labour List. “Big gestures” are quite otiose when you are the leader of the opposition 3 years away from the next general election. And are we so immature that we want to descend to the trivia politics of “Pragmatic Radicalism”with their  frankly asinine “politics in the  pub….2 minutes to propose a policy and 2 minutes question and answer”?. As facile as it is patronising.
     
    The problems  of this country and their solutions will take more than a bibulous fun evening in the pub to sort out in 2 minute chunks.
     
    Meanwhile while Paul  Richards et al, ladle out their weekly dose of “right thinking” politics – their very own “Labour” party, there are plenty of journalists ready to do the work that Sunny  Hundall does here, and Luke Bozier earlier this week.
     
    For example here is the latest petulant drivel from that dismal part time hack on the Independent:
     
     
    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/10/between-hague-and-duncan-smith/
     
     
    Other newspapers like the Express Mail and Telegraph made up their minds in advance that they wouldn’t like Ed Miliband’s speech and probably wrote their critiques well in advance of hearing it.
     
    But the barbed attacks on LL are now so frequent, I begin to wonder if the writers actually WANT Ed Miliband to fail, just like so many disgruntled Tories willed John Major to fail. They got their wish but didn’t achieve their ambition of bringing back Mrs Thatcher, or a clone of her. All they managed to do was to convince the public that the Conservatives were a very divided party and it kept them out of office for 13 years, after going through three leaders 1997-2005.
     
     
    I can speak from a slightly detached position: I was a member of the Labour Party for many years, but the excesses of Blair finally got too much for me, so I left. But I wish Labour well, and it is vital that there is an effective opposition ion  this country. Writers like the present one will merely ensure that they provide fodder  for the Murdoch press and Associated Press to “prove” how much
    discontent there is in ED. With respect,  you are doing their work for them
     
     
     

  • MiKe Murray

    ‘People willcontinue to  say they don’t know what Miliband stands for.’ 

    They certainly will if people like you continue to repeat this mantra day after day. Nothing would delight the malevolent Tories and their Liberal Democrat stooges more than to see us engage in another leadership contest and tearing ourselves apart as a party. After the General Election we had a civilised leadership contest and since being elected Ed hasn’t engaged in infantile spin and big gesture politics. This has  has bitterly disappointed our opponents and covered them  in confusion. They are terrified of  Ed because he is effectively eschewing Westminster politics and working through the grass roots and despite  his so called “unpopularity”   the polls have consistently been in our favour. Yesterday Andy Burnham exposed the Lib Dem Cons’ underhand plan to allow 49% of beds in our state hospitals to be used by the private sector. That’s the kind of outrage that as socialists we should be focussing on: not picking over the stools and entrails of Ed’s speeches  to discern how we can placate our enemies in the media.

  • Ray_North

    Are Ed Milliband’s current problems a result of a concerted failure to control the media and the message, or are they more deep rooted than that, going to Labour’s policy failure and his own inabilities as a leader? Follow the link for one take on the current Labour travails and feel free to post a comment:
    http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2012/01/labours-latest-worst-week-miliband-baldwin-glasman-murphy-and-abbott/

  • Mike Murray

    ‘People willcontinue to  say they don’t know what Miliband stands for.’ 
     
    They certainly will if  we continue to repeat this mantra day after day. Nothing would delight the malevolent Tories and their Liberal Democrat stooges more than to see us engage in another leadership contest and tearing ourselves apart as a party. After the General Election we had a civilised leadership contest and since being elected Ed hasn’t engaged in infantile spin and big gesture politics. This has  has bitterly disappointed our opponents and covered them  in confusion. They are terrified of  Ed because he is effectively eschewing Westminster politics and working through the grass roots and despite  his so called “unpopularity”   the polls have consistently been in our favour. Yesterday Andy Burnham exposed the Lib Dem Cons’ underhand plan to allow 49% of beds in our state hospitals to be used by the private sector. That’s the kind of outrage that as socialists we should be focussing on: not attempting  to discern how we can placate our enemies in the media.

  • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

    “Big gestures” may look like bold, imaginative initiatives in the Westminster village but elsewhere they are seen more realistically as the stunts pulled by publicity hungry politicians who have little else to offer.

    One thing we should have learned by now is that the Blair/Cameron approach of spin and gesture is a busted flush. There’s some who still want to carry on playing but someone should tell them: the game is up.

    Far better for Ed to build on yesterday’s excellent speech and, over the course of the next few months, develop the policies that hold the promise of delivering social justice at a time when the banker’s recession has emptied the public purse.

    • Anonymous

      Well if the speech is going to get voters back, then he better turn up the volume, telling people look if we get back into power we will keep the Tories cuts, we are going to cut slower but of course now so are the Tories.

      telling people look we are labour you can trust me , it’s not going to work, because people do not trust labour any more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

    A very sensible post by Sunny Hundal. This really needs to be read by Mike Homfray and others who are less interested in a Labour government than being comforted by wooley rhetoric. It’s a shame politics wasn’t just about the ishoos and personality didn’t matter but, however regrettable it may be, a modern leader needs at least some of the Blair magic. 

    • Anonymous

      “Blair Magic”?

      How about the hypocrisy, warmongering and tax avoidance as well?

      • Anonymous

        Nah Alan

        Blair seemed like a typical regular guy to me.

        Honest, straightforward and not at all devious..   How can you say such dreadful things?

      • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

        You completely miss the point I was making. Re-read what I have said then post something sensible.

        • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

          Is it that you think Blair’s getting away with war crimes was magical?

          • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

            We can argue about the Iraq War until the cows come home but I don’t see where that will get us (I was not a supporter by the way). Think of him what you will but Blair was a good communicator and looked good in front of a camera – that was the “magic” I was referring to, not his (and Brown’s) policies. I wish those skills weren’t necessary, I wish all that mattered where the ishoos – but it isn’t like that and those skills do matter whether you like it or not.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Ah, I see, presentational skills as magic. Thanks for clearing that up.

            Each to their own, of course, but I find the substance of policy to be far more important when it comes to forming political judgments.

          • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

            So do I – please read what I said.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Sorry Matthew, perhaps I’ve misunderstood but I’ve read your comment numerous times and to me, aided by subsequent responses, it seemed that you were valorising Blair’s presentational skills to the detriment of what you call ‘ishoos’.

          • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

            My point was substance matters but – regrettably (did you get that? REGRETTABLY) – presentation skills matter too.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Sorry, could you repeat that in bold?

          • Anonymous

            “Blair was a good communicator and looked good in front of a camera ”

            If wearing more make-up than a pantomime dame. makes you look good, I’d rather face the world as I am.

            He was artificial in every respect, and towards the end he started to look grotesque.

      • Anonymous

        Matthew don’t be so bloody condescending.

        Blair didn’t have any “magic”. He became Prime Minister in 1997 at a time when the Tories were so unpopular, anybody leading the Labour Party would have won – even Jedward would probably have won given how low the Tories had sunk in popular estimation.

        Blair was going to be “purer than pure”. That lasted till Bernie Ecclestone opened his chequebook.

        Blair was surrounded by a group of simpering toadies, with people like Mandeslon and Campbell acting like Rottweilers either threatening or deriding nyone who dare disagree with every single utterance or action of Blair’s top table.

        Sadly as we can see from various people in the media, there are still a few people who want to revive the corpse, and lose no opportunity to denigrate their current leader in the mistaken belief that “Blairism” can return.

        There was no magic, the fact that people like yourself believe there was says more about you than it does anyone else.

  • Chaminda

    If he wants a big gesture, he could do a lot worse than say Labour would build x amount of new council housing units and that this would repay itself through y savings in housing benefit over z years. Or even do away with the y and z figures for simplicity.

    Why? It would be a popular policy – low-cost housing – it would finally address an area where Labour were basically rubbish on in government, and would show very loud and very clear that cutting the deficit *and* cutting public spending need not always entail cutting services. It would also contrast with Cameron’s reheated right-to-buy policy.

    I don’t know if it counts as policy, gesture policy, or pure gesture in your book. Perhaps he could hug a council house to boot.

    • Anonymous

      I agree but popular to whom people on waiting lists, yes labour needs to build council homes but labour is now in middle class mode, and council houses do not fit the new culture of a middle class labour party, so Labour now builds affordable homes, which of course could be council houses for people to either rent and then buy.

      sadly when labour speak it’s speaking mainly to the middle class and Tories, sadly why the hell would Tories vote for council houses, even though they built more then labour

  • Anonymous

    I think that you are right Sunny, but partly for reasons you might not want to face up to. As it happens, Ed can come up with a Big Gesture. The ‘squeezed middle’ was bang on the money. Unfortunately, he didn’t have the nous and conviction to follow it up in a way that people would understand. Some of the policy in this speech helps, but it is relatively small beer and feels tokenistic. The sad truth for anyone expecting EM to come up with a big idea, let alone a big gesture is that he is actually Professor Miliband not Iron Ed and that’s what we are going to get.

  • http://twitter.com/PhilRuse Phil Ruse

    I think you’ve got this the wrong way around. Everytime Miliband says what he stands for it’s precisely the lack of detail that leaves him looking silly. “How” has never been answered.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Unless Ed Miliband is capable of completely reinventing himself (and getting rid of his Shadow Chancellor), I suspect that the “big gesture” will be the one the electorate delivers to him in the ballot box in May 2015.

    I’m sure a cartoonist could capture that big gesture with the image of a single finger.

  • Daniel Speight

    ‘Gesture politics’ does seem to rely upon a large proportion of the voting citizens being stupid. It fits in well with spin doctors, focus groups, think tanks, SPADS and assorted bag carriers. It gives them an ersatz science to back up their theories with. I guess that’s why it’s so popular with our political class and the Westminster village.

    Just like the right wing followers of Aynd Rand who need greed to be the overriding attribute of the public, our new class of Labour apparatchiks need it to be stupidity. That’s why they feel that ‘gestures’ are more important than ‘issues’.

    • Hugh

      Only  64% of the public can correctly identify the Labour leader when shown a picture of him and only 68% can identify Ed Balls, according to a poll by Comres last year. How interested and engaged in public policy discussions do you reckon the public is?

      I’d say those putting their faith in gesture politics have it right – particularly given the importance of swing voters, who I’d suggest are probably even less interested in politics than average.

Latest

  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    By Mark Ferguson

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    By Mark Ferguson

    In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]

    Read more →