Miliband's conference speech: what the papers say

What the commentators have to say about the Labour leader's speech in Liverpool yesterday.

Guardian

Jonathan Freedland says that the content of Miliband's speech was spot on, but that it doesn't matter because the public think he is "weird".

Ed Miliband did what the professional speechwriters always say you should do. He presented an argument, rather than a laundry list. He did not dole out random policy nuggets, with a bit on foreign policy thrown in, in order to touch every base. Instead he made a case, arguing that the values cherished by British society are not reflected in the ethics that underpin our economy.

. . .

Put simply, my fear is that you can make all the speeches and policy statements you like - carefully devising a strategy on this and crafting a narrative on that - but what matters more are shallow considerations of looks, demeanour, speech patterns and biography. That, in short, it is personality, not policy, that counts.

Times

Daniel Finkelstein (£) agrees that one of Miliband's main problems is the public's initial reaction to him -- drawing a comparison to William Hague -- but adds that he is too left-wing.

Instant reaction to Ed Miliband may not be fair (I don't think it is) but it is very powerful. Shown clips of the Labour leader, focus groups members start shaking their heads and saying "no". When asked what they think about having him as prime minister, they often laugh.

. . .

I don't believe that Mr Miliband is very left-wing, just that he is a tiny bit too left-wing. A leader can't fake his basic politics . . . He is reasonable and moderate, but he is also firmly a social democrat, steeped in the writings of the Left, accepting much of its analysis and regarding equality as his priority. And so, inevitably, he will shift the party to the left. That's what he did in his speech. . . Elections are won on the centre ground, and the centre ground is where it is, not where you want it to be.

Independent

Yes, Miliband did move to the left in this speech, says Steve Richards -- but this was a brave move. Its success depends on whether he can match it with concrete policy suggestions.

His speech had similarities with the one made by Cameron early in his leadership in which he set out why he was an optimist, wanting to let the sun shine through. I recall writing against virtually every paragraph of that address a one word question: How? Miliband's speech was similarly light on policy. What form would his more active state take? The biggest challenge always in politics is to link values with precise policy commitments that have broad appeal. In identifying the ending of the old lightly regulated era, Miliband moves with the tide of history, a break at least as big as the collapse of the old corporatist consensus in the late-1970s. That is the easy bit. Coming up with policies that unite his party and appeal to voters is much more challenging.

Telegraph

Predictably, the Telegraph does not find much to comment in Miliband's speech. An editorial argues that his ideas were wrong (except where he praised Margaret Thatcher) and that he missed an opportunity to rethink the centre-left.

Overall, Mr Miliband's demand for a new morality in public life has an alarmingly authoritarian edge. In the one rather startling outburst of honesty, he praised the Thatcher reforms of the Eighties - the sale of council houses, the deep cuts in tax rates, the new trade union laws - but then asserted that these reforms were often "based on the wrong values". That is sheer sophistry.

. . .

In truth, yesterday represented a retreat into the comfort zone: the loud boos that greeted the mention of Tony Blair - Labour's most successful leader by far - showed that clearly enough. Mr Miliband had the opportunity to show that he is bringing fresh and radical thinking to the centre-Left. He flunked it.

Financial Times

John Kay identifies a broader challenge facing the left, which Miliband must tackle if he wants to regain office:

Few voters were ever much interested in the old rhetoric of socialism, and they have equally little interest in the new rhetoric of rights. Support forsocial security is based not on recognition of claims to entitlement but on considerations of solidarity, sympathy and desert - there but for the grace of God go I.

. . .

So there is a division within parties of the left between those who cherish human rights, multi-culturalism and the environment, and the majority of their supporters.

 

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

However Labour do on Thursday, Jeremy Corbyn's still the right leader

When the Blairites talk about winning by appealing to the country, what do they mean?

Commentators have spent the last few weeks predicting exactly what will happen on Thursday and, more importantly, what the results will mean. One thing is certain: no matter what the Labour party achieves, Jeremy Corbyn’s position is safe. Not only is the membership overwhelmingly supportive of the leader, but also Blairites would be foolish to launch an attack with the European referendum just over a month away.

So whatever happens on Thursday, Jeremy Corbyn’s position will be as secure as it is at this exact moment in time. I want to go further than explaining simply why whatever happens on Thursday will not spell the end for the Labour leader by arguing why, in any case, it should not.

Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party with an astonishing mandate. Paid-up Labour party members, Labour supporters and Labour affiliates gave this to him. Polling consistently showed that the ability to ‘win’ elections was not the reason people voted for Jeremy. I don’t think that the Labour leader’s opponents are accurate in suggesting that this is because Labour supporters are self-confessed losers. In many ways we are the realists.

I am perfectly aware of the current political ground. The country is largely opposed to accepting more refugees. People who rely on state benefits have been stigmatised. Discrimination is rampant within our society. A majority of people are found to oppose immigration. So when the Blairites talk about winning by appealing to the country, what do they mean exactly? I’m sure that even Liz Kendall would not have mounted an election campaign that simply appealed to the way issues were seen in the polls.

Jeremy Corbyn inherited an uphill battle; he didn’t create it. Anyone who suggests so is shamelessly acting so as to discredit his leadership. Labour’s message is of equality and solidarity. Our party proudly stands as an institution that seeks to pull down the barriers that bar the less privileged from achieving. But when the nation is gripped by the fear of the ‘other’ and man has been pitted against woman in a war of all against all how can Labour’s message break through?

The answer is time. Labour needs time to rebuild and assess the situation on the ground. Labour needs time to talk to people. Labour needs time to change the frame of the debate and the misleading narrative that the Tories are proud to spout because it wins them votes. The Labour party is better than that. We have to be better than that. If we are not then what is the point in the Labour party at all?

The idea that Jeremy Corbyn could possibly change the entire narrative of the nation in 8 months is laughable. But he has started to. People have seen through the Tory lies of helping those in work get on. People have seen the government cut support for the poor while giving to the rich. At the same time they have been fed lies about the Labour leader. Jeremy Corbyn is an extremist. Jeremy Corbyn is too radical. Jeremy Corbyn is a friend of terrorists. Jeremy Corbyn wants to disband the army. Jeremy Corbyn wants to talk to ISIS. Jeremy Corbyn hates Britain. And so on.

In such an environment how is it surprising that after just 8 months Labour may not make huge gains across the country? It is likely that people will call for Jeremy to resign. When they do, ask what Andy, Liz or Yvette would have done differently. They would have needed time too.  

Liam Young is a commentator for the IndependentNew Statesman, Mirror and others.