Why Ed Miliband is entering the danger zone

At an event earlier this year, I asked a staffer at Ed Miliband’s office why his Twitter account was so dull and didn’t say anything about him as a person. Why not let him express more of his personality, I asked. We want to, came the reply, “but… it’s risky,” followed by a shrug.

This extremely cautious attitude is starting to define the Labour leader’s time in opposition. The clamour for stronger direction, radical ideas and – most loudly – for bolder policies has reached fever pitch.

The overwhelming sense among Ed Miliband’s biggest supporters (outside his close-knit circle) is that he is too cautious and too vague. Further on the left there are loud complaints that the Labour leadership is barely putting up a fight against the Tories.

Much of this criticism is unfair. The vagueness around Ed Miliband is very little to do with policies. Labour have already unveiled a larger raft of policies than the Tories did at the period before the 2010 election. Plus, there is much on Miliband’s vision for a new political economy that is worth paying attention to (start with close advisor Stewart Wood, and then see this by Duncan Weldon  and this more recently).

The bold direction and big ideas that Labour activists want do exist. Instead, the sense of listlessness is down to something else: people still don’t know what Ed Miliband stands for. They don’t understand or know enough about his character and that means a significant proportion of Britons still treat him with indifference.

One Nation Labour has a wonk problem. There are too many think-tankers discussing the finer details of ‘fiscal rules’ without asking: ‘how do we convincingly show the public what we are about?’ When Miliband was trailing badly in the polls, they responded with more speeches and policy detail. But this is the wrong way to look at the problem; Britons don’t want to hear more about policy details they want to know whether they can trust him.

For evidence, look at the two instances when Miliband got a significant boost in his ratings: when he took on Rupert Murdoch over phone-hacking, and when he took on the Daily Mail over his father’s legacy. People cheered him on not because they’re both media institutions, but because he was on the right side of decency and they saw him fight with conviction.

Miliband’s fight with the Daily Mail boosted his ratings more than any other event in his time as Labour leader. Why? Because the public spat said something about his character as a person – a side he had neglected to illustrate to the public.

Tony Blair’s strength came from understanding that the public needed to know what he was about, and he built this persona through symbolism (Clause 4 is still the best e.g.). Of course, he took it too far and Britons started to believe that was all he stood for.

Even now, we still don’t know definitively what Milibandism is about. I recently asked one of his closest aides why he hadn’t cultivated a group of ‘Milibandites’ who would define him and fight his corner – as Jeremy Cliffe and Rafael Behr have called for.

“That’s not his style,” I was told. Another advisor from his office said the same: that Miliband prefers to work with everyone non-factionally rather than set up his own coterie of supporters against everyone else.

This is Miliband’s strength but it is also a weakness. Because the Labour leader hasn’t defined himself against anyone within the party, it’s not clear to his biggest supporters what the ‘Miliband project’ is about.

And if they don’t know, then the country certainly won’t either.

It may not be apparent because of the relatively positive and stable polling, but the Labour leader is entering the danger zone. He cannot go into an election being as undefined as he currently is. When the electorate really start paying attention, a minor slip or a strong ad by the Tories could  throw Labour off-course.

He has two tasks ahead of him to remedy that. First, he has to more strongly define the Miliband Project within and outside the party, if necessary through conflict.

Secondly, he has to find ways to tell the public more about his ideals and principles. If he doesn’t want to do symbolic stunts like Cameron or Blair did, then he has to find other ways. But it cannot be through more speeches, or party-political broadcasts. Other ways have to be found.

Take the London 2012 Mayoral election as an example. As the election neared, polling showed that Ken Livingstone’s plan to cut fares was easily the most popular idea. But Boris and the Evening Standard had done such an effective job of raising doubts about Ken’s personality (cemented by the ‘rich Jews’ controversy and accusations of tax avoidance) – that too many Londoners simply did not trust Ken to fulfil his campaign promises.

If voters don’t trust or feel like they know a leader, it doesn’t matter what policies he or she offers: they will find an excuse to reject them. Ed Miliband has to find a way to neutralise that danger or he will never be Prime Minister.