The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Miliband's conference speech: what the papers say

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

By Samira Shackle Published 28 September 2011 9:42

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.

Tags: Party Conferences 2011 Ed Miliband Labour

More from Samira Shackle

2 comments

Wed, 2011-09-28 13:15 — elrob

Steve Richards has it right: 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.
---------
This was always what Miliband was about for anyone listening attnetively enough. He has found a moment in histry that seems to come round every 30 years or so.

The eno-classical model of economy collapsed on Wall Street in 1929, and the neo-classical reaction plunged the world into darkness culminating in the deadliest war in history. In the 1940s tyhe call was "nevwer again". A new model rose, in Britain led by the Labour PArty. Full employment, mixed economy, Bretton Woods managed world trade rules, strong and effective regulation of financial markets, a welfare state based on full or near-full employmnet. It brought expanding wealth and hugely improved living stabndards for the working classes (home onwership, homes with inside toilets, then various domestic goods, holdays switched from Blackpool or the Pier Head to Mallorca and the Costa del Sol).

But it became broken by the 1970s. And it was though history demanded change. Thatcher/Reagan brought it, and a new consensus has ruled for another 30 years.

You may not like or agree with Miliband, but undoubtedly this is brave and pioneering stuff. From the wreckage of neoliberalism,, there is a chance for the centre left to provide an alternative model. The banking crisis has ruined the country far more deeply than most commentators notice. For example, extraordinarily expensive houses are often considered a good thing. So it is a good thing to bankrupt a new generation?

Wealth has been redistributred from workers to bankers (they are the only ones to truly be enriched by ballooning debt); from the young to the old. The model is discredited.

Two problems remain for Miliband. Policy; the devil will be in the detail. Thatcher/Reagan could look to a slighly more sophisticated free market model than that of 1929 via Hayek and Friedman. Labour stuill only seems to have Keynes. IT needs a Keynes plus.

the second problem is luck. Thatchser may never have happened had Callaghan called the election in the autumn of 1978. The march of History requires some luck. And the next election will still mostly be decided by the economy, and the present lot have three years to play with.

The new model for me should be about ending the dependence on debt (Private sector debt). At the time of the credit crunch, when banks no longer trusted each other and stopped lending to each other (Aug 2007). UK govt debt was a little over 40% of GDP (about 55% if PFI were included), private sector debt amounted to some 350% of GDP (personla, corporate and banking). The debt crisis has morphed into govt debt crisis, but that was never the source.

Steve Richards has it right: 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.
---------
This was always what Miliband was about for anyone listening attentively enough. He has found a moment in history that seems to come round every 30 years or so.

The neo-classical model of economy collapsed on Wall Street in 1929, and the neo-classical reaction plunged the world into darkness culminating in the deadliest war in history. In the 1940s tyhe call was "never again". A new model rose, in Britain led by the Labour Party. Full employment, mixed economy, Bretton Woods managed world trade rules, strong and effective regulation of financial markets, a welfare state based on full or near-full employment. It brought expanding wealth and hugely improved living standards for the working classes (home ownership, then homes with inside toilets, then various domestic goods, holidays switched from Blackpool or the Pier Head to Mallorca and the Costa del Sol).

But the consensus and system became broken by the 1970s. And it was though History demanded change. Thatcher/Reagan brought it, and a new consensus has ruled for another 30 years.

You may not like or agree with Miliband, but undoubtedly this is brave and pioneering stuff. From the wreckage of neoliberalism, there is a chance for the centre left to provide an alternative model. The banking crisis has ruined the country far more deeply than most commentators notice. For example, extraordinarily expensive houses are often considered a good thing. So it is a good thing to bankrupt a new generation? Either banks will be zombies for a decade as their balance sheets collapse, the young (up to 40 and including the Middle classes) will have to bring up families in six-month tenancy deals, or take on onerous debt levels (think about house price debt plus uni debts in future – eye watering), or inflation will have to be unleashed to destroy the value of money (and people’s savings).

Wealth has been redistributed from workers to bankers (they are the only ones to truly be enriched by ballooning debt); from the young to the old. The model is discredited.

Two problems remain for Miliband. Policy; the devil will be in the detail. Thatcher/Reagan could look to a slightly more sophisticated free market model than that of 1929 via Hayek and Friedman. Labour still only seems to have Keynes. IT needs a Keynes plus.

The second problem is luck. Thatcher may never have happened had Callaghan called the election in the autumn of 1978. The march of History requires some luck. And the next election will still mostly be decided by the economy, and the present lot have three years to play with.

The new model for me should be about ending the dependence on debt (Private sector debt). At the time of the credit crunch, when banks no longer trusted each other and stopped lending to each other (Aug 2007). UK govt debt was a little over 40% of GDP (about 55% if PFI were included), private sector debt amounted to some 350% of GDP (personal, corporate and banking). The debt crisis has morphed into govt debt crisis, but that was never the source.

A living wage will help get the country off credit cards and equity release. In a consumer economy it would boost spending power without debt (pro-business), and for exporters/manufacturers, I would cut employer NI tax to help companies fund higher wages. This should be an exciting time for the economics profession. It has been caught out, and proven seriously wrong (markets do not regulate themselves). The profession has yet to show it has the capacity to for new ideas. That is its and Labour's task.

Wed, 2011-09-28 13:17 — elrob

And on luck. It is a pity that the man with the courage to take this mammoth task on is such a poor performer on stage. We will have to accept it, and I do not think it such a problem in a TV debtate.