On Tuesday, Ed Miliband caused a political earthquake when he upset his brother to claim the UK Labour leadership.
Immediately, the right-wing press found their soundbyte – “Red Ed”.
In his keynote to conference, Ed Miliband immediately rubbished that suggestion. It’s a bit of an insult to call him a “Red” when Labour spent many years trying to boot Communists like Militant Tendency out of the party – let alone the fact that “Red Ken” has been given another shot at becoming Labour’s mayor of London (and even that tag is a bit of a joke these days).
Ed should be called a conventional social democrat, who believes in equality and collectivism and using the power of the state to change society, as opposed to the strong strains of liberalism, neoliberalism and individualism that often ran through New Labour.
The press were obviously trying to label him before he had a chance to define himself. They were also angry about how their preferred candidate, David Miliband, had not won. The howls of outrage grew even bigger when Ed Miliband won via the union vote. What these people failed to understand was that the “union vote” is actually a vote of members of affiliated societies. The union vote isn’t some stack of union secretaries, it’s a vote of ordinary union members – teachers, nurses, cleaners, public servants, manufacturing workers. They also include members of small think tanks like the Fabians and compass, who did break for Ed Miliband as well. The fact Ed Miliband won this section wasn’t an accident. He went after their votes and talked about issues that they cared about. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps there’s a bigger point to make, though. The attacks on Ed Miliband before he has even spent a week in the job show that many in the media think that “New Labour” is the only credible or electable version of Labour. Anything else is illegitimate or “red”. Perhaps more of a worry – many in “the new Labour establishment” feel exactly the same way.
EdM was absolutely spot on when he called them an “establishment”. To this day, none of that establishment have any idea just how bad some of their policies were to the country and to Labour’s credibility. ”. To me this was brought to life when David Miliband was spotted whispering to Harriet Harman about why she clapped Ed’s condemnation on Iraq. When Ed Miliband told conference that Iraq was wrong, conference gave a half-hearted applause, almost like they were in shock.
When he talked about how Unions fight for justice, and how labour market flexibility was not always the answer, and that marketisation of public services had gone too far, and that the gap between rich and poor was too wide, again the New Labour establishment was shaken up. Part of the New Labour brand was to not worry about these things – but as Ed said in an earlier speech a few weeks ago – “New Labour got stuck in it’s own dogma”.
In Australia we wouldn’t view such opinions as out of place or unfashionable in the ALP. In fact, they would be mainstream even in sections of the NSW right faction. Ed Miliband’s comment that the Iraq War was wrong because it undermined international institutions was precisely the opinion of the ALP in 2003 and it remains so today. Yet in British Labour it remains controversial, because Blair spent an enormous amount of his (and Labour’s) political capital in selling it. To call that decision wrong took an enormous amount of bravery to but Ed was absolutely right to do it.
Ed’s task is to remove the “New” from Labour, and then make “Labour” credible. This will not be easy. It was a task that proved too big for Neil Kinnock. It will be resisted by the political and media establishment.
Part of the problem he has is a problem of Labour’s own making. By branding itself “New Labour” in 1996, the Labour party did two things.
First – the term “New” was an appropriate way of showing people that Labour had changed from the era of strikes, militant tendency and Clause IV. In 1996, it was useful way of wrapping up the changes Labour had made in one brand that was easy for people to understand.
On the other hand, “New Labour” implied that everything about Labour before 1996 was “old” or “bad, or at least “unelectable”. When Ed Miliband criticizes New Labour, it will make it easy for people to say he wants to take Labour backwards.
This is a big problem, but one that he simply must overcome.
The only way he can do it is to outline specifically what he liked about New Labour, what he’s going to chuck in the bin, and then rebuild the vision by adding some things of his own.
In his speech yesterday, he went a surprisingly long way to doing that.
He picked the things that New Labour got right, and outlined most of their first term agenda – the minimum wage, peace in northern Ireland, saving the NHS, fixing public services through increased expenditure, its record on equality for women and gay people, and it’s (then) solid foreign policy agenda, and balancing all this with a stable economy.
Then he trashed the things they got wrong. Flexible Labour markets, tuition fees, trashing civil liberties, housing, immigration, marketisation in public services, banking deregulation and the Iraq War.
Ed Miliband basically argued that Labour was at its best when it implemented things that you’d expect a Labour government to do – and it stuffed up when it strayed too far from its core values. Then they wasted an opportunity during the Brown era to move on and reform the economy.
He also added some of his own vision on top. A graduate tax to replace tuition fees, taxes on the banks, a living wage, changes to basic labour market changes to stop the undercutting of wages, green investments, a defense of unions, and a foreign policy based on values, not alliances.
The press will obviously focus on his deficit reduction plan as being the first hurdle for his leadership. Luckily, some of the work has already been done for him via Alistair Darling’s plan. A good first step would be to stick to that plan as a base, oppose cuts that are likely to harm the poor or sacrifice economic growth, outline tax increases for the rich, and then start hammering the airwaves on what the rest of his policy vision should be.
Ed Miliband above all things is at his best when he speaks with passion and conviction. The speech he gave on Tuesday could not have been delivered by David Miliband. There’s no way he could have repudiated sections of the New Labour policy program with any credibility. It’s not just the policy vision, it’s also the sense of humility, passion, honesty and sympathy, yet delivered with a sturdy and calm backbone. Labour has made a courageous decision to elect him, but I believe they made the right one. He is a clean break – some might say a premature break.
Many in the New Labour establishment will feel a sense of entitlement that has now been taken away from them too early, and they won’t appreciate the critique. But in the long term, the Labour party will be better off for electing him. There would have been little point continuing with a model under David Miliband that had been rejected by the electorate, only to see it rejected again. Even if this experiment ultimately fails, Labour will be better off for doing something different, and it will be better off by having an honest conversation about past failures.
Given the fall of a number of social-democratic governments in Europe, the defeat of NZ Labour, the recent near-death experience of the ALP, and the difficulties president Obama is facing, part of Ed Miliband’s task must be greater. Now that he has begun to dismantle New Labour, he must rebuild what a credible social democracy in the 21st century should look like. He has already told the New Statesman that this is what he wants to do.
The Con-Dem coalition should not underestimate the importance of this. Nor should it be underestimated. Labour has seen a huge amount of members join since the general election – 35,000 in just 4 months. Yesterday Eddie Izzard announced that 2,000 more had joined in the 2 days since Ed Miliband became the leader.
If these people are involved as party members in the party’s organization and the future direction of the party, that will be a huge advantage for Labour. Not only will it create a massive organisational movement that can turn out at election time, it can also help shape the vision. If Labour wants to get back to power quickly, having a growing and vibrant organization will be a huge advantage on the ground.
Figures like Bob Hawke, Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schroeder, Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, Paul Keating, Helen Clark and David Lange defined social democracy in their own time. Social democratic parties during the 80's and 90's warmly embraced the third way as an alternative to both Thatcherism and socialism – even if that meant compromising traditional beliefs about public services, unions, the role of the state, and equality.
That era of social democracy seems to be ending, with Conservatives on the march through almost every western country with a vision of cuts to the state. The third way vision of Blair has, for the most part, reached the end of its shelf life. It was always going to reach a point where someone drew a line and said "this isn't working" or "this isn't labour". Now that Ed Miliband has done that, a new era must now begin. Obama showed part of the way forward through collective organising, but he has now become stuck in a quagmire in government. From opposition, that vision can be renewed and made fresh again, and the sooner this is done the better it will be, and the sooner Labour will come back to government.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Early Predictions for the 2011 state election
With the federal election now done and dusted, the attention of voters in NSW will be on the state election to be held next year.
Opinion polling has been absolutely horrid for NSW Labor for most of its current term in office, as you can see from the wikipedia website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_state_election,_2011
As you can see, at the last election Labor won exactly 39% of the primary vote. Despite how unpopular the state government was, the coalition could only scrape together 37% (with 26% belonging to the liberals and 10% belonging to the Nationals). The greens polled about 8%, and there was a high vote for independents, reflecting the six that currently sit in parliament.
(One thing before we continue - newspoll has the nationals vote on 5%, even though they got double that at the last state election. this is probably a reflection of the places newspoll call - which would most likely be urban seats where the liberals are running. The combined coalition vote, however, should still be reasonably correct. The nationals are hardly going to lose 5% of their vote compared to last time - if anything it will increase).
The beginning of the rot began to occur in around about May 2008. This was the time where anger about electricity privatisation was at its highest. Around that time, NSW Labor conference was held, and there was much public bloodletting on display. Labor's primary vote in polling fell down to around 32% - a 7% swing away from labor, which washed out into a 52-48 lead for the coalition. At this stage, the situation was bad, but not unsalvageable.
The real damage began in September 2008, when privatisation fell over and Morris Iemma was replaced as premier by Nathan Rees. Immediately, Labor's primary vote fell to 29% - a 10% swing from 2007. The coalition's combined primary vote rose to 42% - an increase of 6%. The greens vote also spiked up 4 points. This meant that Labor was bleeding voters both ways - 40% were disaffected Labor voters going to the greens, and the other 60% were going to the coalition. In december 2008, Labor's vote went to 26% - a record low.
During 2009, the Nathan Rees experiment seemed to have settled things down. labor's vote rose again and hovered around the low 30's for the rest of the year. The coalition's vote was up to around 41%.
Such polling would still have seen Labor headed for a solid defeat. But worse was to follow later.
In december, Rees himself was knifed. Immediately Labor's vote plummeted back to 26%. It would briefly revive in the new year to back around 30%, but it has since falled back to 25% in the past two newspolls (taken over the past 4 months).
Since Keneally took over as premier, Labor's primary vote has been between 25%-30%. If we take the average, that's about 27%. The last two polls have had Labor at 25-26%.
That result represents a whopping 12-13% swing away from Labor on the primary vote. About 8-9% of it seems to be going straight to the liberals. And the rest has gone to the greens, up about 4-5%.
What does that mean for the election?
Given how awful these polls are, how bad can it really get for NSW labor?
Obviously, if this polling was reflected on election day 2011, Labor would be devastated. Exactly how bad would it get?
Well, firstly we need to consider a couple of variables.
Federal election
In metropolitan Sydney, Labor suffered absolutely enourmous swings at the federal election. In many safe Labor seats, there were primary vote swings away from Labor of anywhere between 7-11% - and some were even bigger. Labor could not perform well anywhere. The reasons for it are complicated and varied. But I honestly believe that if people were willing to kick the federal government by that much, they must also be willing to kick an even more unpopular state government.
The Greens vote - where will it increase?
It will be important to also make a distiction in the polling. The high greens vote may very well be a reflection of a state wide trend. Or it may not. One thing we have to take into consideration is that the greens vote is likely to increase hugely in the inner city - especially in seats like Balmain and Marrickville.
The big question of this election won't be how big the anti-labor swing will be on the primary vote. We now know that consistently there has been a 9-14% away from the ALP in polling since Keneally was premier. During Rees's reign, the swing was anywhere between 7-14%.
The big question will be - if Labor's vote drops by that much, where will the swing go? How much will go to the liberals, and how much will go to the greens? And in what seats will there be differences?
Balmain and Marrickville
One reason why we need to be cautious about the higher greens vote in polling is that these two seats are likely to fall to the greens. This could be skewing the current opinion polling. The liberal vote may in fact be even stronger than that in some areas.
At the last state election, there was a swing against Labor, but the vast majority of it in both seats went to the greens. If the same ratio was reflected this time, a 12% swing against Labor would go to the greens by about 8%. The rest would go to the liberals - but given the liberals will likely preference labor behind the greens, and the greens will likely finish ahead of the liberals, any preferences will go from liberal to green. An 8% swing to the greens would see them easily unseat Verity Firth in Balmain and would put Carmel Tebbutt in big trouble in Marrickville.
Immediately Labor loses 2 seats and would only need to lose 2 more to see it's majority gone.
The Rest of NSW - Coalition sweep
However, what we might find in the rest of Sydney is that the swing to the greens is much smaller - perhaps even less than the uniform swing the current polls predict. The liberals could get a much bigger ratio of the swing.
In the recent penrith byelection, there was a 25% swing away from Labor on primaries - double the current swing in polling (probably reflecting the scandal surrounding Karen Paluzzano). Interestingly though, although the swing was double current opinion polling, the actual ratio of where the anti-labor swing went wa very reflective of opinin polling. 18% of it went to the liberals. Most of the rest went to the greens. That very accurately reflects polling, where 3/4 of the anti-labor swing seems to be picked up by the coalition with the rest going to the greens.
But tere is another problem for Labor - optional preferentia voting. In penrith, 65% of greens voters decided not to direct preferences - what's called "exhausted preferences". Only 21% of greens voters preferenced Labor. 14% preferenced the liberals. This made the anti-labor swing worse.
What's the scenario?
If we consider the ratio - the liberals got about 75% of the anti-labor swing in penrith. Incidentally, this also happened in quite a few sydney seats at the federal election. And it's being reflected in current opinion polling.
If the anti-labor swing on the primary vote is 13%, we would see almost 9.75% of that swing belong to the liberals, with 3.25% of the swing going to the greens. (note: in Balmain and Marrickville this would be the other way around).
If greens preferences exhaust at the same rates as Penrith, Labor would be in a world of hurt.
If we remove Balmain and Marrickville - a uniform swing of that magnitude (9.75% to the libs and 3.25% greens) across the state would see Labor lose 25 seats - that is - every seat on the pendulum up to (and possibly including) the seat of Oatley (but not including Macquarie Fields, which has already had a big byelection swing in 2008 and probably won't happen again - and a few other seats where Labor went up against independents last time), plus balmain and marrickville to the greens.
Under the above scenario, Labor would lose the following seats:
Miranda
Menai
Wollondilly (Phil Costa)
Camden
Gosford
The Entrance (Grant McBride)
Monaro (Steve Whan)
Londonderry
Wyong
Coogee (Paul Pearce)
Drummoyne (Angela D'Amore)
Heathcote (Paul McLeay)
Riverstone (John Aquilina)
Rockdale (Frank Sartor)
Swansea
Blue Mountains
Granville (David Borger)
Mulgoa
Kiama (Matt Brown)
Cessnock
Bathurst
Parramatta
East Hills
Balmain (Veity Firth) - to the greens
Marrickville (Carmel Tebbutt) - to the greens
Labor would lose 25 seats and most of its ministerial talent.
That would leave it with 25 seats in the lower house. The coalition would have 60 (+23), te Greens would have 2 (+2) and Independents would retain 6 (unchanged).
A slightly bigger swing in some individual seats towards the liberals could also see Labor lose:
Oatley (Kevin Greene)
Toongabbie (Nathan Rees)
Strathfield (Virginia Judge)
Smithfield
Wallsend
Maroubra (Michael Daley)
Kogorah (Cherie Burton)
So when the media have been saying Labor could lose 20 seats - that scenario is actually believable on all polling done in the last 9 months - and even beforehand.
Look out, NSW Labor.
Opinion polling has been absolutely horrid for NSW Labor for most of its current term in office, as you can see from the wikipedia website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_state_election,_2011
As you can see, at the last election Labor won exactly 39% of the primary vote. Despite how unpopular the state government was, the coalition could only scrape together 37% (with 26% belonging to the liberals and 10% belonging to the Nationals). The greens polled about 8%, and there was a high vote for independents, reflecting the six that currently sit in parliament.
(One thing before we continue - newspoll has the nationals vote on 5%, even though they got double that at the last state election. this is probably a reflection of the places newspoll call - which would most likely be urban seats where the liberals are running. The combined coalition vote, however, should still be reasonably correct. The nationals are hardly going to lose 5% of their vote compared to last time - if anything it will increase).
The beginning of the rot began to occur in around about May 2008. This was the time where anger about electricity privatisation was at its highest. Around that time, NSW Labor conference was held, and there was much public bloodletting on display. Labor's primary vote in polling fell down to around 32% - a 7% swing away from labor, which washed out into a 52-48 lead for the coalition. At this stage, the situation was bad, but not unsalvageable.
The real damage began in September 2008, when privatisation fell over and Morris Iemma was replaced as premier by Nathan Rees. Immediately, Labor's primary vote fell to 29% - a 10% swing from 2007. The coalition's combined primary vote rose to 42% - an increase of 6%. The greens vote also spiked up 4 points. This meant that Labor was bleeding voters both ways - 40% were disaffected Labor voters going to the greens, and the other 60% were going to the coalition. In december 2008, Labor's vote went to 26% - a record low.
During 2009, the Nathan Rees experiment seemed to have settled things down. labor's vote rose again and hovered around the low 30's for the rest of the year. The coalition's vote was up to around 41%.
Such polling would still have seen Labor headed for a solid defeat. But worse was to follow later.
In december, Rees himself was knifed. Immediately Labor's vote plummeted back to 26%. It would briefly revive in the new year to back around 30%, but it has since falled back to 25% in the past two newspolls (taken over the past 4 months).
Since Keneally took over as premier, Labor's primary vote has been between 25%-30%. If we take the average, that's about 27%. The last two polls have had Labor at 25-26%.
That result represents a whopping 12-13% swing away from Labor on the primary vote. About 8-9% of it seems to be going straight to the liberals. And the rest has gone to the greens, up about 4-5%.
What does that mean for the election?
Given how awful these polls are, how bad can it really get for NSW labor?
Obviously, if this polling was reflected on election day 2011, Labor would be devastated. Exactly how bad would it get?
Well, firstly we need to consider a couple of variables.
Federal election
In metropolitan Sydney, Labor suffered absolutely enourmous swings at the federal election. In many safe Labor seats, there were primary vote swings away from Labor of anywhere between 7-11% - and some were even bigger. Labor could not perform well anywhere. The reasons for it are complicated and varied. But I honestly believe that if people were willing to kick the federal government by that much, they must also be willing to kick an even more unpopular state government.
The Greens vote - where will it increase?
It will be important to also make a distiction in the polling. The high greens vote may very well be a reflection of a state wide trend. Or it may not. One thing we have to take into consideration is that the greens vote is likely to increase hugely in the inner city - especially in seats like Balmain and Marrickville.
The big question of this election won't be how big the anti-labor swing will be on the primary vote. We now know that consistently there has been a 9-14% away from the ALP in polling since Keneally was premier. During Rees's reign, the swing was anywhere between 7-14%.
The big question will be - if Labor's vote drops by that much, where will the swing go? How much will go to the liberals, and how much will go to the greens? And in what seats will there be differences?
Balmain and Marrickville
One reason why we need to be cautious about the higher greens vote in polling is that these two seats are likely to fall to the greens. This could be skewing the current opinion polling. The liberal vote may in fact be even stronger than that in some areas.
At the last state election, there was a swing against Labor, but the vast majority of it in both seats went to the greens. If the same ratio was reflected this time, a 12% swing against Labor would go to the greens by about 8%. The rest would go to the liberals - but given the liberals will likely preference labor behind the greens, and the greens will likely finish ahead of the liberals, any preferences will go from liberal to green. An 8% swing to the greens would see them easily unseat Verity Firth in Balmain and would put Carmel Tebbutt in big trouble in Marrickville.
Immediately Labor loses 2 seats and would only need to lose 2 more to see it's majority gone.
The Rest of NSW - Coalition sweep
However, what we might find in the rest of Sydney is that the swing to the greens is much smaller - perhaps even less than the uniform swing the current polls predict. The liberals could get a much bigger ratio of the swing.
In the recent penrith byelection, there was a 25% swing away from Labor on primaries - double the current swing in polling (probably reflecting the scandal surrounding Karen Paluzzano). Interestingly though, although the swing was double current opinion polling, the actual ratio of where the anti-labor swing went wa very reflective of opinin polling. 18% of it went to the liberals. Most of the rest went to the greens. That very accurately reflects polling, where 3/4 of the anti-labor swing seems to be picked up by the coalition with the rest going to the greens.
But tere is another problem for Labor - optional preferentia voting. In penrith, 65% of greens voters decided not to direct preferences - what's called "exhausted preferences". Only 21% of greens voters preferenced Labor. 14% preferenced the liberals. This made the anti-labor swing worse.
What's the scenario?
If we consider the ratio - the liberals got about 75% of the anti-labor swing in penrith. Incidentally, this also happened in quite a few sydney seats at the federal election. And it's being reflected in current opinion polling.
If the anti-labor swing on the primary vote is 13%, we would see almost 9.75% of that swing belong to the liberals, with 3.25% of the swing going to the greens. (note: in Balmain and Marrickville this would be the other way around).
If greens preferences exhaust at the same rates as Penrith, Labor would be in a world of hurt.
If we remove Balmain and Marrickville - a uniform swing of that magnitude (9.75% to the libs and 3.25% greens) across the state would see Labor lose 25 seats - that is - every seat on the pendulum up to (and possibly including) the seat of Oatley (but not including Macquarie Fields, which has already had a big byelection swing in 2008 and probably won't happen again - and a few other seats where Labor went up against independents last time), plus balmain and marrickville to the greens.
Under the above scenario, Labor would lose the following seats:
Miranda
Menai
Wollondilly (Phil Costa)
Camden
Gosford
The Entrance (Grant McBride)
Monaro (Steve Whan)
Londonderry
Wyong
Coogee (Paul Pearce)
Drummoyne (Angela D'Amore)
Heathcote (Paul McLeay)
Riverstone (John Aquilina)
Rockdale (Frank Sartor)
Swansea
Blue Mountains
Granville (David Borger)
Mulgoa
Kiama (Matt Brown)
Cessnock
Bathurst
Parramatta
East Hills
Balmain (Veity Firth) - to the greens
Marrickville (Carmel Tebbutt) - to the greens
Labor would lose 25 seats and most of its ministerial talent.
That would leave it with 25 seats in the lower house. The coalition would have 60 (+23), te Greens would have 2 (+2) and Independents would retain 6 (unchanged).
A slightly bigger swing in some individual seats towards the liberals could also see Labor lose:
Oatley (Kevin Greene)
Toongabbie (Nathan Rees)
Strathfield (Virginia Judge)
Smithfield
Wallsend
Maroubra (Michael Daley)
Kogorah (Cherie Burton)
So when the media have been saying Labor could lose 20 seats - that scenario is actually believable on all polling done in the last 9 months - and even beforehand.
Look out, NSW Labor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)