Looking
further
ahead, though, UKIP needs to be aware of its toxicity among
some voters. It has taken the Tories two decades to try and shift the
'nasty party' description and they have still not
succeeded. Moreover, as long as UKIP continues to steal more votes from
the Conservatives than from Labour, it may inadvertently keep
pro-European parties in power.
Two takes on
the Conservative Party
There
are two perspectives on what is happening to the Conservative campaign.
One
says that immigration has blindsided them. It points to the strategy of
modernisation – which advocates a “centre ground” position in an effort to
avoid further contaminating the Conservative Party brand – and says that the
modernisers underestimated the UKIP threat.
Indeed there is some evidence to support the view that triangulation –
reaching over the heads of your opponents to broaden your appeal – is not as
effective as it once was. Seen through this prism, Mr Cameron’s moves last week
on immigration are a desperate roll of the dice.
The
alternative view is that this has been in the cooker for a while: As far back
as last September, Lynton Crosby was reported to have briefed 180 Conservative
MPs at a Chipping Norton away day that “the key to success in 2015 is to get
its immigration message right”.
A
quick look at other campaigns Mr Crosby has led suggests a pattern which could
be replicated. The term “wedge issue” is often misused, but in this case is apt:
it essentially means an issue on which your party can maintain a united front,
but which splits your opponents roughly down the middle, causing them to turn
in on themselves.
Immigration has long been Mr Crosby’s “go-to” means of
setting the cat among the pigeons, for instance in the 2001 Australian federal
election, when it caused mayhem in the Opposition Labor Party ranks.
When
Mr Crosby tried the same tactics as adviser to Michael Howard’s general
election campaign in 2005, Labour resisted the temptation to implode. They had
been conditioned by Tony Blair and figures like David Blunkett, Charles Clarke
and John Reid to maintain a compromise position which mixed a willingness to
“talk tough” on immigration while also celebrating the benefits that different
cultures had brought to Britain. This was also an easier sell in 2005: the
economy was still thriving and EU immigration was not regarded as being so
wholly out of control.
The
post-recession electoral landscape is now more amenable to Mr Crosby’s approach,
but it is not without its risks for Mr Cameron. Promises of EU renegotiation
and tighter restrictions on non-EU migrants are not going to be easy to keep,
and could also be seen as an admission that his modernisation agenda has been
abandoned.
After a disciplined mix of social liberalism and fiscal prudence in
the current parliament, a 2015-20 Conservative Government would govern on a manifesto
of social conservatism and potentially unfunded tax cuts.
For
the strategy to work, Mr Cameron needs to hold on to his existing support, win
over Labour voters concerned about immigration, and convince UKIP supporters
that they should treat the election as a two-horse race between Mr Cameron and
Mr Miliband.
There are two big risks in this strategy: one is that the swing
voters and business audiences Mr Cameron worked so hard to woo in 2010 will be
turned off by the change of focus; the other is that wavering Labour and UKIP
voters might accept Mr Cameron’s new analysis on immigration, but will blame
him for not doing enough about it over the past five years.
A test for Labour
Ed
Miliband and Labour have so far avoided the same kind of public scuffle that finished
off the Australian Labor Party in 2001. But there are hints of what is to come.
Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk has said that “too many people in the Labour Party
think we should never raise the subject of immigration.” Veteran Labour MP
Frank Field challenged Mr Miliband on the issue at last Monday’s meeting of the
PLP, arguing that “the whole nature of England has changed.” On the other side,
Diane Abbott has previously attacked Labour for “pandering to anti-immigrant
sentiment.”
Criticism
from the usual suspects on the backbenches may not cost Ed Miliband the
election, but are a warning that trouble lies ahead. The challenge for the Labour leadership
and election strategists is to understand that there has been a genuine
attitudinal shift and to come up with a coherent, unified response to it – one
that they can communicate persuasively to the different factions of the party,
as well as their ordinary party members (who will be vital in getting out the
vote in May 2015).
Labour
will need to show that it has made the effort to listen to and understand
concerns around immigration, without stigmatising all voters who hold these
concerns – some may well be motivated by deeply held attitudes around
nationality and identity, but the fact that concern has risen with the decline
in household income suggests that a substantial proportion of voters are “soft”
on the issue, motivated mainly by concern about living standards.
This
ought to be an opportunity for a united Labour to turn the immigration debate
on its head, arguing that most of the problems currently being blamed on
immigrants – pay freezes, competition for jobs, and difficulty accessing
public services – are of the Government’s own making and that David Cameron is
passing the buck. However he chooses to tackle it, though, Mr Miliband must
convince his party to speak with one voice on the issue, from Islington to Blackburn. That is where he is
most likely to fall down.
The Lib Dems
breathe easy
The
one party which can breathe a big sigh of relief is the Liberal Democrats. An
all-out war over immigration between the other major parties is unlikely to
harm them, and may give Nick Clegg more room to claim the moderate centre as
his turf. In the event of a hung parliament, it may also add to the Lib Dems’
appeal as a coalition partner – a chance to abandon a difficult manifesto
commitment and blame it on the junior party.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment is open to all feel free to link to this blog.