Ed Miliband – two years in, the verdict

September 25, 2012 10:16 am

Ed Miliband was elected as Labour leader on September 25th 2010, so on the second anniversary of that day, we’ve asked some of our contributors for their take on Ed Miliband, two years in – with more to come over the course of today:

Ed Miliband is doing something brave. He is challenging 30 years of orthodoxy: on the economy, and on the business of political leadership itself. In October 1980 Mrs Thatcher gave her “U turn if you want to” speech. It set the template for a generally approved form of leadership. Get tough, confront your own side if necessary, never take a step back. Of course, in practice Mrs T did have to compromise on occasion and settle for less than she wanted. But the mythology was fixed. Tony Blair explicitly invoked the Thatcher leadership style in party conference speeches – “I’ve no reverse gear”, “Backbone, not back down” – with varying degrees of success.

Miliband (E) is different. He is more conversational, and less confrontational. He has been mocked by David Cameron for lacking assertiveness and for not being “butch”. But the Labour leader does not seem bothered. As he said in his conference speech last year, he is going to do it his way. And he has vowed to follow his instincts. The lobby does not like this. He is not playing by familiar rules. He is speaking a language they do not always understand. And he is not really compromising too much over this. Now the government is struggling. Opinion polls are providing Labour with some encouragement. Ed Mili is getting a better press – although, in truth, I’m not sure his PMQ performances are so radically different today (when he wins good notices) from a year ago (when he didn’t). That’s momentum for you – and the unique breed of journalism to be found in the Westminster lobby. Ed has established a solid platform. Now he must build on it, with policies, and with continued incisive attacks on the government. He needs to assert his identity and introduce himself properly to the voters. They are beginning to listen, at last, and are ready to hear something different, and uplifting. - Stefan Stern is a management writer, director of strategy at Edelman in London and Visiting Prof at Cass Business School

“Ed’s revolution is not quick but constant. There has been no big bang, but instead a series of small waves, each one washing away one more level of the outdated systems and outmoded thinking that had worked in the past but has now become a millstone around the necks of the Labour Party and the body politic. Ed understands the value of small but people centred intervention –whether that means the community campaigning of Movement for Change or the reinvigorating of CLPs through Refounding Labour. He is also reaching towards a greater understanding of where a 21st century Social Democrat Party needs to be to improve society and the inequalities that the broken politics of the last 30 years have left us with. What Ed must do now is find a way to both articulate and sell that vision to the country. Our poll ratings are great, our leader is secure, but the next election is far from won. We must abandon terms that appeal to academics like “predistribution” and “Predator Capitalism” and talk to people in the language of their lives. That’s how Ed’s vision becomes Britain’s choice.” – Emma Burnell

“It’s rare to see politicians prioritising ‘youth issues’. Even rarer is one who can successfully translate things affecting one generation into a narrative that resonates with everyone. But that’s what Ed has successfully done. Wide reaching narratives like the squeezed middle or the Promise of Britain, the idea that the next generation shouldn’t be left with less opportunities than the last, have successfully damaged the Tories credibility and left their claims that ‘we’re all it in together’ looking hollow and out of touch. Ed has reconnected Labour to an electorate who feel they’ve been left paying a heavy price for a crisis they didn’t cause. He’s earned the right for Labour to once again be heard. But the real test now is answering what responsible capitalism looks like and what it means for Labour to be fair but frugal? How will we rebuild an economy that isn’t geared towards the state stepping in where the market fails, but an economy that grows in a sustainable way in the first place. An economy that provides adequately for people and doesn’t expect the state to deliver the difference between wages and the cost of living. Ed has successfully built the overarching narratives no-one else was prepared to tackle, now he needs to bring those narratives to life with the policies that underpin them.” – Susan Nash is Chair of Young Labour

“Ed Miliband’s leadership has been at its strongest when he has challenged those at the top: whether it be taking on the Murdoch empire or the banks. It’s been at its weakest when he has failed to offer a coherent alternative to Tory policies. Austerity is in tatters as borrowing surges and growth is sucked out of the economy, but anger and frustration at the Coalition does not automatically translate into enthusiasm for the Labour Party. During the Labour leadership contest, Miliband accepted that Labour had lost because predominantly working-class voters had abandoned the party, often in favour of sitting on their hands – after all, in thirteen years in power, Labour lost five million votes, but the Tories only gained a million. Where Miliband has been most interesting has been his acknowledgement that New Labour accepted the political consensus established by Thatcherism (just as, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Tories had been forced to stand by the consensus established by Attlee). Miliband must accept that this never-ending crisis of capitalism opens the door to a genuinely transformative Labour government. But Labour activists and trade unionists must not leave fleshing out this radical alternative to those above – we must help create it ourselves.” – Owen Jones is a writer and columnist
“As a woman I have been pleased to see Ed’s commitment to equalities realised in the composition of his shadow cabinet. As an East Londoner I was proud of the Labour won Olympic games, and proud of our parties commitment to regeneration. We had the foresight and the vision. Now to deliver the legacy. As a socialist I am glad Ed questions the nature and structure of capitalism, speaks out against those who abuse the tax system and has made it possible to discuss openly and proudly the values we believe in and the fundamentals of equality, responsibility and social justice. As a Councillor I see the devastating effects of the government’s cuts and beg for Ed to keep speaking up louder and louder for our people.  Keep fighting Ed and be bold. We need change. Real serious change.” – Ellie Robinson is a Labour Councillor in Newham

“After two years, it is far from a ridiculous notion that Ed Miliband could be Prime Minister. In the past nine months, he has shown himself to be
capable at the skills of Opposition – standing up to his opponent in the Commons, fighting and winning tactical battles, presenting himself with
confidence in the media. Yet, it is a massive strategic victory that he is reaching for. That is not just about winning the next election. He wants to transform British capitalism. His task is to find a language to articulate this ambition. The rhetoric must be grounded in policy and smart politics too. Sometimes there will have to be concessions and compromises in order to safeguard the bigger idea. So Ed Miliband is through the ‘can he do it?’ phase of his leadership; he has passed that. The next phase must be about showing that he will ­ on a strategic level that ties vision to policy to politics.” – Anthony Painter is a political writer and commentator

“Two years ago, Ed’s victory played into a tried and tested media narrative – Red Ed, shift to the left, ruled by the unions and so forth. It was hard to see how he would escape the branding. But many now admit, from members of the lobby to sceptical backbenchers, that Ed has defied his critics and led the Labour Party to a strong position to win the next election. Ed has shown that he can lead by sticking to his principles while others urge caution, whether on the need for a judge led enquiry into phone hacking, a debate on responsible capitalism or scrutiny of the banks. The test for Ed during conference will be whether he can provide some practical policies which illustrate his vision so we can start to explain to the public why they can believe in Labour again and exactly what a Labour Government would do differently.” - Jess Asato is Labour’s PPC for Norwich North and formerly worked on David Miliband’s leadership campaign 

“Ed was elected to do Big Things with the Labour Party – ‘change to win’ was our motto for a reason. Ed was elected to turn the page on Iraq, end 42 day detention without trial, replace tuition fees with a graduate tax, and cease the marketisation of public services and the centralisation of our Party. Ed has used his first two years to make big intellectual arguments about the need for change in the economy and society. What is now needed is the policy agenda that enacts those ideas and the politics that delivers them. Simply put, Ed needs to construct an agenda as big as the 1945 moment that the 2015 election represents. To win that election Ed needs to show the political mettle he so ably demonstrated when he out-debated, out-organised and simply out-worked all his competitors to win the leadership. Now he’ll be judged on his fundraising numbers, his clarity of vision and his credibility as Prime Minister-in-waiting. I’ve no doubt he’ll succeed. And when he does, he can be the Prime Minster of a government that does Big Things. After all, that’s what politics is for.” – Marcus Roberts is Deputy General Secretary of the Fabian Society and was Field Director of Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign

“It is fitting that the second anniversary of Ed’s election is marked by him achieving the highest Labour lead in an ICM poll since Blair over IDS in May 2003. That’s because Ed has quietly, carefully reassembled the broad coalition that backed Blair before the Iraq War. He has healed divisions in the party and developed a unity of purpose, avoiding the splits that have historically always afflicted Labour after election defeats. He has intelligently developed a compelling narrative around the “squeezed middle” and “responsible capitalism” which addresses the times we live in and appeals to the centre-ground without being crude triangulation. He has done all this while staying un-spun and true to himself. I feel vindicated having campaigned for Ed – the Party and the country are now buying into the future PM I could see back in 2010. The naysayers and carping critics have been proved very wrong.” – Luke Akehurst is a councillor and member of Labour’s NEC.

“I remember two years ago today pretty well. It was the day I moved into university halls. No telly, no internet and with my preoccupation firmly upon making friends, I didn’t pay much attention to Ed Miliband’s win. I only found out when I received a text that simply read: “Well, at least Rovers won.” I did go so far as to ask my new housemates what they thought of Miliband, but their answers were non-committal. First day, eh? Since then Miliband’s managed to, finally, make the job his own. Anyone who thinks he won’t be leader come the next general election is living in a dream world, or at least has some sort of juicy Ed gossip of the kind I’m not privvy to. He’s had his wobbles (let’s hope this conference speech is better than the last) but he’s settled into the role. His PMQs performances are better and the Party at last seems to be more focussed on the Government than itself. At a TUC Congress fringe two weeks ago, Mehdi Hasan said that Ed Miliband is naturally a “cautious politician”. On that much, he’s right. And so far, that’ll do nicely. If we carry on like this I predict we’ll get a small, working majority in 2015. But Miliband trails Cameron in most personal pollings. If he builds on his growing confidence, becomes bolder, starts taking decision people see as “tough”, well… it could go either way, but it could well be the making of our next prime minister.” – Conor Pope

  • http://www.facebook.com/glynnparry Glen Parry

    you need to ask the grass roots of the party what i hear from the people labour very quiet including milliband .also many people are saying that labour have been suportive og goverment in passing legislation.might be all cosy at labour hq .but sound bites from the street labours message is not getting through .putting it bluntly you have not reengaged with the electorate

  • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

    Interesting how Ed presented himself as a candidate of the Liberal Left/soft left but then in fact actually took on a position as leader, which is basically identical to that of his brother. I hope he concentrates on using Conference as a time where he can sell himself to the country as the next Prime Minister and also present practical policies (fully detailed and costed) in order to properly regain the centre-ground where our elections are won and fought. Well done Ed!

    • Serbitar

      Wishful thinking. 

    • http://twitter.com/TomMillerUK Tom Miller

      “Interesting how Ed presented himself as a candidate of the Liberal
      Left/soft left but then in fact actually took on a position as leader,
      which is basically identical to that of his brother”

      Not really. Haven’t seen many attacks on the left, nor a big ‘we must accept the cuts’ narrative (if anything, Balls has been more guilty of this kind of triangulation). And there are fewer buzzwords without substance (‘Next Labour’ – eh? At least ‘predistribution means something).

      Second thing, who is to say that the centre is so far from the liberal left? From Iraq to banking and top rates of tax, old Blairite positions are now miles right of public sympathy – to the point where the man himself pops up in newspapers exhibiting worries about the public wanting to ‘hang bankers’ (as ludicrous as that evidently is).

      The times, they are a changin’.

      But then, they always are.

      I think this consensus has actually been moving ever since Iraq, and our first outsourcings of public services. Praise him for being in the centre by all means, but that’s simply where the liberal left was five years before.

      We have been waiting for those who are slow to accept that the centre is fluid and malleable. Welcome!

      Last of all, if you think you can shift media consensus for a labour party without the left feeling like it has a stake in behaving, good luck with that. Having the left (and socially minded liberals) on board have both been key planks to the success of Ed’s strategy since his election (and were indeed his natural support during the leadership election itself).

      My point is that this is *part* of winning the centre.

      Last of all, no good aiming for swing constituencies without decent turnout of your core vote, who still make up the bulk of Labour voters in those seats. It’s breadth that is needed. You need to cover the centre, but you can’t do it at the risk of your broader coalition if you hope to survive.

      I appreciate that your comment displays a sense of comfort and unity, but with respect I find it a bit reductionist.

      • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

        Firstly, on David Miliband ask yourself who was the first leadership candidate talking about ‘responsibility from top to bottom’, ‘a moral economy’, ‘a new economic model’ and ‘reforming the market and the state’? It was actually David Miliband. Who set up Movement for Change and took the lead on community organising which is now at the heart of the party’s organisation? David Miliband. Who talked about repeating the bonus tax and increasing the bank levy to fund growth policies? David Miliband. It was someone in the old David Miliband camp who brought ‘predistribution’ into Labour politics. Your comment on attacks on the left is ridiculous. From what I remember David never directly attacked the left as a leadership candidate, in fact he put Diane Abbott in the leadership contest even Paul Flynn and Dennis Skinner backed him. However, Ed’s refusal to back strikes, rejection of Len McCluskey’s prescription on the cuts, support for Progress would be widely seen as a veiled attack on the left. Also, your comment on the cuts is rather disturbing seen as all the leadership candidates accept deficit reduction and that includes, like it or not, spending cuts. No one disagrees with that. Ed Miliband as leader, has now been putting forward spending cuts should accept for eg. the pay freeze. 
        Secondly, on the Liberal Left. Now I think you are being very reductionist to what could be regarded as ‘Blairite positions’. You conveniently forget that Blair and New Labour introduced many socially liberal things such as civil partnerships, gay adoption, IVF rights, repealing Section 28 and on these issues we should go further such as introducing gay marriage. However, the idea that the Liberal Left is the centre ground is not actually true. If that was the case, Labour would not have won a majority in 2005 and there would have been enough seats for a Lib-Lab Coalition in 2010. The centre ground is very much on fiscal discipline, law and order, concern about immigration, respect for some traditions and decent public services (without great concern about the provider to a great extent). The Liberal Left do not understand that. The reason why we have gained the Liberal Left is because of the destruction of the Lib Dem vote.
        With no disrespect to you, I think you are completely oversimplifying the situation here.

        • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

          “who was the first leadership candidate talking about ‘responsibility from top to bottom’, ‘a moral economy’, ‘a new economic model’ and ‘reforming the market and the state’? It was actually David Miliband.”

          Thanks for that Renie, (assuming you’re correct) you’ve provided the evidence that shows how Labour’s centre-ground has moved significantly to the left.

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            I would not say significantly to the left but undoubtedly there has been much more criticism towards the market and the financial sector since the crash. It is a centre-left opportunity and it rejects extreme economic liberalism that has been the order of the day for all economies for about 30 years. It depends what you mean by ‘the left’. New Labour moved the centre ground significantly to the left anyway.

          • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

            “I would not say significantly to the left”

            But the ambitions/opinions you have associated with David M. would, five years ago, have been considered radically off-the-wall. Clearly there has been more than a small shift.

            And the shift is given striking emphasis by your own reference to the failed neo-liberal consensus (supported by New Labour) as a form of extremism.

            Today, in the overview provided by the contributors in the lead-off above, there’s even talk of Ed transforming capitalism, and no one bats as much as an eyelid.

            Goodness, I’m in need of a stiff drink…

          • AlanGiles

             This is why I feel it is essential for the Labour party to bring forward Crudas’s review. At the moment some in Labour feel there has been a significant change, while others like Renie, say with equal conviction, that the party is still more or less where it was in the New Labour days.

            If he is right in this assertion: “The point is that Ed Miliband cleverly talked about issues that those
            who voted Ed Balls and Diane Abbott would want to be talked about by
            going on this greeny, liberal, civil libertarian, soft-leftish, “Bye Bye
            New Labour” mode. In reality, it was just a strategy to get disaffected
            Lib Dems, he is just on the same page as his brother.”, he would appear to be saying that, in effect, Ed Miliband “tricked” left-wingers into voting for him.

            Now I don’t know whether or not this is true (though these days nothing surprises me). If Renie is right, it means that a lot of people were frankly misled, and that will do nothing to assist EM to inspire trust amongst a section of the party, a section which, though disliked in some quarters, would be needed to achieve a workable majority.

            The strategy at the moment of talking down every other party, and saying virtually nothing about concrete policy of their own, with just the carrot of Cruddas being used to urge everyone on, is pointless and frustrating for everybody: I see only mixed messages, and however much they try to keep the Mitchell affair going, and how naughty the LibDems are, nothing detracts from the fact that they HAVE to do this, to disguise the fact that at present Labour is a policy free zone.

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            It is very interesting you mention Jon Cruddas, who is widely admired by the liberal left, because he has said he is a small ‘c’ conservative, he was the one who borrowed ‘Family, Faith and Flag’, he has been pushing the need for immigration control, a concentration of Englishness and the fact Labour lost support to the Tories. I wouldn’t say they were misled. Ed concentrated on what mattered to the liberal left in many ways because he wanted to win. But there is more to him than that, much, much more and he is not Red Ed at all. New Labour as a party may not exist but New Labour as a sort of strategic structure is alive and well.

          • AlanGiles

            No Renie, I agree, I was one of those who completely dismissed the Red Ed nonsense on LL this day 2 years ago. Really only the tabloids went with that for any length of time, and a few LL posters.

            I hope, for everyones sake that some policies are soon sketched out, at least, then all wings of the party will know where they stand. You don’t expect every lost dot and “t” to be crossed 2 years before an election, but you should at least plan out the route map.

          • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

            “ I see only mixed messages,”

            I’d say that’s because there’s a careful balancing act to be performed – Ed’s trying to keep everyone on board – every one from far-right fundamentalists like Renie to level-headed centrist moderates like myself.

            But what a lot of ground we’ve covered in just a few years. Sure, as Renie points out, it all hangs on the Crash – leaders, it seems, nowadays are quite happy to let ‘events’ take the driving seat.

            But frankly, I’ve never expected any Labour leader to think outside of the consensus (and have never been disappointed) yet opinions that would have been outrageously radical only a few years ago are now accepted as common-sense.

            The pace of change is almost dizzying – and I haven’t had a drink yet.

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            I am a far-right fundementalist and you are a level-headed centrist moderate? Are you having a laugh or just trying to be wrong and offensive both at the same time?

          • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

            Well, I suppose I should’ve written ‘hard-right’, instead of ‘far-right’. Sorry about the mis-type. Certainly, no offense intended.

            Of course, it’s up to you what you do, but your preparedness to debate does suggest a willingness to think, so I’m hoping that one day you’ll come and join us on the centre-ground. No need to get lonely or become isolated.

            The door will always be open.

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            Hard-right fundementalist? You are on the centre ground?
            If you genuinely think I’m on the Right, then you belong in Respect! 

          • Alexwilliamz

            You might consider how you come across sometimes Renie….Afterall you seem happy to extrapolate other people’s comments well beyond what is intended.

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            Well it is a small shift and it is not radically off-the-wall at all. Nothing off-the-wall about repeating the bonus tax and increasing the bank levy, it is only right that those who were responsible for the Crash help pay to clear up the mess. Nothing radical about that. People are still where they are on crime, immigration, taxation (to a degree), public services, aspiration etc. Concern of the markets have just kicked in but that is no love for the state.
            You say New Labour supported neoliberalism. That is not actually true. Excessive economic liberalism (I called it ‘extreme’) was just accepted across the world, you can pin it on any political party. The idea was that you use the free market to fund investment in public services and help those who need it but you allow people to get rich. What has changed is that you realise that the free market is not everything and it can be unreliable. This was a global approach and it was a mistake.

        • http://twitter.com/TomMillerUK Tom Miller

          Argh, LL has totally mangled your paragraphs.  :-(

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            I’ll sort them out. ;-)

          • http://twitter.com/TomMillerUK Tom Miller

             ”Firstly, on David Miliband ask yourself who was the first leadership
            candidate talking about ‘responsibility from top to bottom’, ‘a moral
            economy’, ‘a new economic model’ and ‘reforming the market and the
            state’?”

            All phrases that deliberately avoid talking about what anything means though. For that reason I don’t understand how Ed can be said to have followed any of them, or not.

            They are not far from the sort of concepts you hear on the Thick of It?

            Have read Tangled up in Blue. Don’t particularly agree with a lot of it.

            Never said they weren’t from the same political tradition. I do think they are from different ends of the wonky metropolitan liberalish-left though.

            On Abbott, you’re correct, but there is no doubting that DM’s campaign did nothing to tackle its image as a trojan horse for the sectarian hard right of the party via Progress and the associated ultra-Blairites. What we have seen instead is a semi-reconciliation and an added tone of inclusiveness. I’m not saying that David couldn’t or wouldn’t have done this, but the people around him thrived on aggressively attacking the social democratic centre and broad left of the party, and I don’t think that can be denied.

            “Ed’s refusal to back strikes, rejection of Len McCluskey’s prescription
            on the cuts, support for Progress would be widely seen as a veiled
            attack on the left.”

            How about his support for Compass? Even many left figures tend not to comment on strikes.

            Ed’s scope is wide, not narrow. This is my point.

            “I mean if you seriously think that old Blairite positions are well to
            the right of the public, then presumably you think that most of the
            public is very leftwing or deeply – even to the left of – Old Labour
            which is not born out with any evidence at all in fact all evidence
            points the exact opposite direction.”

            Oh really? So when I used to get called a trot for believing in living wages that was a figment of my imagination? Condemnation of tax rising above 40% as a ‘tax on aspiration’ didn’t happen? Perhaps we didn’t adopt a light-touch approach to financial regulation, or ‘flexible’ approaches to the Labour market that have allowed mass easy firing since the crash?

            Do you really think the public have moved rightwards on this? No. We have lost loads of seats to Conservatives, and a large part of that was former Labour backers backing Coronation Street instead.

            ” You conveniently forget that Blair and New Labour introduced many
            socially liberal things such as civil partnerships, gay adoption, IVF
            rights, repealing Section 28 and on these issues we should go further
            such as introducing gay marriage.”

            How was it convenient? It just wasn’t remotely relevant. We all support those things.

            “However, the idea that the Liberal Left is the centre ground is not actually true.”

            Obviously. But the point you’re making is analogous to saying that I’m claiming black is white, which I am not.

            I am saying that what used to be the liberal left has now become ‘a new centre ground’, as Ed M puts it. A whole raft of substantive and neutrally sourced Fabian research backs this up across most policy areas.

            “If that was the case, Labour would not have won a majority in 2005 and
            there would have been enough seats for a Lib-Lab Coalition in 2010.”

            Do you contend that Gordon Brown was a likable guy? That thirteen years of meddling with services, stuff like cash for peerages and expenses, and dodgy wars had nothing to do with it? Asserting this is a hoc ergo propter hoc argument, i.e. that “the proof is in the pudding, I don’t have any evidence, but look at this pudding”.

            On the war points, it’s ceased to be a battlefield precisely because the left has essentially achieved a victory in the battle, and the troops have packed up and gone home.

            This once again goes back to my point, which is basically that the centre moves, and some battles are moved on from. Political territory is temporary – which direction you’re committed to moving in takes a kind of precedence over what you happen to arbitrarily believe for now…

            This is why I personally do not see myself as centrist, because while I may adapt beliefs to the centre, I am interested in moving the centre in a particular direction overall, and in gaining greater control over the ‘common sense’, because this can change radically even in five years.

            In some ways you are right, especially on law and order, which is understandable. But in many ways, the liberal left of yesterday is the centre of today, and Ed’s leadership has helped to cement that transition, even from the opposition benches – particularly on the press, banking and markets, cuts (to an extent), and taxation.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

            Elements of the ‘old centre’ of the new Labour years remain – but important new ones, as well as the success of some of New Labour’s policies (e.g. EMA)  have broadened its appeal leftwards and begun to move the window.

            For that to work, it is necessary to have public voices who will acknowledge that the window needs to change, and when it has. David identified only half-thought, sketchy ways in which old settlements had ceased to function – which makes the election of his brother important.

            .

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            Interesting.
            In a leadership contest, you do not tend to go full steam ahead with drafting an entire manifesto but you do give flavours. What was said about a new economic model is precisely what Ed has followed.

            I am glad you read Tangled Up in Blue but it is not some sort of policy paper or book with ideas, it is just an account of Blue Labour and the two brothers’ campaigns. In it you’ll find they are basically politically identical but have both come from two different places in the New Labour atmosphere.

            I would not describe Progress as part of the ‘hard-right of the party’. Again, that is way too simplistic and gives a negative impression which could be avoided. No one can be a pure Blairite, really. There are always nuances on different issues.

            On Compass, even David Miliband spoke supportively of Compass. Hazel Blears attending their opening Conference. Chuka Ummuna, is the old darling of Compass. Jon Cruddas backed David Miliband. Compass is a forum on the centre-left/leftwing. I am not defending Compass, I am huge fan of Compass because of its insistance on too much pluralism in regards to the Lib Dems but there are people from across the party who are interested in a lot of what it has to say, its ideas and campaigns.

            Now on the ‘old Blairite positions’, most (in fact all) Blairites from Rob Marchant to Richard Angell back the living wage, the question is how you implement it and most people for economic reasons are opposed to it being statutory which I agree with. On taxation, Ed Miliband has made it very clear that the top rate of tax should not exceed 50%. You should remember that when Blair was Prime Minister, we did not have a financial crash and a massive deficit. We have to increase the marginal top rate of tax because the deficit and we have to accept that reforming our markets is needed because of what has happened to our markets. But again simplifying it to left/right is wrong.

            The point on civil partnerships, is that you seem to imply that New Labour is not socially liberal. Many aspects of New Labour was socially liberal, some would say too socially liberal even though there are some on the Liberal Left who argue that New Labour was completely authoritarian and socially conservative.

            Now you can argue that there are socially people who are centrists but you are denying that there are people concerned with immigration, taxation, crime etc. where the Liberal Left are very uncomfortable. The Fabian research shows that there are socially liberal attitudes emerging within the centre ground but the liberal left is on the liberal left, it is not centrist.

            I think this comment is disturbing. “Do you contend that Gordon Brown was a likable guy? That thirteen years of meddling with services, stuff like cash for peerages and expenses, and dodgy wars had nothing to do with it?”
            I do not know whether Brown was a likeable guy, probably not from what I hear. Now if you want to thrash New Labour’s record fine. But we did the so-called “meddling with services” before 2005 and we gained a majority, in fact satisfaction in the NHS went up. We did the “dodgy war” in 2003, we won the 2005 election. Now expenses and cash for peerages is something to do with the whole crisis of politics. The fact is New Labour delivered and people gave it three terms, though lessons can be learnt, we should not apologise for it. The idea that we lost seats to the Tories because Labour voters were watching Corrie, is laughable. Labour voters were voting Tory as well as Lib Dem. Many of them. Hundreds of them, in places were turnout increased. It is foolish to say, the reason why seats like Watford, Pudsey, Harlow or indeed South Thanet went Tory is not because there were Labour voters, voting Tory.

            The point is that Ed Miliband cleverly talked about issues that those who voted Ed Balls and Diane Abbott would want to be talked about by going on this greeny, liberal, civil libertarian, soft-leftish, “Bye Bye New Labour” mode. In reality, it was just a strategy to get disaffected Lib Dems, he is just on the same page as his brother.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            In that case, why did he stand? If it was purely personal ambition, then reason to be suspicious. But as he has always said – there were and are differences of ideas and approach and that’s why he stood this time

        • http://twitter.com/dan_mccurry Dan McCurry

          Predistribution was spoken about by me in Oct 2010 on Progress, although I hadn’t given it that confusing name. 
          http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2010/10/28/the-sixth-estate/ 

  • Carolekins

    As a returning LP member, I  voted for Ed and I think he’s done pretty well. He’s stuck his neck out in attacking Murdoch and in taking on predatory capitalism.  His difficulty is in walking the tightrope between New Labour and whatever comes next: we do have the opportunity now to yank round the horse’s head and point it towards goals of fairness and equality.  Never thought it would happen this soon.

  • Jeremy_Preece

    Can’t you just tell that these comments have been gathered from those inside the party. Sadly the fact is that the polls show that EM has a public satisfaction rating of -29 while the dreaded Cameron has – 21. All pretty dire and depressing really if you like democracy. Little wonder that the Tories have to be really really bad to fall behind is it?

    For me the most worrying statistic is that 37% of the electorate (according to yougov) think that Cameron is awful and wrecking the country, however they would rather him than dear Ed. This makes Ed an electoral liability, and it makes any lead that we have very fragile and likely to melt away.

    We really need those who run our party to step outside and see how it looks to ordinary voters. I really want to be wrong on this, but I can see us replacing Ed when we loose the next election.

    We all know that Ed lacks the charisma to punch his message home and drive it through the media. Many on these pages say that it is about policies and not personality, although I believe that both are needed to really win.  My point is that as yet no one can say what these polices and position actaully is, and the real problem is that whenever the Tories are criticised for their devisive and appauling running of the country all we hear is “and what would Labour do about it?” and even “your lot are no better and in fact worse” and “you lot picked the wrong leader”. By the way these are not my comments but simply the ones I have heard on the doorsteps when canvassing in May this and last year.

    By the way, stuff what the selected party faithful say on these pages, what do the voting public think and what is the Labour leadership actually saying to them?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1656171834 Tony Surr

      Absolutely spot on Jeremy, two disastrous leaders in a row now from a party that seems to lack the insight to see itself as the voters see it. Shout into the Labour List echo chamber by all means that Labour is ahead in the polls; when it comes to an election though I fear Ed’s lead will disappear like spring snow.    

    • Alexwilliamz

      They are asking what his policies are? When the time comes we shall see. Outside the political world, most people take little interest in leaders of the opposition full stop. You may be right, his image at present may not be strong, but I don’t get the feeling it is negative. It is more than he ‘looks like a geek’ and with most people not reading or even hearing of his speeches they have no other meat to put on the bones, some of his early interviews and gaffes have not helped. But he has been getting stronger, becoming more confident and winning many of those who had question marks about him around in the party. With the coverage of an election campaign he may surprise people and the public may see what some of us have started to see.

      • Jeremy_Preece

        Alex, I would agree that Ed M has been winning people over in the party, and that is fine. What matters is the electorate and here his image is not good. Yougov shows that he is rated less than Cameron. Yougov also shows that if Boris led the Tories then the Labour lead would be wiped out.
        For those of us with local elections to fight next May, this does not give a warm feeling. It is also a problem if you have to knock on doors and in discussion about how and why the coalition is so horrendous you cannot give an answer to the questio “what would Labour do about x”.

        I don’t think that Ed is bad, just a bit of a lightweight and lacking the decisive leadership qualities. Let’s hope that the conference goes well and that there are some directions that come out of it. 

        • Alexwilliamz

          Indeed there is a question mark over Ed, I was simply pointing to the fact that he is getting better and that the people on the street are just not going to get a bigger picture of Ed till they start having to make their actual mind up, at which point we will find the answers. I absolutely understand the doorstep problem and I think the conference has to be the one when some general direction is provided, because at the moment everyone believes that their views could become Labour policy. This will be when decisive leadership is required, Ed is going to have to disappoint some parts of the party at some point, the challenge will be to carry them with him and then get the message out.

  • pamfellows1947

    I agree that non labour party members do not have a very positive view of Ed Miliband.  At the moment they feel as if there is no real opposition.  It worries me because the thought of this lot getting re-elected is too awful to contemplate.  Policies should be the most important issue, but personality does come into it.  Michael Foot is a case in point I think he would have been an excellent Prime Minister but his image did not suit the public

  • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

    He stood because he wanted to be Leader of the Labour Party and believed that he would be a better Prime Minister than his brother. That is all. If he felt that David would make a better leader or PM, then he would have not stood. They are absolutely both on the same page politically. It is like asking why did Liam Fox stand against David Davis in the 2005 leadership contest?

    • http://twitter.com/TomMillerUK Tom Miller

      It’s an interesting interpretation which bears up well to scrutiny, and is well argued on your part.

      Having done some volunteering inside the campaign, I think there are small elements of it, but from my own experience I would say that Ed was genuinely more interested in engaging with and winning support from the ‘modern left’ of the party than any of the others – Diane included.

      I think my line is that they are different, but not as different as some of the craziness of the last two years would indicate – particularly those who were going for coffees with ex-ministers aiming to get some kind of ‘depose Ed’ campaign going.

      He and David are the left and right flanks of a similar think-tank rooted social democracy.

  • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

    Michael Foot would not have been an excellent PM. Ed is not unlikeable amongst the public, but they have yet to get him. I hope Ed Miliband will use Conference to start setting out more policies and to convince people that the choice is between two broken leaders who have failed on economic policies and let down their electorate.

    • pamfellows1947

      I am not saying Ed Miliband is unlikeable, I have met him and like him, but non party members seem unimpressed.  As you say let us hope that he uses the Conference to convince people that he is a good alternative.  He doesn’t need to convince me he would be be preaching to the converted.  It is the voters who say all politicians are the same who need to have faith in him.

      • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

        Well it is the voters who we have lost to the Tories and the Lib Dems too.

  • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

    Oh right! I read it in the Purple Book at that is what the Wikipedia entry said anyway.

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      You’ll find a useful predistribution perspective here*, written by Stewart Lansley, author of the excellent The Cost of Inequality**

      *http://shiftinggrounds.org/2012/09/pre-distribution-must-be-a-turning-point-for-labour/

      **http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cost-Inequality-Stewart-Lansley/dp/1908096292/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348687640&sr=1-1

      • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

        And in the ‘far-right fundementalist’ Purple Book, in Tristram Hunt’s chapter. Oh by the way, that is the same book which was backed by Ed Miliband, in fact he contributed too!

      • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

        And in the ‘far-right fundementalist’ Purple Book, in Tristram Hunt’s chapter. Oh by the way, that is the same book which was backed by Ed Miliband, in fact he contributed too!

  • Jeremy_Preece

    Thanks Tony. We hear the phrase “the Westminster bubble” banded about on this website, and its meaning is clear. I think that there is a Labour Party bubble.
    I joined Labour in Nov 2010 and so I can see it as the electorate see it.

    There are many very dear people, good  people, who have been memebers of the party for years, and they seem to think that the answer to everything is to look inwards to the committees and internal processes. It is only the electorate that actaully matter if we are to get back in in 2015. Labour must look outwards.
    As the coalition mess up Britian Labour has to be there fighting, nbot leaving it to 38 degrees and other groups while Labour ponders over its future.

    So Labour are about 10 or 12 points ahead. With Cameron’s appauling record, if we were in good shape that would be between 20 and 25 points. I don’t just want to speak into the LbaourList echo chamber (as you put it) I want to scream -”wake up and look at the figures – look at how our leader is connecting with the public before you congratulate yourselves.

  • Jeremy_Preece

    Thanks Tony. We hear the phrase “the Westminster bubble” banded about on this website, and its meaning is clear. I think that there is a Labour Party bubble.
    I joined Labour in Nov 2010 and so I can see it as the electorate see it.

    There are many very dear people, good  people, who have been memebers of the party for years, and they seem to think that the answer to everything is to look inwards to the committees and internal processes. It is only the electorate that actaully matter if we are to get back in in 2015. Labour must look outwards.
    As the coalition mess up Britian Labour has to be there fighting, nbot leaving it to 38 degrees and other groups while Labour ponders over its future.

    So Labour are about 10 or 12 points ahead. With Cameron’s appauling record, if we were in good shape that would be between 20 and 25 points. I don’t just want to speak into the LbaourList echo chamber (as you put it) I want to scream -”wake up and look at the figures – look at how our leader is connecting with the public before you congratulate yourselves.

Latest

  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is party politics dying out?

    Is party politics dying out?

    This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]

    Read more →