As I stood alone outside a
primary school in Deptford yesterday giving out ‘Vote Today’ leaflets, as
bidden by our organisers, I was able to reflect on Labour’s national General
Election Campaign strategy. Why had we
totally failed to stand up for the economic record of the last Labour
government? Why had we failed to rebut
the claim that the deficit was due to Labour’s profligacy and why had we failed
to stand up against Austerity and instead decided to go to the polls offering
Austerity with a smiley face? As I stood
there wishing the minutes to pass so I could move along, I realised that I was
outside a school that was fairly newly-built and part of a innovative new
building that combined the school with a public library, café and community
resource. As I looked at the school, I
had my back to a leisure centre and swimming pool that had been improved and
expanded just a few years before. Both
these projects had been built under the last Labour government, a government
that had reduced the national debt before the Great Recession from the level it
inherited from the previous one. So much
for the charge that Labour spent its time in office pouring scarce taxpayers’
money down the drain.
Perhaps the greatest opportunity
provided to Labour by yesterday’s Election disappointment was the defeat of Ed
Balls. He must bear a large share of the
responsibility for the party’s campaigning performance on the economy over the
last 5 years and the message it put to the electorate yesterday. In truth, as Shadow Chancellor he should
probably bear a larger share than Ed Miliband himself. To be honest, I rejoiced when Alan Johnson
gave up the job and Miliband appointed Balls.
I remember saying to our Mayor, Steve Bullock, how pleased I was to hear
the news because I thought that he would prove to be a ‘pitiless assassin’ when
it came to ‘kebabbing’ Chancellor George Osborne. I thought Balls would make mincemeat out of
him and his ridiculous claims that the UK was bankrupt and about to go the way
of Greece and then pour it on when Austerity inevitably sucked the life out of
an economy that had been recovering.
Instead I looked on with growing surprise, frustration and anger as he
increasingly appeared to resemble a striker who suddenly found himself with the
ball at his feet and facing an open goal but succumbing to stage fright.
But sadly, there is more to it
than this. I listened to Balls speak in
the flesh twice and both times I came away with my view of his competence
dented for reasons that may surprise. The
first was at a local constituency fundraising dinner when he made a speech in
which he completely mangled a punchline to a funny story. The second was at an event for business
people in London. Then he was introduced
by Ed Miliband who said he was going to hand over to him to tell us about
Labour’s policy on the economy. Balls
then said that before he did that he would just like to tell us what was
obviously meant to be a crowd-pleasing, amusing story. He then proceeded to mangle this one as
well. He appeared to verbally lose his
way, come to a juddering halt and forget why he was there. We all stood there and realised that
revelation of Labour’s view on the economy had been postponed. At the time, I thought these experiences
oddities rather than symptoms of inadequacy.
However, Balls’s greatest
difficulty was that the more his new high profile job thrust him into the
public eye, the more the public decided they didn’t like him. I don’t want to dwell on this. Suffice to say that in order to be a successful
politician you have to be popular or inspire confidence, preferably both. You are at something of a disadvantage if
people take an instant dislike to you and think you untrustworthy, especially
when the impression is reinforced by further exposure.
Why am I putting the boot into
the vanquished Balls? It does make me
feel rather uncomfortable. My point is
that when I raised my misgivings about him with party insiders I was told that
I was wrong, he was very effective and, what is more, everyone who had worked
with him in the Party, even if they didn’t agree with him politically, liked
him. In fairness, it has to be said, he
did come third in the 2010 Leadership contest.
Yet if he had won, is there anyone who would confidently say that his personal poll ratings would be
higher than Ed Miliband’s? There can
surely be no doubt that, if Balls was still in Parliament, he would be making
his run to be the next leader. Even if
this wasn’t the case, he would probably remain a leading figure in the next
Shadow Cabinet. Can a political party
really expect to win elections when its internal democratic processes allow
individuals that are so unpopular with the public to ascend to national
leadership positions where they have so much exposure to the, er, public?
As it is, Balls is out of the
picture and with his departure so goes probably the most high profile figure
with a clear connection to the Blair/Brown/Iraq War/Financial Collapse Labour
government that so many people obviously found so toxic, even if unfairly. Perhaps now, the decks are clear for a new
beginning and an abandonment of the ‘AusterityLite’ economic policy. One question remains. Are Labour Party members, politicians and the
unions capable of identifying someone who is capable of gaining traction with
the public sufficient to win the next General Election and, even if they were,
would they be willing to give them the job?
Or, when it comes to electing leaders, is the Party’s natural response
to pick people whose greatest talent is the ability to concede defeat gracefully?
No comments:
Post a Comment