Why Ed Miliband needs a department for Milibandism

The infamous Republican pollster Frank Luntz has a maxim every politician should pay heed to: “It’s not what you say,” he often says, “it’s what they hear [that matters]”.

It’s worth keeping that in mind for the Chancellor’s speech on Monday about the “hard truths” facing the British economy. Osborne knew Britons weren’t going to hear anything new or unexpected. Instead he wanted to push Labour into a response that further sealed their reputation, in his mind, as profligate tax-and-spenders. Everyone in Westminster knew this too. He may not be a very good Chancellor but Osborne is a shrewd political strategist.

This charade also reignites an argument within the Labour Party (as Osborne wants): should Ed Miliband pledge to match Osborne’s initial plans to look ‘fiscally responsible’ in the hope of getting elected, or reject them because as cruel and unworkable?

Assuming we want Labour to win the next election, which seems reasonable here, two questions arise:

First, which of the two options on Labour’s approach to the cuts would most likely help get elected? Saying that signing up to Osborne’s plan is too much of a price to pay doesn’t stand up as an argument: Labour could cut the deficit (on Osborne’s trajectory) in a very different way, and has already committed to repealing the Bedroom Tax and the NHS Bill, both of which are worth it alone. On the other hand, signing up to Osborne’s agenda may end up reaping little reward and alienating a lot of people who have drifted to Labour since 2010.

Second, whatever option Ed Miliband decides to pick, how can he convince enough voters that he means it? Just picking an option isn’t enough, people have to be told which option Ed Miliband has picked and why. They have to be convinced he means it. In many ways, the second point is more important than the first.

If Labour is fighting a civil war over opposing Osborne’s cuts by Jan 2015, the election will be lost before May. George Osborne knows this, which is why he’ll try anything to keep provoking that debate.

The Ed Miliband project has to be bigger than just the pros and cons of accepting a two year spending limit. It has to be about fundamentally reshaping the British economy so it starts to reward ordinary working people again, rather than the richest 10%.

To his credit, the Labour leader knows this. His much-maligned phrase ‘pre-distribution’ – was always about creating an economy where we don’t need the goverment to do most of the redistribution of wealth to make society more equal.

The Westminster bubble derides Miliband’s ‘Cost of Living Agenda’ as a bandwagon that jumps on everything from energy bills and train ticket prices to gym memberships, but this misses the wood for the trees. Miliband’s plan is to keep using them to hammer the point that the whole economy is structured unfairly. He wants to stoke up their frustration and create a climate for a bolder overhaul of the economy.

The only problem is, the British public don’t yet know Miliband’s agenda. It’s this gap the leadership has to close by May 2015. Helpfully, Lord Ashcroft’s latest polling found that Labour had been successful in reframing the economic debate since conference, but most voters were still unconvinced he could actually freeze energy prices.

This goes back to the point Luntz makes above – it doesn’t necessarily matter what a politician says, voters frequently don’t believe them. This is why Miliband must go further in demonstrating his resolve, to his party and the country.

The Economist’s Jeremy Cliffe, one of the few who gets this well, offered an important suggestion last week: a ‘Department for Milibandism’. This, he explained in detail, would help illustrate how serious Miliband was was.

British political history is littered with examples of leaders who talked vaguely yet grandly in opposition—be it of the white heat of technology, stakeholder capitalism or the Big Society—but never quite lived up to the language in government.

As 2014 unfolds, the Labour leader’s supporters (not to mention journalists trying to grasp what he would do as Prime Minister) are watching closely for signs that their man and his plans will avoid this fate.

Whether Ed Miliband signs up to Osborne’s plans or not, he needs to convince an army of voters that he has a big vision worth coming out to vote for. To convey the scale of this ambition, the Labour leader needs less speeches and more signals. For voters to hear something, sometimes you have to let your actions do all the talking.