Is Cruddas/Alexander the divide in the Shadow Cabinet?

The rumblings over Labour’s policy offer continue today. With the party’s big “Warwick 3” National Policy Forum meeting in Milton Keynes still four months away, those rumblings could continue for some time – or at least until larger chunks of Labour’s offer to the electorate are announced. Speeches this week do provide opportunities for such reveals though. Emma Reynolds is making a speech on housing today (re-iterating Labour’s ambitious, but could do better, 200k homes a year by 2020 target) and Miliband is speaking to the FSB on Thursday. Last night on ITV’s “The Agenda”, Miliband suggested that a “radical rethink” is needed on tuition fees. Liam Byrne and John Denham have been doing a great deal of work on this lately, and Thursday might present an opportunity to talk about the business-friendly benefits of education.

I certainly hope so. Issues like tuition fees are good place from which to position a party, and show that you can be bold and radical whilst being trusted with the public purse. That’s the kind of policy offer that yesterday’s letter was intended to bring about.

Understandably there has been many different views on that letter. Luke Akehurst is scathing this morning (and even as a signatory, I have to admit he has a few points I agree with), but what’s telling is that Luke outlines a handful of big ticket policies at the end of his post that he’d like to see. Even some of the biggest critics of yesterday’s letter want to see more meat on the policy bone – or more precisely, more to say on the doorstep, and more to offer the electorate than the thin gruel of an austerity that is kinder than the Tory variety.

Over the past twenty four hours I’ve had several people ask me who I think would be against a bigger, bolder manifesto offer. Putting a name to such a person is difficult indeed. Whilst the phrase “shrink the offer” wafted out of the leaders office a few months ago, no-one who works there has stood by the comment, and even Miliband is thought to be privately scathing of it. He’s already talked about the need for “big ideas” – but has yet to put many of those big ideas out before the public.

Most of those I’ve spoken to have assumed that Ed Balls must be the centre of the small offer-ists. And yet my understanding is that Balls has seen little in principle that he’d reject from either Miliband or Cruddas so far (on policy grounds at least). Cost will be the likely determinant of whether the Shadow Treasury team push for or push against a particular policy. Balls has earned his “Mr No” moniker this Parliament for his refusal to make spending commitments, but Sam Coates writes in The Times(£) this morning that Balls is a “swing voter” in the current policy debate:

“Ed Balls is seen as a key “swing voter” in internal discussions. Many believe he would resist attempts to strip the Treasury of its power in future but they also believe he can be persuaded to back schemes that generate savings.”

In fact, Cruddas and Balls have a good working relationship. Kevin Maguire – who gets on well with both men – wrote last month that “Cruddas works well with Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls”, and Cruddas privately talks of his respect for Balls as the two seek to find a way through the policy/economy jungle together.

In fact, it’s not Balls but Douglas Alexander who is cited by Coates as the most prominent proponent of a small offer – or a “narrowly drawn offer”:

Friction between Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and election co-ordinator, and Jon Cruddas, who is running the party’s policy review, emerged over the scale of ambition for the manifesto…Mr Cruddas is pushing the party to promise a wider reorganisation that would strip Whitehall’s responsibilities for these areas and hand power to local councils. There are growing fears that many of the plans will be blocked by Mr Alexander, who is urging caution… “Douglas wants a narrowly-drawn offer for voters, like we had in 1997,” said one senior Labour source. “That’s not an option this time.”

It’s no secret that Alexander and Cruddas are some way apart on what a Labour government might look like. However it would be counterproductive if Alexander is truly in favour of a small offer. Only a few days ago, Alexander was telling Scottish Labour conference that talk of a coalition with the Lib Dems was “nonsense” and that he is gunning for an outright majority. Winning a majority for Labour from a relatively low base in no small task – to reach for it shows campaigning ambition. But this must be matched by a big, positive message, just as Cruddas’s talk of big ideas must be matched by concrete plans and pulled out from behind the veil of big words and abstractions that often obscures them.

Most importantly though, if Alexander and Cruddas are indeed at loggerheads, then it is Ed Miliband’s responsibility to knock their heads together and find a solution. Miliband often comes across as averse to confrontation, managing his party through consensus and without rancour – but if rancour is there, it’s the job of the leader to deal with it. Having your manifesto chief and your campaign chief working anything other than in tandem 14 months from election day is an unworkable situation.

Miliband can deal with this by being clear what he’s for – a bold election campaign and a big offer to the electorate. Bang heads together in private but be clear about what he supports in public. This Thursday’s speech would be a good time to start.