« | Home | »

Miliband’s Problems

Tags: | |

Speeches at party conferences normally do not have a long life, since they are designed for immediate effect. Ed Miliband’s speech was an exercise in showmanship and self-projection and as such was fairly successful. Whether it will linger in the memory is another matter. But it rallied the troops and partly disarmed the press – which is as much as he could hope for.

Miliband has two problems; himself and policy. Although his speech was intended especially to deal with the first there is, in fact, not much he can do about that. Opposition leaders are nearly always less popular than prime ministers; but it is not a great disadvantage. James Callaghan was more popular than Margaret Thatcher – by some margin – but it did not save him in 1979. Nor should Miliband try too hard to be ‘ordinary’. Many voters after all do not like politicians who are just like them. David Cameron is thus thought more ‘prime ministerial’ than Miliband even though nearly two-thirds of the electorate think he cannot be trusted to devise the right economic policies – or much else. Miliband is actually a rather attractive figure who at the moment has history on his side: coalition government is clearly not working at almost any level. He should not try to be what he is not. If anything, he should work on his geekishness which is likely in the long term to be more acceptable than Cameron’s ‘prime ministerial’ smoothness.

As to policy his speech was right to be detail-lite. Nobody knows what the situation will be in two and a half years and promises made now can later be real embarrassments. What a conference speech can do is to emphasise the spirit and direction of policy, which, on the whole, Miliband has done. He should not, however, regard ‘One Nation’ as other than a rhetorical ploy – as it was for the Tories, who never governed equitably in the interests of the whole nation. Who can? New Labour’s attempts to do so did not end happily. Sooner or later Miliband will have to be more open as to who exactly the ‘nation’ is. Are City gents as much members of the nation as those on welfare benefit? And are they to be treated as equitably as those on benefit? One would think that some City gents should reap what they have sown – but not many in parliament think that. Miliband has shown signs that he does see the problem, and he should follow his instincts. But all around him are the siren voices of the Blairites telling him that nothing can be done, and that no one should be alienated, except the unions and the poor. He should ignore them. If he thinks it is necessary to tell the union leaders in public that they are just one sectional interest then he should ensure that is not what he tells them in private.

Comments on “Miliband’s Problems”

  1. Phil Edwards says:

    Some have been sniffy about the way the commentariat leapt on this particular bit of rhetoric – unceremoniously ditching their earlier portrayals of Ed M in the process – but I think it is a significant moment: this just might be a stick with which Labour could effectively beat the Conservatives. It’s sad to consider just how far to the Right Miliband has had to tack before he hit upon something that could seem appropriately serious (“predistribution” clearly didn’t hack it), but look on the bright side – he has ticked the ‘serious’ box now, and to some extent taken the political initiative. Besides, that speech also contained some classic Tory-bashing (and Murdoch-bashing, which is not at all New Labour) – for which I think much can be forgiven.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • pgillott on Wishful Thinking about Climate Change: Phrases like “monumental triumph” and (particularly) “renaissance for humankind” are overdoing it, but to suggest that there is no chance of ...
    • UncleShoutingSmut on Goodbye, Circumflex: Unfortunately this post is likely to leave readers with a very partial idea of what is going on. Firstly, there is no "edict": all that has happened i...
    • martyn94 on The Price of Everything: If it's a joke at anyone's expense, it's surely at the expense of any super-rich who take it seriously. I used to skim it occasionally as a diversion ...
    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement