Labour party

The Tories know that if the next election is a referendum on the current government, it’ll be very difficult for them to win. But if it is a choice between them and a Labour government, then they are in with a good chance. David Cameron’s speech to his party’s Spring Forum today ends with a list of what a Labour government would do in its first 100 days in office. It shows how keen the Tories are to frame the next election as a choice, not a referendum, that Cameron is prepared to publicly contemplate defeat to do this. Interestingly, there's no mnetion of the Liberal Democrats or the coalition in the speech.

If you want to know what the Liberal Democrat’s message at the next election will be, read Nick Clegg’s speech to the party’s Spring Conference today. He kept to the refrain that the Liberal Democrats are for a stronger economy and a fairer society and you can’t trust the Tories with society or Labour with the economy. In a sign of the new, more disciplined Lib Dem machine there were no detours from this core theme. Listening to Clegg, you would have had no idea that the leadership had lost a vote on secret courts this morning. Clegg knows that his internal position hasn’t been this strong since the Liberal Democrats entered coalition.

Further to Isabel’s post this morning, I understand from a senior coalition source that the two parties have now reached an agreement on how to handle Tuesday’s vote on Labour’s mansion tax motion. The Liberal Democrat leadership has assured their coalition partners that they’ll back a government amendment to it. This amendment will concede that the coalition parties have different views on the issue. The only question now is whether the speaker John Bercow will call it. I suspect that this agreement has been helped by a desire to limit coalition tensions post-Eastleigh and pre-Budget. There is also reluctance on the part of the Liberal Democrats to get dragged into playing Labour’s game.

Labour is still pursuing its mansion tax vote, with the debate set for next Tuesday. It's a clever piece of political timing by Ed Miliband's party, as the text of the motion is now out and about in time for the Lib Dems to assemble in Brighton for their Spring Conference. Vince Cable is speaking tonight at a fringe event, and will undoubtedly be asked whether he wants the Lib Dems to support it. The motion, which the party has just released, reads as follows: 'That this House believes that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2million, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals at the earliest opportunity.' This is very carefully-worded indeed.

Yesterday Ed Miliband reiterated his party's existing policies on immigration for voters, today Yvette Cooper went into further detail about how Labour would address the policy area in government. Like Miliband's PPB, Cooper's speech speech to IPPR included an acknowledgement that politicians don't like to talk about immigration, and a mea culpa. She said Labour should have been quicker to bring in the Australian-style points-based system, that the party should have kept transitional controls for Eastern Europe, and that as a government it should have 'looked more at the impact, and been ready to talk about problems.

After today's slightly confusing PMQs line from the Prime Minister about unidentified 'people' who 'should be thinking of their positions' after the Mid-Staffs scandal, ministers and loyal backbenchers have gone out to bat for the government. After PMQs, the Prime Minister's sources refused to say who these 'people' were who needed to consider their positions. But now Jeremy Hunt has written a piece for ConHome saying 'Labour can and will be held accountable for what happened at Mid-Staffs'. He then warns that the party appears to have learned no lessons at all from the Francis Report and that the public shouldn't trust them again: 'Labour’s reaction to Mid Staffs has been a deafening silence which is shocking both in its arrogance and complacency.

'Oooh, your statement was so much more partisan than mine!' Iain Duncan Smith almost said to Stephen Timms this afternoon as the pair sparred over Bulgarian and Romanian migrants. The Work and Pensions Secretary was answering an urgent question from Labour's Frank Field on the government's readiness for the end of transitional controls. The debate veered towards the two men accusing the other of making party political points on this issue, but it also offered those in the House of Commons a number of useful opportunities. The first was an opportunity for the Secretary of State to indulge in just a little bit of Labour-bashing.

No matter how bad the economic news, government ministers can always take heart that an attack from Labour will always be blunted by the simple line that 'Labour would borrow more'. It's why David Cameron managed to sail through Prime Minister's Questions last week relatively unscathed even though Ed Miliband chose to make his attack on the loss of the credit rating. It's a problem for the Labour leadership that Edward Carlsson Browne raises today on LabourList, but his argument is that Labour should be honest that it would borrow more as a government. He writes: We are different from the Tories. We would run the economy better. But if we want to convince people of that, they need to trust us. And if we want their trust, we need to tell them what we’d do. Yes, we’d borrow more.

A couple of reflections upon Eastleigh. Firstly it was indeed an appalling night for Labour; midterm the party came second in this constituency in the early 90s. It received the votes a joke candidate might expect this time around. Maybe that’s because they put a comedian in the seat. I have no objection to John O’Farrell’s writing at all; but maybe one reason for Labour’s failure – and probably not the most important – was his candidature. He is the sort of thing London Labour loves; metropolitan, cool, ever so witty. Ever so PC. Does any of that play outside the M25? I don’t think so. And the result would suggest I’m right. Ed needs to grasp the hand of Maurice Glasman a little more tightly.

While the Tories are taking a public beating for their performance in Eastleigh, Labour also have little to be proud of. Despite the party currently floating around 11 points ahead of the Tories in the national polls, they only managed to add 0.2 points to their 2010 general election result and came in fourth place. Their candidate John O'Farrell blames voters being anti-politics, not anti-Labour. Either way, the result is disappointing for Ed Miliband. Although it was unlikely Labour would ever take the seat, the party still threw its weight behind a full campaign. Lord Ashcroft’s latest polling suggests Labour were putting in similar effort to the main contenders.

By-elections are catnip for the media. But they are also, almost invariably, subject to greater scrutiny than they can reasonably bear. Only occasionally do they herald a new era or political realignment. Eastleigh is unlikely to prove an exception to that general rule. True, as Brother Payne suggests, Labour's likely dismal showing may demonstrate that Ed Miliband's still struggling to "connect" with southern voters but - though as a Miliband Sceptic it pains me to say so -  I'm not sure we should make too much of this. Similarly, UKIP's good showing is likely to be over-interpreted too. So, for that matter, will the Conservatives' (predicted) failure to win the seat, though this failure will cheer the anti-Cameron brigade on the Tory right.

By-elections are notoriously hard to call. But everyone who comes back from Eastleigh says the same thing, UKIP are the party with forward momentum. This morning’s Populus poll bears that out. They are in third place with 21 per cent, with the Tories second on 28 and the Lib Dems ahead with 33. But, as the indispensable UK Polling Report points out, if you don’t reallocate some of the undecides to the party they voted for last time, UKIP are doing even better. The numbers then are UKIP 25%, Tories 26% and Lib Dems 31%. As I said in the magazine this week, UKIP are picking up support from all three parties. Things could get very interesting there if more Labour voters shift to UKIP as the best anti-coalition vote.