“Do we have the courage to change?”: The Ed Miliband interview

Ed Miliband is the shadow energy and climate change secretary and a candidate in the Labour leadership election. He met Mark Ferguson in his campaign office on Monday, 23rd August, 2010.

Recently you wrote in your Fabian essay that you were concerned about Labour losing D & E (working class and unskilled) voters. What would your main strategy be for winning those voters back?
We’ve got to win back voters from across the income range. The figures I produced in the Fabian essay showed that we lost three times more D/E voters compared to A/B voters [professionals], and that a lot of A/B voters went to the Liberal Democrats, while a lot of D/E voters went to the Conservatives. To win those people back to Labour, we need policies that speak to people’s lives – so it’s about not just a minimum wage but a living wage of over £7 an hour, which I’ve been campaigning for in this election. It’s also about other big issues: on housing, we delivered on decent but not on additional social housing; and we need to replace tuition fees with a graduate tax. It’s a myth that you can either appeal to “aspirational” voters or the so-called “core vote”. That implies that our traditional supporters aren’t aspirational, when they absolutely are. But we know it’s a struggle, particularly for those people on low incomes, to get on – you’re worried about your kids going to university and getting into debt. So a whole set of the policies I’ve produced in this campaign will appeal to people and bring them back to Labour. But it’s not just about policy; it’s about changing the movement, and our links to the trade union movement; it’s about re-energising vibrancy in Labour as a political movement. It’s about all of those things together.

You’ve mentioned the living wage and a graduate tax. They’re both relatively popular policies within the party, and they seem popular with the public, at least when I’ve been out on the doorstep. As the person who wrote the manifesto, isn’t there an argument that they should have been Labour Party policy already?
We did say we’d pay a living wage in Whitehall – I think that was a step in the right direction – and we said we’d increase the minimum wage in line with earnings. But I take the criticism, in a way, that it was much harder to renew in government, and it was much harder to change. But the question of this leadership election is, “do we have the courage to change?” Do we think that sticking with tuition fees, sticking with our approach on the economy, sticking with our approach on civil liberties is going to win us the election? Or do we think, “no, we’ve got to change”. In 1994 we had the courage to change. We’ve got to find the courage to change again. I think that’s the choice before us as we go forward.

In terms of writing the manifesto and then standing for party leader, that’s something you’ve got in common with David Cameron. Are there any other similarities?
Not many, no. He’s got a very different view about society to me. David Cameron believes that the way you make people free is by having a small state – that somehow that will make people free. I actually do believe, in relation to civil liberties, that you have to be careful about the state being overbearing – but I also believe that the right kind of government, and the right kind of enabling state, can increase people’s freedom. Because where does freedom come from? Freedom comes from going to university, getting a good education, having a health service that is there when you need it, having a strong welfare state that can make people entrepreneurial – those are freedom’s enablers. David Cameron has a very different view of society, and how you make people freer and more powerful, and he has a very different view of human nature – that insecurity will breed entrepreneurship. I don’t agree that that’s the way to make an entrepreneurial society.

You said at a press conference a few weeks ago that you are in favour of constructive opposition. Is there anything that you think the government has been right about so far, and anything that Labour has been wrong to oppose?
I agree with the government on getting rid of ID cards, somewhat on financial grounds but really more on the grounds that we never really proved the case for the extension of the power of the state in relation to ID cards. I think that Ken Clarke is right to open up the debate about short prison sentences. Labour’s got to change on those things. My colleague Alan Johnson said words to the effect of “I can’t think of anything we got wrong on civil liberties during our time in government”. I’ve got great respect for Alan, but I profoundly disagree with him on that. It’s not pandering to say that’s a change we need – a change on civil liberties. His position is stuck in a comfort zone, a New Labour comfort zone, if he thinks we don’t need to change on that issue.

If you’re elected as leader the big early challenge is going to be the October spending review. In light of that, have you considered how you might tackle the financial constraints, and – although I know this is a question candidates won’t answer – have you thought about who your shadow chancellor might be?
On the second question, you’re right: I’m not going to answer it [laughs]. It’s what I call a measuring the curtains question, and I don’t think any of us as leadership candidates should be in the business of making deals with people or nominating our shadow cabinet before we’ve even been elected, or not elected. On the first question, how do we oppose the coalition government, I think in three ways. First of all, the coalition has plan for growth, so they don’t have a credible plan on the deficit. Secondly, we have to show that we have an alternative, and I think Alistair’s plan is the starting point for that. I think we need to look again at aspects of it as the situation changes, such as the balance between tax and spending. And thirdly, we’ve got to make a bigger argument. There are more things that matter in our society than the deficit. Of course we’ve got to cut the deficit, but if we’d taken the view after 1945 that the only thing that mattered was the deficit, we’d not have built a National Health Service. I think that David Cameron has a very barren vision of society – a barren vision of society which simply says all we need to do is reduce the deficit and it’ll make people free. I’ve got a much bigger vision of the kind of society we could be: a more equal society, a more just society, a more democratic society; a society where we look after each other, where we respect the environment. I think there’s a much bigger vision, and decisions on the deficit have to be made in accordance with that bigger vision of the type of society we want to become – not just on the idea that the only thing that matters is the deficit.

You’ve spent a lot of time with the other leadership candidates. You’ve said that it’s been nice to spend time with your brother…
Definitely.

In light of the amount of time you’ve spent with the others, would you be happy to work in the cabinet with them all, either as leader or perhaps working with someone else if you’re not elected?
Definitely, absolutely – though it’s a matter for the Parliamentary Labour Party as to who’s elected to the shadow cabinet. With regard to the other part of your question, one of the things that’s annoyed the media in this election is that we as candidates have all got on well and we haven’t been taking lumps out of each other – and I think that’s right.

What do you think the greatest strengths are of each of your opponents individually?
My goodness – that could take a lot of time because there’s lots to say about each of them. I’ll start with Diane – shall we go alphabetically?

Alphabetically is fine by me.
I think Diane has a very strong set of principles. I don’t agree with her about everything, for example her views on Afghanistan. But I think she’s a principled person. I think she’s got a deep commitment to the Labour Party and the Labour movement. I think Ed Balls has shown that he can go after the Tories and he’s someone you’d always want on your side. I think Andy has shown an ability to reach out and connect with people, and I like his phrase “Aspirational Socialism”. I’m not going to steal it because people know it’s his phrase, but I think it’s a very good way of putting the challenge of the future for Labour. And David has enormous strengths which he’s demonstrated during this campaign – he’s someone who has presence and a depth of knowledge which I think is a massive asset to the Labour Party. And he’s my brother and I love him very much.

Those are the strengths of your opponents – what is your greatest weakness?
I think I am very demanding of myself and others. I think anyone who has worked for Gordon for a length of time develops that characteristic. I hope I’m not overly demanding, but I think I sometimes am – though that’s because I have high standards about what we can achieve as both a country and as a campaign. So I think if I had to be self-critical that’s one of the things.

You mentioned that you worked for Gordon, that you worked with him for a number of years. David is often thought of as being close to Tony Blair. Ed Balls is often seen as close to Gordon Brown. But you’re not seen as much as being aligned to Gordon Brown, considering you worked for him for a long time. Do you think that’s an advantage, considering the way Ed Balls talked about being “under a shadow of Gordon Brown” at the start of the race?
I just speak for myself, and I’ll let Ed speak for himself. I’m proud of the fact that I can call Gordon a friend; someone who I worked closely with; someone who I learned a lot from. I think he’s been a remarkable servant to our movement, and millions of people’s live in Britain and around the world are better as a result of what he did, and has done, and will continue to do. I’m proud of my association with him.

Last week you sent out a fundraising email to supporters – how much money have you raised in small and online donations now?
At the last count when we last reported to the Electoral Commission it was just short of £60,000 from 680 people; it’s now somewhat more.

In that email you talked about “opponents with big money”. There’s been a big donation to Ed Balls recently but it’s clear that most of the big money has gone to your brother. Do you feel any sense of annoyance or resentment that he’s getting the big money?
No, I don’t. But we need as many small donations as we can raise, and we need to continue to encourage as many of our supporters as possible to donate to our campaign. Yes, we are being out-spent in this campaign, but people are giving money to my campaign in small donations because they care about my candidacy. So I’m delighted that lots of people are giving us money, and making donations – and no matter how small those donations are, it can make a big difference. Actually, it’s fantastic: as I go around the country I have people putting envelopes in my hand – which I promise you I don’t keep, I pass on to my campaign team – with donations. A lady whose father was in his eighties or nineties gave me a forty quid cheque. I think people want to help my campaign so we can compete and win – I’m very grateful for that, and grateful for those people I have working for me for whom it’s been a labour of love. Well not love, maybe, but a labour of commitment. If any LabourList readers want to give us cheques and they’re registered voters we’d be happy to accept them.

You’ve talked a lot about the Lib Dems; all the campaigns have. Do you think we live in an age of coalitions, or do you think it’s still preferable and possible for Labour to be a majority government again?
Oh, I think it’s absolutely possible for Labour to be a majority government, but I’m putting out the welcome mat for Liberal Democrats because I think Nick Clegg stands for a small state in terms of the economy and a small state in terms of his approach to civil liberties. And I think a lot of Liberal Democrats don’t want to trade off getting rid of ID cards for a reactionary assault on the welfare state. What I’m saying to those people is that Labour can gain a new identity under my leadership, where we’re strong in our defence of civil liberties, but also strongly egalitarian in our economic and social policy. And I think that’s important. It’s only by having the courage to change and being willing to change on ID cards, on tuition fees and on foreign policy issues too that we can reach out and appeal to the Liberal Democrats, or to former Liberal Democrats.

And you support AV?
I do, yes.

Even though there is of course a risk that AV could mean Labour loses seats to the Liberal Democrats in certain areas?
Let’s see what happens. I’m clear that I am opposing the referendum bill, because I don’t think it’s a referendum bill, I think it’s a gerrymandering bill. Gerrymandering plus AV equals not what I want – that’s why I’m opposing the bill. If there is a referendum on AV alone, I’ll campaign for AV.

If you are elected, what would be your first priority as leader? What would be top priority for an Ed Miliband Labour leadership?
We’ve got to take on the coalition on the deficit and we’ve got to defend the people who need defending; the people up and down this country who are at risk from this coalition, at risk from the cuts; the people on housing benefit who are worrying about whether they’re going to be made homeless or be forced into poverty; the people who are carers who are worried about what’s going to happen to them. The reason I’m talking about the Lib Dems is because I want this to be less than a five year coalition, and the best chance we have of making that happen is by attracting Lib Dems over to Labour, and forcing apart this coalition. I’m the candidate best placed to do that – and it’s what I’m determined to do. I don’t want to talk about what we’re going to reverse once we’re back in government; I want to be talking about what we’re going to stop now, already, and how we’re going to stop this brutal coalition.

Is there an archetypal Liberal Democrat you think you could work with?
There are a lot of honourable people in the Liberal Democrats, who came into politics for a fairer, more just society and who are now seeing their hopes cruelly betrayed by Nick Clegg – and I hope those people will think again about their allegiance to this government and even to the Liberal Democrats. I’m certainly not going to get into talk of coalitions, though, or anything like that.

As a GMB member I received an email from you today. You talked about “more freedom for workers in the NHS, schools and local government”. What would that freedom look like and how would you make sure that targets – which have always been such an important part of Labour policy in those areas – are still maintained?
I think we do need targets – that’s important. But I think we ended up with too many of them, and we ended up with too much of an audit culture. I was at a hospital a few weeks ago and the staff told that they spent something like 55,000 hours in the first six to eight months of this year dealing with the people going in and auditing their management. I’m a defender of our entitlements – I think it’s really important that we have an 18-week waiting list time, the two week cancer referral guarantee – but I think you’ve got to make sure that targets don’t become a burden, and they had grown too much by the end of our time in government. And I think some public servants thought they weren’t being given the kind of freedom they needed to do the job to the best of their ability.

Gay marriage is an issue that has been raised often in this leadership campaign. All of the other candidates have, I think, said unequivocally that they’re in favour of gay marriage. You tweeted at the weekend and praised LGBT Labour for their statement on marriage equality – would you be willing to go all the way now and say that marriage equality is something you’d be willing to back?
Yes, I do support gay marriage. I tweeted a few weeks ago saying I’d been at a meeting where I said I was in favour of it, because I’ve heard what people have said and I understand the importance and I have a deep commitment to equality. I think gay marriage is an important priority for us.

This weekend you received the support of Oona King. You must have been pleased by that..?
I’m very pleased with all my endorsements. The Frank Dobson/Ken Livingstone episode suggests that leaders and aspirant leaders shouldn’t back one candidate or another in a mayoral race – in my view that’s an important lesson for Labour leadership candidates. So while I’ve got great respect for Ken and great respect for Oona, and I welcome Oona’s support, I’m staying out of that contest.

I thought you might. Recently there was some discussion around differential benefits between the north and the south of the country. Since then there seems to have been a little bit of confusion over your position on this – would you like to clarify what your position is?
I’m very clear about this: tax credits are a national programme and I don’t think they should be varied by region. Where the confusion arose was that I was making the point that the level of generosity of tax credits and the minimum wage meant that those things had less impact in some parts of the south of England. The answer to that is to have a higher minimum wage and higher tax credits across the country.

You’ve got, I think, 4,000 volunteers..?
I’m not going to tell you precisely how many – I don’t want to give the game away – but, yes, it’s over 4,000 and going up all the time.

By my reckoning that’s over 2% of the party membership. What are they all doing?
A lot of what they’re doing is phoning other party members. We have one of the biggest operations in terms of phonebanking, and a very, very deep and wide operation up and down the country. I’m very proud of that – in fact I’m going to be talking to some of our phone volunteers this evening to thank them. It’s very gratifying and humbling to have so many committed people, but I think away from the national media’s gaze – and a lot of this campaign frankly has been away from the national media’s gaze – something quite interesting is happening. I have a genuine sense that there are members all around the country who are not just responding to my call by saying, “I’ll vote for this chap and I hope he wins”, but people who are saying, “I want to get involved, I want to make this happen, I want to make this change and be part of it”. Because of those people, I realise the stakes are high – and I’m incredibly grateful to them. They can make the difference in this campaign. I genuinely believe they can be the difference between winning and losing.

Do you think we need to look again at the membership fee, and look at making membership more accessible, perhaps to trade unionists…?
All of these things should be on the table, yes. I think there’s a dilemma, because when you’ve got some 180,000 members paying either the top whack or the half membership fee there’s an important income for the party, so you don’t want to end up changing the membership fees just to end up losing lots of money. So all these ideas should be on the table, including, as you say, around trade unionists’ contributions.

What do you think the future is for party funding in the UK? Do you think the membership model is still the most reliable way of bringing in funds? Obviously the party has had problems in the past with big donors, and you’re trying something here with small donations…
This small donations thing has worked for different campaigns in America, and it has a big future for Labour; I hope it might work for us as a party as well as for my campaign. What we’ve done in our campaign is a sign of what can be done if you really work at it – and this is for a leadership campaign, not the party as a whole, that we’ve managed to turn such enthusiasm into real, meaningful small donations. That aside, the link with the trade unions is important, and the financial support from the trade unions is important. I would actually have tighter caps on political expenditure, because I think a lot of the ways the Tories in particular were able to spend money at the last election showed there were quite soft expenditure counts. I don’t think we need to spend these amounts of money – Labour certainly wasn’t spending this amount of money at the election. So I think there are different models to be looked at in the future for the party.

It has been said at different times by different candidates, especially before Diane got into the race, that Labour’s prospective leaders were four white middle-class men. Now Andy Burnham has made comments about Labour elites, and candidates from middle class families and from the south. Does it bother you that people are making the background of the candidates such a big issue in this contest?
Not really. I don’t think it’s surprising, and I think what’s important here is what you have to say about the future of the country. Can you connect to people? Can you understand people’s lives? Can you talk about the way you want the party to be in the future? I think that’s much more important than anything else. That other stuff doesn’t bug me.

Final question – you’ve mentioned some of the things that bothered you about Labour’s time in government. What is your biggest single regret?
My biggest single regret is that we allowed people to lose a sense of who we were as a party and what we believed. Sometimes we made decisions and said things which made people think we weren’t on their side – defending bankers’ bonuses, dragging our feet on agency workers, not re-imagining the future of our economy enough after 2008 and the crash, for example. I think in the end the problem that New Labour had was that it got stuck in the same trap as old Labour, which is to say it got stuck with a certain set of dogmas, and it couldn’t change. That’s why this election has got to be a change election for Labour, and that’s why the test and the question is: do we have the courage to change on low pay, on tuition fees, on civil liberties, on the way we organise our party, on the kind of leadership our party has? I think we can only win next time if we have the courage to change now.