If comment pieces were votes, we would have defeated the United Kingdom Independence party already and would no longer have to worry about having been 600 votes away from a disastrous by-election defeat last week. But they are not. None of the ‘easy’ responses to Ukip have yet worked – ignore them; talk about talking about immigration more; tell everyone you are listening to them, et cetera.

There is no magic bullet to dealing with this uncharted political territory. As I argued in a recent Progress piece neither ignoring nor obsessing is the best response to the Ukip threat and the main battle is on the doorstep and in ensuring that all seats campaign like marginals.

Having said all that, here are three more reflections to add to the mix!

First, policy is not always the answer. Yes I know I criticised our policy review for being, like a pregnant panda, short on results. In the case of taking on Ukip, I was wrong. Ukip support comes from those ‘left behind’ economically as well as alienated from politics. A very interesting blog from the House of Commons Library shows a strong correlation between areas with high Ukip support and low skill levels. We already have good policies to respond to these economic and social issues. The minimum wage including tackling the poor payers at source; more routes to vocational education and apprenticeships; help for your kids to get their first home and welfare reform based on a something-for-something approach are all strong things to talk about.

I am less convinced that we need more new policy on immigration. I have always argued that dealing with the transitional impacts in communities is more important than promising to clamp down further on those coming to Britain from the European Union or beyond. In government we already put in place an Australian-style points-based system. We could make some changes in criteria; we should certainly continue to strengthen our border management. But are we really going to compete with Nigel Farage on banning people with HIV? Of course not. We do not believe in a big further tightening of immigration; this government have proved it is difficult to deliver anyway; and the electorate would not believe us even if we made that pledge.

So if it is not new policy which makes the difference, what is it? We need people to trust that ‘we get it’. Ed and the top team need to be seen in the right place, at the right time with the right instincts – those that chime with people who don’t feel they are getting a fair deal. Who, in Ed’s words, really do feel that they are ‘on their own’. When something looks and feels unfair, we should say so even if we have not worked out the detail of our policy response and know that the problem may be more complicated. For example, you do not get permission to talk about the complexity of English votes for English laws unless you acknowledge the unfairness. When Ed has responded quickly to perceived injustice as with phonehacking, he gets credit and takes the initiative. Gut is as important as intellect in politics.

Third, this is not some coded call to replace Ed as leader. He should stay. And, what is more, the rest of us should shut up about leadership and do what we can to share the strain and support those at the top and on the doorstep working around the clock. If the charge against us is that politicians are only bothered about their own careers and never listen, it is madness to respond by speculating about who our next boss should be!

Right – that’s it. I am taking my own advice for once – getting off the laptop and onto the doorstep!

———————————-

Jacqui Smith is a former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @Jacqui_Smith1