Andrew Smith: Labour’s reshuffle is a swing to the left, but it will put more pressure on our areas of weakness

Andrew Smith is a Senior Policy Adviser at the public affairs agency Connect Communications and a Conservative Councillor on Westminster City Council. Follow Andrew on Twitter.

Labour’s mini reshuffle is the first time that Ed Miliband has been able to appoint his choice of shadow team.  His previous choices were restricted by the combination of shadow cabinet elections and, most importantly, the need for him to smooth over the division caused by the defeat of his brother in the leadership election and the chasm separating the instincts of those on the right and left of the party. 

This week he operated from a position of strength.  His leadership seems secure as the party enjoys double figure leads in the polls and recent successes in the local elections.  He was therefore free to choose members of his top team that reflect his vision of the future of the party.

What do these choices mean for the future of the Labour Party and what could this mean for the Conservative campaign to form a majority government at the next election?

The decision to remove Liam Byrne as the head of Labour’s policy review is reflective of concern within the Labour Party about the progress of the review, but perhaps more importantly the ideological direction that Byrne was taking the review, especially on issues such as welfare reform. 

Those close to the decision have suggested that there were two possible choices to replace Liam Byrne; Andrew Adonis who would have indicated a continuing Labour interest in public service reform, or John Cruddas, Tony Blair’s former union fixer whose political career has shown him to be an implacable opponent of almost any reform, in education, in welfare provision, or in the health service. 

Andrew Smith: The love-bombing of Lib Dem voters needs to continue - but they must be warned of the economic havoc that would be wrought in the event of a hung parliament

Andrew Smith is currently seeking re-election to Westminster City Council.

As the debate about how to deal with the Clegg bubble continues, opinion is split over whether the response should be to ignore them and keep on concentrating our fire on Labour, or to launch a full out attack on the Lib Dems and their policies.

The answer to this conundrum has to be an acceptance that the cause of the Lib Dem bounce is a widespread and deep set antipathy to the political status quo. This needs to be combined with steps to ensure that voters who may have warmed to Mr Clegg realise what it might mean for the country if they lend him their support. 

Love bombing of potential Lib Dem voters needs to continue, but Clegg himself and the party’s policy platform need to undergo the scrutiny which the other parties have endured over the past five years but concentrated into the few remaining days before the May 6th.

People have been attracted to the Lib Dems because they are the 'plague on all your houses' party - clearly a valuable asset in this era of disenchantment with the Westminster political system. It is also important to recognise that the other powerful draw is the perception that they are a liberal party, free from the perceived ideological obsessions of Labour and the Conservatives and with an embedded commitment to social progress.

Melanie Phillips wrote earlier in the week about how David Cameron’s decontamination strategy has made him vulnerable to the Clegg factor. Her analysis fundamentally misunderstands the changes which have happened in the UK over the past twenty years. It is David Cameron’s record of change within the Conservative Party and success in presenting fundamental Conservative principles in a way which is relevant to this modern age which gives us the most hope of grabbing back the change vote from the Liberal Democrats.