Labour party

Ed Miliband's press conference today was a classic example of clever opposition politics. He and Alan Johnson said that Labour would continue the bonus tax on the banks for one more year. This policy has the twin advantage of maximising the coalition's discomfort over the whole issue of bankers' bonuses and expiring well before the next election. The rest of Miliband's press conference was devoted to an attempt to defend the record of the previous Labour government. Miliband kept making the valid point that in the years before the crash Cameron and Osborne weren't saying that Labour was spending too much but were instead committed to matching Labour's spending plans.

The same, but completely different. That's the electoral paradox that emerges from a couple of opinion polls on the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election this morning. The same, because both the Lord Ashcroft survey for the Sunday Telegraph and the ICM survey for the Mail on Sunday produce the same result as in the general election: Labour first, the Lib Dems second and the Tories in third. Completely different, because this is no longer the achingly close contest that it was back in May. Both polls have Labour soaring 17 percentage points above the yellow bird of liberty. Of course, the polls aren't always right. Yet these latest will surely furrow some brows in Coalitionville.

As Tim Montgomerie notes, tonight’s Angus Reid poll asks an interesting question about who voters would support if asked to choose between Labour and a Coalition party. This questions pushes up support for Labour with Labour scoring 45 percent on it compared to 40 percent on a normal voting intention question. The increase in Labour support comes from the fact that 46 percent of Lib Dem voters from the 2010 election would in these circumstances vote Labour compared to the 32 percent who’d go coalition. Polling on a hypothetical should, obviously, be treated with caution. But the fact that the coalition together polls worse than the coalition apart is interesting.

The Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election is fast shaping up to be the event that will set the tone for the first quarter of the political year. The unique circumstances in which the vote was called makes it particularly hard to predict, no one is quite sure whether there’ll be a backlash against Woolas or one against the Lib Dems for going to court to overturn the result. As I say in the magazine tomorrow, if the Lib Dems were to win, it would give Clegg the breathing space he so needs at the moment. Lib Dem worries about what the coalition is doing to them politically would subside, temporarily at least, and Ed Miliband would find himself under pressure.

Now here's a thing: a radio appearance by Alan Johnson that actually clarified some details about Labour's economic policy in the Miliband era. Sure, the shadow chancellor spent most of his time on the Today Programme setting about the coalition's VAT hike, with all the usual arguments about jobs and growth. But there was also confirmation that Labour's deficit reduction plan would split 60-40 between tax rises and spending cuts, and that they would raise national insurance levels rather than VAT. It repositions the argument some way beyond the simple Do/Don't divide that was developing around VAT. Now there are two choices for voters to make. Do they prefer a deficit reduction plan which, for the first time, emphasises tax hikes over spending cuts?

If you talk to Tory MPs privately and ask them which of the coalition’s budgetary decisions they are most uncomfortable with, they’ll generally indentify the VAT rise and the police cuts (the reductions in the defence and prisons budget are also often mentioned). So it is clever politics for Ed MIliband to be emphasising the VAT rise and the police cuts so heavily in Oldham East and Saddleworth. It enables him to oppose key bits of the deficit reduction programme without sounding like an out of touch left-winger. If Labour do hold the seat, it will be a boost to Ed Miliband. It will add to the sense that he is establishing himself as Labour leader.

Ok, so Ed Miliband's one hundred day anniversary actually falls on Tuesday – but what's a couple of days between bloggers? Besides, even with two days to go, it's safe to say that his will be a peculiar century. By some scientific measures, Labour are doing alright; sucking up Lib Dem voters to push ahead of the Tories in opinion polls. But that belies what has been an unconvincing start from their new leader. Here's my quick five-point guide to his bitter honeymoon: 1) What's the economy, stupid? One of Miliband's boldest moves to date was his appointment of Alan Johnson as shadow chancellor.

Ed Miliband’s leadership trundles on past the hundred day milestone tomorrow – so more on that, erm, then. But, in the meantime, here’s a quick graph transcribed from Ipsos MORI’s latest research. It depicts what, for want of a proper policy prospectus, is one of the most striking features of the Miliband era so far: that Labour’s support has risen while their leader’s personal ratings have slumped, reaching what today’s Mail describes as the “lowest of any new party leader at the same stage since former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith,” and lower even than his biggest fan, Neil Kinnock. Here it is:   To be fair, that still puts Miliband ahead of Nick Clegg.

If you want to know what British politics will sound like in 2011, then just read David Cameron’s and Ed Miliband’s New Year messages one after the other. They share a lot of the same words, but bounce along to different, if familiar, drumbeats. According to Cameron, next year will be “very difficult,” due to the effort of “putting our economy ... on the right path”. According to Miliband, next year will be more difficult than it needs to be, due to “the decision taken to reduce the deficit at what I believe to be an irresponsible pace and scale.” In other words, cuts versus fewer cuts. Just like 2010 all over again.

Yesterday’s announcement that 114 Labour MPs, including 5 shadow cabinet ministers, will be voting ‘No’ in next year’s Alternative Vote referendum isn’t exactly a ‘game changer’. But it has certainly shifted the terms of debate within the Labour party. Over the past few weeks a perception had been developing that adoption of the AV system, whilst not generating unparalleled excitement and passion within Labour ranks, was at least becoming the line to take. That perception has now changed. Labour’s internal stance on the issue is important. Labour supporters effectively represent the referendum’s ‘floating voters’.

Ed Miliband’s proposal to cap party donations at £500 – thereby restraining the huge one-off union payments that sustain Labour – certainly looks radical enough. But, as any fule kno, surface appearances can be deceptive. As Jim Pickard explains in an insightful post over at the FT, the result would be a system that affects the other parties far more than it does Labour and their union support. The trick is crystallised by this passage from the original Independent report: “One reform option would be to treat Labour’s income from union members who pay the political levy as individual donations. This helps to fund the party’s day-to-day spending.