Labour’s candidate in South Shields, Emma Lewell-Buck sets out her “pledges”. goo.gl/77tx8 twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) April 21, 2013

After its defeat in 1992 Labour went to great lengths to ensure that it would not lose a fifth successive general election.

A key part of the strategy was a ruthless approach to targeting. So seats that were beyond the party’s reach were simply ignored and seats in Labour’s heartlands which were certainties were also put into that category.

That meant that little effort was made to build up organisation where it wasn’t necessary. Why devote any effort because it would divert resource from where it really mattered – the marginals that it needed to take off the Tories.

My reading is that Labour in South Shields has nothing like the organisational strength as it has where I live, Bedford, a key target for a gain from the blues at GE2015.

The only problem with this approach is if there’s a midterm by-election where the government of the country is not at stake. The vulnerability was shown at Bradford West in March 2012 when Respect unexpectedly won.

I’m not sure, however, if Ukip in Shields poses anything like the threat that George Galloway did last year. I do think, however, that Farage’s party is getting more skilled in the by-election arena and looks set to get a good result.

What they could exploit is the perception that Labour takes the voters there for granted – something that’s illustrated in the vacuous LAB campaign material featured above.

The PaddyPower power bet on them winning more than 18% of the vote looks great value.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

The Blairties offer Ed some advice, New PB Threadwww7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/arch… twitter.com/TSEofPB/status…

— TSEPB (@TSEofPB) April 16, 2013

In recent weeks and days, the architects of Labour’s victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005 have been commenting upon the leadership of Ed Miliband and the broader approach of the party.

Lord Mandelson said Ed Balls’ attacks on government spending cuts have become “predictable” and “tiring to the public”

He concluded

If the Labour Party is going to go into the next election and fight it on social justice rather than economic transformation and prosperity, it will be limited in its appeal

Then last week, Tony Blair wrote a piece in the New Statesman, which was interpreted as an attack on Ed Miliband.

Following Blair’s piece, over the weekend, two of his Home Secretaries interjected , David Blunkett writing in the Observer, again was interpreted as criticism of Ed Miliband and Lord Reid also offered his thoughts.

And last night it  emerged Blair renewed his criticisms last weekend, telling a university audience in America that electorates on both sides of the Atlantic did not want partisan politics.

Perhaps Tony Blair and other Blairites share the same analysis as Lady Thatcher,

Who thought the Tories were not doing badly enough in the polls, Conor Burns said. That’s because she felt a government in mid-term should be taking unpopular decisions, he explained.

I remember last November showing her a poll in one of the Sunday papers and it showed that we were nine points behind. And she asked when the next election was and I said it wasn’t for another two and a half years. And she said: “That’s not far enough behind at this stage.” She took a view that to do things that were right did entail unpopularity until people saw that what you were doing was working. And she always had confidence that what she was doing would work, and coincide with the electoral cycle … which is why she won three general elections and was in power for 11 and a half years.

Last week Ed Miliband’s office said it is time to ’move on’ from Blair’s ‘mistakes’ but yesterday it was reported Ed Miliband is to meet with Tony Blair this week in an attempt to heal the rift which threatens to split the Labour party.

In The Times this morning (££), there was some pointed cricitisms about Blair’s intervention.

The intervention has irritated supporters of Mr Miliband. “When did Tony Blair last knock on doors in Redditch?” says one Labour MP. “I’m not sure how much he knows about what the British public feel from the first-class lounge at Heathrow Terminal 5.”

Now that the Labour lead is down to six points with ICM, and with ICM Ed’s ratings trailing behind Cameron and Osborne, and with the focus of the political environment going back to normality after Wednesday afternoon, then we could see further comment, analysis and criticisms of Ed’s leadership.

As Tim Shipman notes

Tessa Jowell praises ‘very good’ Tony Blair article. If it weren’t for Thatcheration coverage, this Blairite backlash would be a big story

— Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) April 15, 2013

Ed Miliband appears to be having his Clause 4 moment by defining himself against a man who won three general election victories. Way to go!

— Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) April 15, 2013

Will Ed Miliband listen to Tony Blair, the only man to win working majorities for the Labour party during the last 47 years, or will he stick with his current strategy?

TSE

Henry G Manson disputes Blair’s assertion that he’d have done better than Brown @ GE2010.bit.ly/16Boguz twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) April 5, 2013

Henry G Manson with a “What if” scenario

Tony Blair’s remarks that “he could have given Cameron a run for his money” have raised a few eyebrows this morning. It’s opened up an intriguing “what if” scenario. It’s easy to look back in rose-tinted spectacles, and a number of commentators such as John Rentoul have an interest in keeping the Blairite flame alive. However as I remember it he had to go:

Blair was in trouble in 2005 with the Tories winning more votes than Labour in England. This was despite the blues led by Michael Howard, a leader never regarded as the likely victor by many in the press. Blair was increasingly electorally toxic with Labour MPs in marginal seats refusing to put his face on literature and accept his visits.

The Parliamentary Labour Party was already in a near state of civil war with increasingly large rebellions taking place such as over higher education fees, trident renewal and 90 day detention powers. Divided parties lose elections and the divisions, already significant, would have amplified even further.

The Labour Party itself was verging on bankruptcy as a result of Blair and his circle relying heavily on a series of huge loans for the 2005 election that had to be repaid, rather than cut the cloth accordingly. Over £20m of debts had been amassed which meant that Labour was shedding staff when it needed to recruit them. There was no way the trade unions would have been able to bail out a Blair-led party and the rich donors were already fleeing to a party that had a better chance of winning and could arguably give them more of what they wanted.

It’s also worth pointing out that although derided by many commentators, Gordon Brown beat expectations to deny David Cameron a majority. Cameron was racking up large poll leads against Blair but Brown cut them in the last six months and a spirited finish to the campaign meant Labour held on to many seat that even the party was expecting to lose. I don’t believe Blair would have been able to achieve this.

Brown had his weaknesses, they’ve been chronicled to excess, but it was he and not Blair that ultimately gave Cameron a run for his money and denied him the majority many thought was inevitable.

Henry G Manson

The race for #SouthShields. LAB needs to handle its candidate selection carefully. bit.ly/16qoZ1R . twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) April 2, 2013

Memories of how David Miliband got it in 2001 could be revived

Already there are rumblings in South Shields about who LAB should choose for the super-safe seat in the coming by-election partly because the national party has got “form” in the area.

This, according to Wikipedia entry on Miliband’s predecessor in the constituency, the former cabinet minister, David Clark is what happened in 2001.

“Clark sought reselection by the South Shields Constituency Labour Party in order to contest the 2001 General Election for the seat. However, control of the constituency Party had swung in favour of a vocal group of critics, led by a faction within South Tyneside Council, who feared Clark actually intended to stand down when the General Election was called, thus enabling the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee to parachute a favoured candidate into the Constituency historically a safe Labour seat.

During the reselection contest Clark vigorously denied the claims and told the Shields Gazette newspaper advising he had every intention of contesting the General Election. In the event, Clark won reselection but only with support of regional trade union barons.

When Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the date of the General Election in 2001, Clark immediately stood down and the Labour Party NEC moved swiftly, New Labour rising star David Miliband was selected to fight the seat.

Within weeks of the Labour Party winning the 2001 General Election, Clark was given a life peerage as Baron Clark of Windermere, of Windermere in the County of Cumbria and now sits in the House of Lords. He was also appointed the paid post of Chairman of the Forestry Commission.

Unlike general elections when the government of the country is at stake the choice of who should be the candidate and the manner in which the process is handled can matter enormously.

Ukip will be watching every step closely for an opening that they can exploit.

In the betting Labour remain a super strong odds on favourite to retain the seat. PaddyPower have them at 1/25 with Ukip on 16/1. Ukip is odds-on favourite to be ahead of the Tories and to come second.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB

Henry G Manson on the significance of today’s announcement

It’s been said that New Labour was more of sect than a movement. Now shorn of a leader the moderate faction has no-one else to turn to. David Miliband’s defeat in the 2010 leadership election showed that New Labor could not easily endure beyond Blair. Instead David Miliband allowed himself to be presented as a continuity candidate when many in the movement and country wanted more of a change and break from the past.

David had the capacity to win but it would have meant moving on from New Labour, something he chose not to. It would have meant meeting the unions half way, something he showed disdain for.

When once asked about the future of trade unions at a Labour dinner he apparently quipped “do they have one?”

It’s all well and good wisecracking at the expense of unions after you’ve been elected leader, but the mentality to do so beforehand when a third of the electoral college is up for grabs was reckless. There are dozens of similar stories. 

Since that defeat, the group most associated with his wing of the party, Progress, has taken something of a battering from the GMB and Unison who have called for internal action to be taken against it. Unions have accused it of behaving like a party within a party aiming to finance party selections of its preferred candidates. Unlike the unions or the Co-op Party, Progress isn’t a formal affiliate. Despite these political broadsides (or because of them?) Progress remains a very effective organisation within the Labour Party and has a good record of getting their candidates selected. A growing number of hopeful Blairite MPs have already been chosen in marginal seats, but at the moment they have no leader in the PLP.

 It is rumoured that this wing of the party is now focusing on a future deputy leadership challenge once Harriet Harman decides to retire. Caroline Flint’s name is now the name most mentioned, but she would not set out as favourite and would face strong challenges from a number of directions. Elsewhere in Shadow Cabinet Liam Byrne, Stephen Twigg and Jim Murphy carry the torch, but none are in a strong enough position to make much political impact. Now the rules have been changed they are all there on licence from the leader. It was revealing to see how the party faithful view them. In Labourlist’s Shadow Cabinet rankings Murphy was 16th, Flint 17th, Twigg 25th and Byrne 27th out of 27. We are now in a post-Blairite age.

 The next Labour leader of the right of the party will have to be able to reach well beyond their ideological comfort zone, be popular with colleagues and come to a pragmatic relationship with its affiliates. At the moment there is no sign of anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party apparently capable of doing this. The 2015 intake may be worth following closely in the years ahead. As for now, David Miliband leaves behind a ship with a crew but no captain.

Henry G Manson

Sadiq Khan – Labour’s shadow minister for London twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) March 22, 2013

Henry G Manson on Labour’s possible 2016 London Mayoral candidate

The Labour Party has wisely learned from the previous London selection and is not racing to select a Labour mayoral candidate soon after the defeat. However the next two years will be a great chance for aspiring candidates to jockey for position and give themselves the best chance of success.

Labour is currently 8/11 favourite to provide the next mayor, but it’s not one that appeals right now, particularly since Boris Johnson’s future has yet to be determined.

However the 33/1 on Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan to be the next Mayor is cracking value.

At the moment David Lammy is regarded as the front-runner. He chaired Ken Livingstone’s campaign rather than run himself and his response to the London rights caught the right note at the time. However I believe him to be a false favourite. Lammy does not have a strong bedrock of support or natural constituency within the Labor party or movement. His political trajectory has underwhelmed at times. No longer a shadow minister he cuts a much different figure to the character being talked of as Britain’s first Black Prime Minister when he was elected as MP for Tottenham 13 years ago.

Despite Sadiq Khan being elected to Parliament 5 years later than Lammy, he has more accomplishments to his name and is currently is in the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Justice Secretary. He has a long background in local government behind him serving on Wandsworth Council for 12 years. The son of an immigrant bus driver has a decent legal career behind him and he looks and sounds like a London success story. He’s smart, shrewd and likeable.

What puts Sadiq Khan in such a great place for this contest is that Ed Miliband also made him Shadow Minister for London two months ago. This remit will enable him to meet, speak, campaign, engage with the whole London electoral college for this selection ahead of elections in 2014 and the general election a year later. The unions played a large role in these selections and would likely to lean more towards Khan more than Lammy.

Sadiq Khan may well decide to take a senior governmental job should Labour win power in 2015. I’ve a sneaking suspicion that his heart is in London and that he will give it very heavy consideration when the time comes. At 33/1 with Ladbrokes to be the next mayor he is a very good value bet and one that should be taken.

Henry G Manson

Henry G Manson on Friday

Taking Yvette Cooper’s immigration speech yesterday at face value and you simply might think the party is tacking to the right on this issue simply to shore up support it lost in the run up to the last election. There’s certainly something in that, but one reference should be seen in a different light and possibly a clue that wider changes to Labour welfare policy are brewing.

Yvette Cooper argued  “one practical change within existing European rules would be to add a “presence test” to the habitual residence test to make it clear and to clarify for everyone that Jobseekers Allowance cannot be claimed within a few days or weeks, and that people will be expected to be in the country for some time or to contribute before they get something back.”

 Years of door-knocking tells me this the idea of whether people ‘pay into the system’ or not is something that really resonates. “Her at number 47 has never worked yet I paid in all my life and get the same back as her. It’s wrong”. “People come over here without ever having paid anything in and my taxes are paying for this, that and the other of theirs.” The Labour Party’s problem with welfare is that ever since the financial crisis and austerity people have needed the welfare net more than ever. Yet support for social security has hardly surged in recent years and the perceived unfairness of people playing the system or having not contributed keeps on coming up in doorstep conversations.

What’s significant is that by some accounts Labour is now looking at rewiring the benefits system to better reflect how much people have contributed before determining the final amount they stand to receive should be unable to work.

Last month Jon Cruddas the MP steering Labour’s policy review gave a speech saying, ‘One Nation Labour will renew our welfare institutions and the key building blocks are relationships, contribution and responsibility.’

This is not something that has been dreamed up overnight but something in which the Labour leader argued  for in June 2011. Ed Miliband couldn’t be clearer when he spoke of possible welfare changes and ”rather than looking solely at need, priority is also given to those who contribute – who give something back.” Tim Horton from the Fabian Society wrote at the time of that speech “the contributory principle links welfare and work together, making entitlement to welfare a badge of full citizenship. It was a threat to the Thatcherite vision of dismantling the welfare state. That’s why we need to get it back – and fast.”

There will be plenty on the left who do feel uncomfortable about such a move and argue that all benefits should rise together in a universal fashion. The political scope for this right now is very low. That’s not to say that a contributory based unemployment benefit wouldn’t bring about risks. Is Labour proposing to reduce Job Seekers Allowance for young people to pay for people who have worked longer, or will their benefit be frozen and additional resources be found for those that need to be paid more? This could mean Labour spending more on welfare overall which the Conservative Party and press would highlight relentlessly. Will the potential popularity of a contributory approach offset the political cost? My instinct is ‘yes, just’ but it’s far from clear-cut.

The larger left-wing led unions would be torn between politically opposing it personally but recognising that it is a policy that would probably be very popular with their members who are paying in and contributing week in and week out. Political commentators are forever searching for new ‘Clause Four moments’ when party leaders have a dust-up with their own party over an issue that had been seen as sacred. This could have the makings of one. I don’t think Ed Miliband goes looking for such occasions to define himself and is consensual by instinct. However it wouldn’t exactly be a bad thing for Labour to have a public row over being on the side of those that ‘pay into the system’ would it? As long as the leader wins.

Henry G Manson

A danger for LAB in upping the rhetoric on immigration? Chart showing views on issue broken down by #GE2010 vote. twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) March 7, 2013

The current LAB panic over Ukip might be counter-productive

A main reason why Labour is consistently showing poll leads over the Tories is that the party has attracted so many Lib Dem 2010 voters.

If EdM & co are to win back power in 2015 then this segment of the electorate has to be kept on board particuarly in the seats won by the Tories three years ago which Labour is aiming to win back.

Yet could this be undermined by the upping of the rhetoric on immigration that we’ve seen from both Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper in the past couple of days?

For the polling, see above for the latest from YouGov published yesterday, shows a very different level of concern amongst 2010 Lib Dem supporters than the electorate as a whole.

As the chart shows just 8% selected immigration as one of the top three issues facing voters and their families. That compared with 17% for all those sampled and 26% for 2010 Tory voters.

Being seen to be jumping on the immigration band-wagon has real dangers and needs to be handled with care.

The last thing the red team wants to happen is see the 2010 Lib Dems be less keen on voting for them.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news

Follow @MSmithsonPB