How has Ed Miliband's sixth re-launch progressed so far?

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

A week on from Ed Miliband's sixth re-launch, it would be timely to review his progress. Has he managed to persuade the public of his credibility at last? Has he managed to thrash the Coalition in the polls? Is his Party settled and united behind his leadership? It seems not. 

• Ed Balls' big policy speech hinted at Labour wishing to earn economic credibility: "In a speech to the Fabian Society on Saturday, Balls said he accepted every spending cut being imposed by the coalition and endorsed George Osborne's public sector pay freeze, adding that it might need to continue beyond the end of the current parliament."
• Ed Miliband then supported this stance: "Ed Miliband has backed his shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, saying he cannot promise to reverse any spending cut at this stage, and dismissed criticism of his own leadership as "part of the gig"."
• ...But at the same time, Miliband said Labour opposes the cuts the Coalition is making: "If Labour was in power now we wouldn't be making those changes. We wouldn't be cutting as far and as fast as the government."
• Perhaps this best explains what Miliband's position seems to be: "Labour's newly calibrated position is that it opposes some spending cuts, on the basis they slow recovery, but cannot promise to reinstate any of them ahead of an election."

Although Ed Miliband is less popular with Labour supporters than David Miliband, he insists his leadership is "winning the battle of ideas"

By Joseph Willits 
Follow Joseph on Twitter

In today's Sunday Times (£) there were yet more unnerving polling results for Ed Miliband, receiving his lowest (negative) rating so far as Labour leader from the party's supporters. 49% of those who vote Labour felt that Miliband was doing badly, compared to 46% who believed he was doing well. The YouGov poll gave Miliband an overall rating of -3, compared to Cameron's positive net score of 91.

Polling those of all voting intentions, David Miliband topped the survey with 21% holding the view that he would be a better party leader, compared to Ed Miliband's 7%. Interestingly, Alistair Darling was second choice with 9%. However, there was a marked difference in favour of David Miliband amongst Labour support, with 34% compared to 12% for his brother.

Speaking on this morning's Andrew Marr Show, mainly to defend the Labour party's new stance on cuts, Miliband was full of defiant soundbites, stating that Labour was "winning the battle of ideas."

Although Miliband told Andrew Marr that "if Labour was in power now, we wouldn't be making those changes, we wouldn't be cutting as far and as fast as the government", he said it was right to support the Government's pay freeze for public sector workers:

"It's a hard choice, but when you are faced with the choice between protecting jobs or saying the money should go into pay rises I think it's right to protect jobs."

Ed Miliband's latest relaunch avoids policy details and economic credibility

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Ed Miliband's much-talked-about relaunch speech today (his sixth relaunch, which is Iain Duncan Smith territory and worse than John Major) is, on the face of it, an attempt to square the social democratic principle of redistribution (or "fairness") with the harsh reality of there probably not being much to redistribute after the next general election.

The speech was lacking in specific policies, because Mr Miliband decided to pull his punches:

"In short, where the Government is stripping demand out of the economy, we would go less far and less fast. We call for these things not because we aren’t interested in dealing with the deficit. We call for them because we are. The sooner growth and jobs return the easier it is to reduce the deficit we face. That action to get growth moving must be combined with balanced cuts. And to get Britain’s budget back into balance and the national debt back on a downward path, we will set out tough new fiscal rules. But as I said earlier, the deficit will persist well into the next parliament, well beyond 2015. So today I want to focus on that horizon."

Here we see he has the opportunity to "set out tough new fiscal rules", but then refuses to do so, instead telling us about "the principles which will guide the Labour Party under my leadership" - far safer ground, because it contains no specifics and is subjective. 

Only 1 in 5 Labour voters would back Ed Miliband, according to a poll in The Sun

By Joseph Willits 
Follow Joseph on Twitter

Today's Sun carries a YouGov poll which is bad news for the Labour party generally - and Ed Miliband personally.

• The poll suggests that only 1 in 5 Labour voters believe that Miliband is doing a good enough job.

• 51% of Labour voters saying that Miliband could do better.

• 40% of these have given Miliband a year's ultimatum to improve.

• A further 26% have given him up to 2 years to up his game.

• Only 17% would allow Ed Miliband up until the next election in 2015, time to improve.

Only yesterday it was reported that Miliband's picture was absent from Labour's election literature for December 15th's Feltham and Heston byelection. 

In the week of the Autumn Statement, Ed Balls is under attack from business groups, economists, his own party, and the public

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

In the week of George Osborne's Autumn Statement, you might think the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, would be able to score the open goals and publicity that Opposition politicians can usually manage. 

Instead, Ed Balls and his economic plans are under attack from all sides. From the left, the Shadow Cabinet and Labour insiders are trying to set the Labour Party on a different economic course. Economists and business groups continue to support the government and reject Balls' alternative economic plans. The public still blames Labour for the economic crisis. 

Labour blogger Dan Hodges tweeted this morning: "Just spoke to a shadow cabinet member; "Ed Ball's strategy is hurting but it isn't working"." Shortly after that tweet, he added: "The shadow cabinet's concern about Labour's economic stance is about to become a story".

Labour's five-point economic plan would add over £20billion to the deficit

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

In a Parliamentary Question released on Thursday, the official Treasury estimate of the cost of Labour's five-point economic plan was given - it totalled more than £20 billion, which would be added to the budget deficit. 

Michael Meacher, the veteran left-wing Labour MP, asked:

"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the contribution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 12 October 2011, Official Report, columns 366-82, what evidence he considered in concluding that adoption of the five-point plan would (a) increase the deficit by £27 billion and (b) raise interest rates by one per cent."

Chloe Smith, the recently appointed Economic Secretary to the Treasury, replied to Mr Meacher, listing the Treasury's estimation of the deficit-expanding measures featured in Labour's plans:

• Reducing the rate of VAT for a year "would increase the deficit by around £12.4 billion."
• A temporary reduction in VAT on home improvements would increase the deficit by £2.2bn
• A temporary reduction in employer national insurance contributions for small businesses taking on extra workers is estimated to increase the deficit by around £1bn
• "The cost of bringing forward capital spending would depend on the specific proposal. The estimate given in the debate reflected an illustrative assumption that the policy would imply no real terms cuts in capital departmental expenditure limits in 2011-12. If this were the case, the increase in the deficit would be £5.5 billion"

When the Observer's 100 leading economists aren't 100 leading economists

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

8pm Update: We also have two geography grofessors, two former Labour MPs, one former head of media at the Labour Party, one Labour Peer, one man who does not come up on his university website - and only 98 names (since two have been counted twice).

Further names include:

• Prof the Baroness Ruth Lister of Burtersett, Loughborough University; Labour Life Peer. She is a Professor of Social Policy, not economics. She lists her academic research interests as ‘Citizenship, gender, poverty and social exclusion, social security, welfare, reform, children and young people’.
• Prof Ken Spours, Institute of Education; Head of the Department of Continuing and Professional Education at the Institute of Education, University of London.
• Prof Dave Byrne, Durham University; Professor in the School of Applied Social Sciences at Durham University.
• Prof Jonathan Rutherford, Middlesex University; Professor in Cultural Studies in the School of Arts and Education department of Middlesex University.
• Gez Sagar, head of strategy, economy communications centre, HM Treasury (2009-2010); former Head of Media for the Labour Party.
• Prof Richard Grayson, Goldsmiths, University of London; Prof Richard Grayson is the Head of History at Goldsmiths. He was formerly Director of Policy of the Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrat candidate for Hemel Hempstead in 2005 and 2010.
• Prof Paul Thompson, Strathclyde Business School; Prof Thompson is a professor of Human Resources at the University of Strathclyde.
• Prof Diane Elson, University of Essex, chair UK Women's Budget Group; Prof Elson is in the department for sociology at Essex.
• Prof Alan Finlayson, University of East Anglia; Describes his specialist subjects as "Political theory, British Politics, Labour Politics, Conservatism, Northern Irish politics, rhetoric, media, communication, poststructuralism, discourse theory, democratic theory, continental political thought, asset-based welfare, cultural theory, cultural studies, interpretive methodologies".
• Dr Heather Savigny, University of East Anglia; She is a Senior Lecturer at the University of East Anglia and lists her teaching interests as ‘political communication; popular culture; British politics’.

The Observer declares today that: "A hundred leading economists have made an impassioned call for the government to step back from the brink of a new economic crisis and back a Plan B to save existing jobs and create new ones, amid growing fears of a double-dip recession" - and refers its readers to a letter.

Almost at random, I name five of the signatories:

• Dr Martin O'Neill, lecturer in political philosophy, York University
• Dr David Hall-Matthews, senior lecturer in international development, University of Leeds
• Kitty Ussher, associate, Demos
• Dr Jamie Gough, department of town and regional planning, University of Sheffield
• John Christensen, economic adviser and director, Tax Justice Network, London

I apologise to these ladies and gentlemen if they are indeed "leading economists", but matching their names to their roles leaves this title doubtful.  Others will no doubt undertake a full analysis later today.  As those organising such letters have found previously, it's convenient to aim for a round number of signatories, such as a hundred - even if the names don't quite match the claim.