Don't stray too far to the left m'dear...

Casting my mind back to October 2010, I am sat in a Political Science class at the University of Hull and I remember the unmistakable feeling of being completely out of my depth. Indeed, I had had the same feeling earlier in the week in my first lecture of my University career. Sat with a friend (also a first year) we soon deducted that we were in a class full of second years. The class began and of course the discussion was of a high caliber so to speak, which left me trudging home with one thought in my mind: "what have I done? Why did i choose this course?"

Labour's Original Logo, used until 1983

I had come to University to study Law with Legislative Studies not to refine my knowledge, but instead to learn it from the ground up. In reality I felt completely unfit to be at University, clearly i was not up to the level of peers who had an encyclopedic knowledge of the law and British Politics.

I hadn't studied Politics or Law at school, so it was all new ground. Back in my political science class we were discussing topics for an upcoming presentation we all had to give individually. Seeing as all of us would be giving our own presentations my tutor suggested we choose our own topics. (On a side note, I can't praise my tutor enough, Dr Colin Tyler. He had a dryness about him yet at the same time an energy for Politics which I was at the time very much in awe of). One of the topics available, upon suggestion, was "Is New Labour dead?".

I didn't understand the question so much. As mentioned, my knowledge of Politics was limited to who the Party Leaders were, and the policies each party stood for. At this point i wasn't fully up to speed on what New and indeed Old Labour was. At the time I was very much an advocate for the Labour Party, and I felt a certain disgust and indeed confusion about a peers suggestion that the Labour Party was no more, New Labour couldn't govern in future.

"Trying to please everyone, all of the time" 

I know of course understand. The project of aligning Labour more centrally, the baby of Blair, Brown and Mandelson, had at this point run its course. New Labour and its leader Gordon Brown had been rejected in the 2010 General Election. The question of "Is New Labour dead?" was asking whether or not New Labour would again reposition itself further left, or remain left of center.

The point of New Labour in the first place was very much to distance itself from the old Tory war cries of "the Looney Left". They moved to the middle to appeal to more voters; which while not true to the (Old Labour) core support of the party of socialists, it did show Labour were willing to compromise with the electorate: to reach a middle ground through which realistic, achievable reform could be made.

Indeed, the rejection of (New) Labour and its programme in 2010 led to suggestions of moving back to the left. The Liberal Democrat performance in coalition Government (a poor one by all accounts) may well encourage Labour to occupy the Lib Dem ground: to appeal to Liberal Voters left disenfranchised by the Lib Dem's broken promises and divided party. While Labour would be right to believe they can win Lib Dem seats at the next election - for the future of the Labour party and indeed the country - I consider it a mistake to return to the days of Old Labour and the Red Flag.

Red Ed/Middleband (Ed Miliband)

Yes, Labour can offer a similar alternative to the Liberal Democrats, but they should be mindful of slipping too far to the left. Old habits die hard: Labour should be cautious of toeing the line that kept them out of government for 19 years during the Thatcher/Major years. Many at the time considered them a party unfit to Govern. They were not an alternative to Government, they were merely a party of protest. Policy was only developed if it was the polar opposite to that of the Tory's. This is not a party ready to Govern, these are characteristics of a protest group, that while will appeal massively to a few, will not appeal to the majority of aspiring Liberal left voters who are willing to compromise on the New Labour ethos of social democracy meeting neo-liberalism. 

Ed Miliband may well have been tempted to venture into Socialism territory in his Party Conference speech, making a statement about Labour returning left. However, his much publicised reference to Benjamin Disraeli's thesis of "One Nation" indicates - in my opinion - a reluctance to move too far left. A Conservative statesman, Disraeli's "One Nation" will pander to the floating middle and center right voters. 

If "One Nation" is anything to go by, it is a sign that Ed Miliband may well be trying to shake the tag of "red Ed" in favour of "Middleband". If this is the case, I applaud, for while New Labour of 1997 may well have run its course, I do not consider the ethos that surrounds the principle to have died. It was that very ethos that got Labour into office for a party record of 13 years. 

Ed Miliband is on course

You're supposed to be answering the questions, good sir 

If you follow me on twitter ( @alexsmith321 ) you'll know that one thing that really gets on the proverbial tits is when David Cameron asks questions of Ed Miliband during PMQs. To further enlighten, PMQs stands for Prime Ministers Questions, it does not stand for Shadow Leaders Questions. Until SLQs is scheduled for Parliament, I would much prefer it if Cameron chose to answer questions asked of his Government, not ask questions of the opposition leader. For me, this is a big flaw in his game, and the Labour party should exploit it more.

One of the most frequently asked questions by David Cameron in the direction of Ed Miliband is along the lines of: Where's the manifesto?

No Republican policy until Romney was on the Scene

Its a weak response to what is usually a testing question about Government Policy. It is weak because rather than give the media a soundbite about policy (which would most probably be a negative one about the Government's shortcomings), he gives the press a soundbite which sounds something like "We'll comment on our policy to do with ...xyz...when the opposition leader has told us about his party's policy!"

Little does Cameron know, Milibands approach here is actually spot on. There is no harm at this stage in not having released his mandate to Govern. 

Tony Blair was reasonably quick when it came to developing his mandate "because Britain deserves better" because a rather turbulent Tory party was in Government. A General Election could have been called at any time, particularly because Major after the 1992 Election eventually lost his overall 21 seat majority. A vote of no confidence could have occurred at any time, or simply Major could have gone back to the polls to try and increase his stake in the Commons. 

No such thing can happen this time round. The Parliament Act 2011 now allows for fixed term Parliaments of five years, meaning unless we experience some very extreme and rare circumstances, we'll have to wait until 2015 for the next Election.

We now operate a system very similar to the US. They don't issue a mandate after a year in opposition, largely because they haven't selected a Presidential Nominee! They instead cause the Government nuisance, holding them to account, questioning policy and being, in general, a thorn in the side of the party in Office. 

No sense in getting out the traps too early

Seeing as Miliband knows there won't be a General Election until 2015, he's doing the right thing in delaying any kind of policy announcement. Instead he spends time on policy development and strengthening the party, before eventually releasing a mandate, at say the Party Conference in 2013, to give it a year and a half to sink in and develop.