A point. Here are five major issues.
The News International Crisis.
The UNITE/Falkirk fuck up.
Are we going to war with Syria?
Austerity.
Recreational benefits cuts.
They have in common that Ed Miliband got them all right. On some of them, he got an undivided, absolute win – applying the humane killer to the News of the World, and I’ll stick my head on the block and say that insisting on going to the UN over Syria will pay out. On some of the others, in a worse position, he succeeded in managing the situation without giving up anything serious.
On austerity, for example, I would like more Keynesianism, but on the other hand, he’s kept the option open and refused to give the Tories a win. He’s also succeeded in keeping the shadow ministers from promising their respective clienteles the moon on a stick and therefore looking daft.
On the special, gratuitous Osborne cuts earlier this year, he did what was officially unpopular (although, or because, deeper polling disputed this). The two points can be taken together – keeping the shadow cabinet tight helped to show that this was a significant initiative.
On the UNITE fuckup, he stuck out for legality, but didn’t give up anything substantial. More affiliate members being active would do Labour nothing but good. The unions giving directly would give them more influence. And the commission will report in its own good time.
But most of all, on all of them, he has succeeded in projecting the impression at important break points that he is in control. Out of five prime ministers I can remember, Cameron is the prime minister who has most often seemed out of control. There was a lot of chaos for John Major, and it was mostly concentrated on Europe as an issue rather than spread all over – but look what happened to him.
This isn’t just a question of image. The purpose of having a leader is that they exert influence at critically important times and places. To do this, tautologically, you have to be in control. Also, it may be true that strategy beats tactics, but like everything, this happens through mechanisms. If your strategy is right, you will win a lot of tactical fights. And even if it isn’t, you wouldn’t pick tactical defeat.
Update: The New Statesman: He has merely postponed, rather than obviated, this dilemma. Well, “don’t just do something, stand there (and think)!” is a maxim for a good reason, and headlines like Cameron forced to drop timetable for strikes by Miliband speak for themselves.
More subtly, this point is impressive:
Mr Miliband made his demands despite being called into Downing Street earlier this week to be personally briefed on the security crisis by the Prime Minister.
The Ed is not scared of UK/US/CAN EYES ONLY headers. Excellent. Can I just vote for the guy now?
In an inversion of Blair, he has ensured that the policy is shaped around the facts, rather than the facts around the policy
Labour leader acts rationally shock. What’s really weird about that article is the vague feeling that it is a shock.
By seeking to proceed from action to evidence, rather than from evidence to action, Cameron misjudged the mood of both Labour and his own MPs.
God, the politichese! Because that’s what politics is all about – gauging the mood of your side, gauging the mood of the other side, gauging the mood of News Inter… oh, OK, maybe not… and above all else avoiding the embarrassment of getting the mood wrong. Stupid analysis – obscures more than it explains. It seems far more likely to me that both the Tories and Labour would have been quite willing to jump through the patriotic hoop and vote for cruise missile strikes (!) within the next four days (!!) – Diane Abbott and a few others might not have been happy, but there are enough Very Serious People on the Labour benches to get it through*. What Ed’s done is nothing to do with Gauging the Mood; he’s gone for one policy rather than another, on the grounds that one’s right and the other’s wrong.
*Very Serious People, earlier.
I agree with your main point alex.
Also impressed with the way labour have increasingly clarified their position/demands as yesterday went on – as you say its not just about having a strategy or tactic its about how you act on it at key points for maximum impact.
I’ve also felt since Camerons ludicrous flying to Georgia when in opposition that foreign affairs is one of Camerons weak point ‘s- he has a track record of leaping into situations that have big potential downsides.
Phil –
“In an inversion of Blair, he has ensured that the policy is shaped around the facts, rather than the facts around the policy”
“Labour leader acts rationally shock. What’s really weird about that article is the vague feeling that it is a shock.”
Quite. For some of the pundits, a strong leader is one who fixes the evidence around the policy. That’s why Gove fell in love with Blair – because he got MPs to (illogically) vote for the invasion of Iraq while inspection were still going on. The pundits seem to have difficulty coping with Young Ed because he is shaping policy around the facts (even when it annoys the US administration and Rupert Murdoch).
one of Camerons weak points
The guy is nothing but a bundle of weak points tied together with bluster and resentment. Not being able to time a vote is like playing rugby and not knowing you can pick the ball up in your hands. It’s also interesting that this is a large screw-up by Team Obama – when you consider the time and trouble put into managing the Parliamentary Iraq vote by Bush/Cheney, they seem to have just left this one to the winds. Admittedly that was a bigger priority for the USA, but on the other hand, it was a much bigger government majority.
Not being able to time a vote is like playing rugby and not knowing you can pick the ball up in your hands.
In which case, what is “declaring a three-line whip on a vote and not even managing to get all your whips to vote for you”?