In which I set out why today's PMQs was more revealing than it looked..
Ed Miliband won today's PMQs handily, as I suspect we will see in tonights news bulletins and tomorrow's sketches.
Miliband won because he neatly linked the now satire-friendly comments of David Cameron's early hubris to the Prime Ministers's current lack of control over both his government agenda and his party.
Miliband also found a way to move the debate about the failure of the Government to win a vote over Lords reform to the, electorally more significant, ground of the Coalition's failure to deliver economic growth.
Forced onto the back foot over his exposed weaknesses, and unable to engage coherently in an argument about the House of Lords, Cameron responded by attempting to turn the focus back on Labour.
This sounded out of place and defensive in the Commons, but I wouldn't be surprised if it reflected Tory thinking on what their future Election campaign might look like.
Do a bit of cut and paste of the Prime Minister's replies to Ed Miliband today, add a top and tail, and you get something like the following:
"The last few years have been tough.
So we’ve taken tough decisions.
This Government has capped benefits, capped immigration, taken 2 million people out of tax, cut taxes for 25 million people, cut the fuel duty, increased spending on the NHS and cut the deficit by 25% in two years.
We have a top rate of tax which is higher than any of the time Labour were in government.
It’s not been easy, but we’ve been able to increase pensioners’ weekly income by £5.30—the biggest increase in the pension’s history and increase spending on the NHS.
As a result of these choices, we got 800,000 more private sector jobs.
Inflation is down, unemployment is down, and interest rates are at a record low.
We are now a net exporter of cars for the first time since 1976.
We have completed the biggest construction project in Europe, which is for the Olympics, and we have started the next biggest project, which is Crossrail.
This Government set up the enterprise zones, backed the apprenticeships, and are seeing business rebalance in this country.
How does this compare with what the country was left by the Labour party?
The biggest bust, the most indebted households, and the biggest budget deficit in Europe, and never once an apology for the mess that it left this country in.
They were bailing out eurozone countries with taxpayers’ money, they were paying £100,000 for just one family’s housing benefit, and they presided over uncontrolled welfare, uncontrolled immigration and uncontrolled Government spending.
Never has so much been borrowed, never has so much been wasted, and never have so many people been let down.
This country will never forgive the Labour Government for what they did.
Now the same crew are asking for a chance to do it again.
You can’t risk another Labour Government.
"
I don't think this sounds convincing now, with recession still around us, but I think it is stronger than some Labour strategists assume, especially if the economy shows weak signs of growth.*
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the potential election narrative that Andrew Cooper is working on in Downing Street.
I suspect hearing it set out so directly was one of the reasons the Tory press operation thought they'd won PMQs. (and also why the rest of us knew Cameron had lost (If he'd been winning, he wouldn't have had to use his big narrative to escape).
If this is the direction the Tories are thinking about for attacking Labour and defining their recovery, there are good suggestions on how to avoid such an onslaught from smart Labour and non-Labour sources alike, so I'll consider these in my next post.
Addendum: One thing the Tories really need to change is their 'Red Ed' tag. It might work if Labour really had embraced a left position, and who knows if it might get traction when our manifesto comes out, but right now it just sounds forced. They were doing a lot better with 'Blank Piece of Paper'.
One wag has suggested to me that they try to turn George Osborne's faux pas of incorrect allegations and their inability to link Ed Miliband to Gordon Brown, to their advantage by branding Ed Miliband as 'The man who wasn't there'.
I don't think that quite works (who gets the reference?), but it's better than 'Red Ed'.
(I say all this in the comforting knowledge that having said it, the Tories cannot now steal it!)
* It is also, I hope I don't really need to say, palpable nonsense.
It is very dependent on what the country and in particular the economy looks like in 2015. If it is looking at all healthy I suspect that your outline will be very prescient. If it isn't, regardless of spin or what Labour has done, the Tories will be toast (albeit handing over an even more poisoned chalice than the one they inherited).
It would tie rather well with my speculation about the sort of pre-election Budget Osborne could deliver in 2015 on the basis of fortunate timing of tax receipt data which is likely to make the cut of the top rate of tax to 45p look like a big money raising measure.
http://botzarelli.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/making-a-mantrap-out-of-a-molehill/
"They said [list of doomsaying from Labour]" – "We did [your list of achievements]"
If people are feeling better off in 2015 than they did in 2013 it may work.
I agree about Red Ed – like New Labour New Danger it risks encouraging people to think that Miliband will do a load of things which actually would be very popular (even if wrong) rather than thinking that he'd be no different but with a more wonkish cluelessness…
Yes. It will depend on the economy in 2015, but it it will most likely be at the core of the Tory CCO aproach. It will resonante with The Sun, but the more intelligent pro-Tory commentators and leader writers at – for instance – the Times or Telegraph will be looking for more imaganative (to them anyway) thinking, Also bear in mind a key demographic for those two AB papers are the more or less well off elderly, so the debate over social care is important to them.
Now to the maths…………………
As someone who knows a little about framing political debates negatively I am pretty certain that the focus will be on Ed and Ed.
Ed B was very definitely the man who was there, there for the boom, there for the bust, still there denying the deficit.
Ed M is the weird wonk with left-wing ideas.
The Tories and the LIbDems will go negative because with the economy still flat-lining there is nowhere else to go.
SO you think I’m more or less right in what I’ve said ?
(BTW, I think they have to have something positive, otherwise it’s just too nasty. Why I thought the list of achievements cameron came up with was interesting)
Cameron will be positive, note Boris was positive against Ken. It was his campaign that was relentlessly negative. Negative works.
As long as Balls denies the deficit and Ed M is Ed M I think Labour will fail to breakthrough.
You are more or less right. The speech you wrote will be the one delivered by Dave and Nick (with additional "we sugared the bitter pill" of austerity stuff from Clegg).