Ed the Unready
Martin Kettle writing in The Guardian suggests that Labour and Ed Miliband are still stuck in the traps as a resurgent David Cameron reconfigures his Tory troops for the general election battle which is now only months away.
Party conference season is the next big thing as far as Westminster politicians are concerned, but before we get there Scotland faces an independence referendum on 18 September 2014.
And I have to say it feels good to be voting on a big issue directly without politicians making their minds up on our behalf.
Who knows, it might become catching? Which would be a good thing in my book because then the people would make up their own minds on issues like assisted dying where the professional politicians seem to be hugely out of step with the electorate.
An untested and unready Ed Miliband faces Cameron’s redrawn Tory ranks
Labour must match the prime minister’s ambitious statement of intent if it is to avoid joining the coming battle outflanked
By Martin Kettle - The Guardian
Labour must match the prime minister’s ambitious statement of intent if it is to avoid joining the coming battle outflanked
By Martin Kettle - The Guardian
Illustration by Matt Kenyon
Commentators often fail to discern the essential insecurity of politicians. Yet somewhere beneath even the most confident MP’s veneer is the sleepless fear of oblivion. Politicians hate general elections for one reason above all: because they might lose. Objectively, such anxieties are often nonsense. But the fear of what the voters have it in their power to do is always there and should never be underestimated.
Reshuffles may not be as fearful to politicians as elections. But they are moments of lurching tension. The call from the leader, the promotion or demotion – these are what ambitious MPs both live for and dread. An MP can be a thug or a saint, but a reshuffle day is irresistible political catnip.Tuesday was like that.
The larger question, though, is whether reshuffles make any difference beyond Westminster. Often they are mere waves on the ocean. The more accurate answer is that it depends on the reshuffle. Tony Blair reshuffled too often, so his constant ministerial shake-ups never seemed to mean anything. Gordon Brown’s reshuffles were increasingly a sign of desperation.
David Cameron is a different kind of prime minister operating under different rules. Coalition protocol and his own instinct means he reshuffles much less often. One in 2012. Now a second in 2014. This gives Cameron a natural advantage. His reshuffles, if he does them well, can make more of an impact because of their rarity value and considered timing. And he did this one well.
We often look for the wrong things in a reshuffle. Most voters do not know anything about most ministers. To the public, ministers are distant, largely interchangeable, often unknown. A YouGov poll in March found only 36% knew the work and pensions secretary was Iain Duncan Smith, though he has been in the job for four years. A separate YouGov survey back in 2011 showed that public recognition of politicians varied, from the 96% who recognised David Cameron to the 15% who identified Douglas Alexander. The only other coalition minister with high recognition was William Hague on 80%. Michael Gove was on 33%.
OK, so that was 2011, not 2014. The figures will have moved around a bit since then. But not significantly. Don’t assume that things are very different now. Guardian readers may take for granted that everybody shares their feelings about Michael Gove, but the truth is that most people don’t know much about him, even today.
It follows that many of this week’s changes will not resonate. Philip Hammond and Nicky Morgan are not suddenly household names. By that yardstick, the departures of two genuinely well-known figures, Kenneth Clarke and Hague, will make Cameron’s newly minted cabinet almost as anonymous to onlookers as the first Derby-Disraeli ministry in 1852, to which the increasingly deaf Duke of Wellington’s famous response was “Who? Who?” But the importance of a reshuffle does not lie primarily in its impact on individual politicians’ share prices.
What matters about this reshuffle is that it tells the public something positive about Cameron. This week’s reshuffle will not eclipse all of Cameron’s negatives with the public, such as the sense that he is out of touch with ordinary people. Nor will it solve all his and the Tory party’s electoral problems with one mighty bound. But it was designed to tell the public that this was a big reshaping of the government, mostly in sensible ways, by a confident prime minister who intends to be around for a long time. As such, it poses a challenge to Labour to which the opposition shows little sign of knowing how to respond.
Unlike most reshuffles, this wasn’t tinkering. It was a focused refit into a campaigning unit. Yes, it was based on a pretence. It was as though the Liberal Democrats did not exist. Yes, Cameron cast some competent ministers aside. Yet it sends signals: that Cameron knows he has a gender balance problem he wishes to address, that he listens to complaints from ministers and teachers about Gove’s disruptiveness, that he is magnanimous towards almost everyone in his party except David Davis, and that he is ratcheting up the preparations for a set of confrontations with and over Europe.
For a leader who is often criticised for following opinion rather than leading it, for allowing problems to creep up on him, and for always responding tactically, Cameron’s reshuffle offered something strikingly proactive. It won’t transform all the truths and perceptions in British politics. But it will nudge a number of them in the Tories’ direction. And on the eve of an election campaign in which the Tories seem certain to outspend and outgun Labour, it is an event that again asks questions about Ed Miliband’s leadership and response.
Labour’s initial reaction to the reshuffle was characteristically underwhelming. To dismiss the changes as a damp squib was trite. The real question is whether Miliband can respond by being bold, confident and serious in his own way. Part of that depends on how Labour intends to respond to the gauntlet Cameron is preparing to throw down about Britain’s place in the EU and, even more, about the future of the European convention on human rights. Miliband has yet to be seriously battle-tested in defence of either. But the arming of the reshuffled government for a confrontation with Labour this autumn is palpable.
Politics is not simply about personalities. In the end, this election remains a contest about economic management. But personalities matter, too. Cameron outpolls his party; Miliband underperforms compared with his. In the polls, the two parties are nip and tuck. So Tory supporters vote Tory in spite of the party, while Labour supporters vote Labour in spite of Miliband. Cameron did the Tories a good turn this week. Miliband desperately needs to match him in some way. At the moment Labour remains far too predictable, comfortable and unambitious about the battle that will resume in earnest in the autumn. Is Miliband the only politician in Britain who does not feel the fear of oblivion?
Commentators often fail to discern the essential insecurity of politicians. Yet somewhere beneath even the most confident MP’s veneer is the sleepless fear of oblivion. Politicians hate general elections for one reason above all: because they might lose. Objectively, such anxieties are often nonsense. But the fear of what the voters have it in their power to do is always there and should never be underestimated.
Reshuffles may not be as fearful to politicians as elections. But they are moments of lurching tension. The call from the leader, the promotion or demotion – these are what ambitious MPs both live for and dread. An MP can be a thug or a saint, but a reshuffle day is irresistible political catnip.Tuesday was like that.
The larger question, though, is whether reshuffles make any difference beyond Westminster. Often they are mere waves on the ocean. The more accurate answer is that it depends on the reshuffle. Tony Blair reshuffled too often, so his constant ministerial shake-ups never seemed to mean anything. Gordon Brown’s reshuffles were increasingly a sign of desperation.
David Cameron is a different kind of prime minister operating under different rules. Coalition protocol and his own instinct means he reshuffles much less often. One in 2012. Now a second in 2014. This gives Cameron a natural advantage. His reshuffles, if he does them well, can make more of an impact because of their rarity value and considered timing. And he did this one well.
We often look for the wrong things in a reshuffle. Most voters do not know anything about most ministers. To the public, ministers are distant, largely interchangeable, often unknown. A YouGov poll in March found only 36% knew the work and pensions secretary was Iain Duncan Smith, though he has been in the job for four years. A separate YouGov survey back in 2011 showed that public recognition of politicians varied, from the 96% who recognised David Cameron to the 15% who identified Douglas Alexander. The only other coalition minister with high recognition was William Hague on 80%. Michael Gove was on 33%.
OK, so that was 2011, not 2014. The figures will have moved around a bit since then. But not significantly. Don’t assume that things are very different now. Guardian readers may take for granted that everybody shares their feelings about Michael Gove, but the truth is that most people don’t know much about him, even today.
It follows that many of this week’s changes will not resonate. Philip Hammond and Nicky Morgan are not suddenly household names. By that yardstick, the departures of two genuinely well-known figures, Kenneth Clarke and Hague, will make Cameron’s newly minted cabinet almost as anonymous to onlookers as the first Derby-Disraeli ministry in 1852, to which the increasingly deaf Duke of Wellington’s famous response was “Who? Who?” But the importance of a reshuffle does not lie primarily in its impact on individual politicians’ share prices.
What matters about this reshuffle is that it tells the public something positive about Cameron. This week’s reshuffle will not eclipse all of Cameron’s negatives with the public, such as the sense that he is out of touch with ordinary people. Nor will it solve all his and the Tory party’s electoral problems with one mighty bound. But it was designed to tell the public that this was a big reshaping of the government, mostly in sensible ways, by a confident prime minister who intends to be around for a long time. As such, it poses a challenge to Labour to which the opposition shows little sign of knowing how to respond.
Unlike most reshuffles, this wasn’t tinkering. It was a focused refit into a campaigning unit. Yes, it was based on a pretence. It was as though the Liberal Democrats did not exist. Yes, Cameron cast some competent ministers aside. Yet it sends signals: that Cameron knows he has a gender balance problem he wishes to address, that he listens to complaints from ministers and teachers about Gove’s disruptiveness, that he is magnanimous towards almost everyone in his party except David Davis, and that he is ratcheting up the preparations for a set of confrontations with and over Europe.
For a leader who is often criticised for following opinion rather than leading it, for allowing problems to creep up on him, and for always responding tactically, Cameron’s reshuffle offered something strikingly proactive. It won’t transform all the truths and perceptions in British politics. But it will nudge a number of them in the Tories’ direction. And on the eve of an election campaign in which the Tories seem certain to outspend and outgun Labour, it is an event that again asks questions about Ed Miliband’s leadership and response.
Labour’s initial reaction to the reshuffle was characteristically underwhelming. To dismiss the changes as a damp squib was trite. The real question is whether Miliband can respond by being bold, confident and serious in his own way. Part of that depends on how Labour intends to respond to the gauntlet Cameron is preparing to throw down about Britain’s place in the EU and, even more, about the future of the European convention on human rights. Miliband has yet to be seriously battle-tested in defence of either. But the arming of the reshuffled government for a confrontation with Labour this autumn is palpable.
Politics is not simply about personalities. In the end, this election remains a contest about economic management. But personalities matter, too. Cameron outpolls his party; Miliband underperforms compared with his. In the polls, the two parties are nip and tuck. So Tory supporters vote Tory in spite of the party, while Labour supporters vote Labour in spite of Miliband. Cameron did the Tories a good turn this week. Miliband desperately needs to match him in some way. At the moment Labour remains far too predictable, comfortable and unambitious about the battle that will resume in earnest in the autumn. Is Miliband the only politician in Britain who does not feel the fear of oblivion?
