No one likes Ed Miliband. But he doesn't care.

Those wanting definition from Ed Miliband will have to wait no longer

By Dan Hodges Published 27 September 2011 16:43

Followers of Millwall football club have a favourite chant. "No one likes us", they sing, "but we don't care". It is defiant. Aggressive. Invariably uttered in support of a losing cause.

This week's Labour conference has emitted a similar roar. Ed Ball's unwavering defence of the economic agenda rejected so overwhelmingly at the last election. Ivan Lewis' bravura assault on the media barely hours before they passed judgment on his leader.

The political rule book was being torn up in front of our eyes, even before Ed Miliband arrived on stage. He did so with the opinion polls snapping at his heels and the electorate uncertain of his agenda, or even his identity. No matter. "We just can't get enough", was the tune pumped out to delegates in the minutes before he strode onto the stage. You may not like Ed Miliband. But we don't care.

The old game plan for Labour in opposition was clear. Ingratiate yourself with big business. Embrace aspiration. Rub shoulders easily with the establishment. Tony Blair wanted everyone to like him, and went to extraordinary lengths to ensure they did.

Ed Miliband rose. He was speaking from Liverpool; "Labour Liverpool". Large swathes of the country had turned blue 18 months ago. Not Liverpool. Liverpool likes Labour. It doesn't care.

His predecessors had abided by the golden rule of British politics. Don't mess with Rupert Murdoch. Not Ed. "I'm going to do things my own way", he intoned; "Nobody ever changed anything on the basis of consensus. Or wanting to be liked".

The nation had been rent asunder by riots. David Cameron had threatened to call in the army, fire plastic bullets, bring out the water cannon. The polls showed most people supported him. But not Ed. "I'm not with the Prime Minister", he said, "I will never write off whole parts of the country by calling them sick". People may want rioters thrown out of their council houses. Ed doesn't care.

New Labour had stood alongside vested interests. Ed wouldn't. The energy companies. The banks. Fred Goodwin. Ed doesn't like them. And he doesn't care who knows it.

His predecessors had kept their hands off big business. No longer. "When I am Prime Minister, how we tax, what government buys, how we regulate, what we celebrate will be in the service of Britain's producers", he warned, "And don't let anyone tell you that is the anti-business choice". He'd be a hands on Prime Minister. Business may not like it. By why should he care? "I will take on vested interests wherever they are because that is how we defend the public interest".

People have been calling for definition from Ed Miliband. Today they got it. They have been calling for a narrative. From now on, they will be able to read it. They have been demanding strategy. From today they will be able to follow it.

New Labour's brand of neo-liberal conservatism has been formally buried. Liberal, socially progressive interventionism is the new way. The Ed Miliband way.

"I am not Tony Blair" he said. The audience cheered. The rest of the country used to like Tony Blair. So what. Ed Miliband doesn't care.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Ed Miliband

More from Dan Hodges

30 comments

Tue, 2011-09-27 23:11 — Tristan (not verified)

Dan,

How was Ed Balls' economics "rejected" at the last election? The LDs campaigned on the same economic policy as Labour! So in fact a slower pace of deficit reduction was in fact the wish of the *majority* of the electorate.

Tue, 2011-09-27 23:39 — David (not verified)

This has to be one of the most facile pieces I have ever read.

Thu, 2011-09-29 00:50 — mary8

I like Ed Miliband and I never liked Tony Blair. Okay, I voted for Labour in all elections, in spite of Blair, not because of him. I wonder how many Labour supporters feel the same way?

Wed, 2011-09-28 00:06 — Ciaran (not verified)

Ed Milliband - a pathetic excuse for a labour leader . I am in my late thirties and find that man so out of toch with reality it is not true. If he is labour leader at the next election he will make Foot look like Blair circa 1997 Kinnock endorsed him what do you expect.

Wed, 2011-09-28 00:58 — yuccaplant (not verified)

Ed Mi will never be PM i've said it from day one this speech did nothing to change that view.

It;s ging to be a long 8 years.

Wed, 2011-09-28 02:45 — PoliticalTrannie

Dan Hodges

And your point is? At least he cares about the party. You seem to care about your New Labour's brand of neo-liberal conservatism and your inamorato Blair. Do we care?

Wed, 2011-09-28 08:38 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Get your heads out of the sand "Good business bad business" what the hell is that about? they both employ and pay taxes mostly. Ed Miliband is the natural heir to Michael Foot. Ed Balls the the new Gordon Brown and if Labour don't wake up to that soon they'll be out of power for years.

Thu, 2011-09-29 11:46 — Marcus (not verified)

@Mary - History will tell you, not many.

Thu, 2011-09-29 11:47 — Robert Taggart

@Charles Wright.
Anti-semitism - for simply mentioning his faith ?
'Donky' - how would characterise a place that always votes for the candidate, irrespective of their 'details', who just happens to wear the red rosette ?
'Private' education - what about all those after school 'tutorials' ?
He be anything but 'one of the people' not to mention 'normal' !

Wed, 2011-09-28 10:59 — Graeme (not verified)

People on here saying they cannot imagine Ed M as PM simply make me laugh. A lot of people couldn't imagine Thatcher as PM or - for God's sake - John Major. It is all just hot air.

All those commenting here should start by saying who they will vote for.

Okay ... I will be voting labour, and it makes no difference, Ed or David or Diane. Because, love or hate it, there is no other alternative.

Thu, 2011-09-29 12:26 — Giles (not verified)

I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal and in my late 30's. I'm also economically literate.

I voted for Blair in 97' as I viewed Major's government as tired and ultimately bad for the country. Blair looked fresh, he appealed as a modern leader for modern times, and I believed Labour when they said they'd maintain 'prudence' with our economy.

I felt - like many middle of the road floating voters - betrayed as the trust I placed in Labour was abused, more and continually intrusive laws. 2 examples typify this: EMA (for Christ's sake I put myself through 6th form and university without any support- I worked in the evenings and at weekends - and despite my name, I grew up in a single parent household of four kids) why can others not do this. Childrens Trust funds - why do my millionaire bosses recieve this? What an utter waste of money...

I felt gradually more and more betrayed. And then Gordon Brown came to power - probably the most divisive negative person in recent UK politics. And then the deficit.

As such - I, and the majority of voters have lost faith in Labour. It's gone away from the values I espouse - both socially and liberally. In fact we've not just lost faith, I feel angry, and have promised not to vote for them again.

So, knowing this - what do Labour do about it? Do they critically assess themselves and reply honestly to the electorate - we've done wrong, we will change? Or do they turn inwards - put Balls in charge of their economic opposition, decry the most successful leader they've ever had?

Until Labour wakes up (and I doubt this will happen under the current leadership) they will not have my vote again.

Wed, 2011-09-28 11:51 — Robert Taggart

With a moron electorate in 'Donky' North he has no worries and no cares.
How cheeky can you be ?...
A North London born and bred, middle class, privately educated, Oxford graduated, spoilt jewish rich boy...
purporting to represent the concerns of North 'Donky', lower / under class, state barely educated, chavs and scroungers.
YOU COULD NOT MAKE IT UP !

Wed, 2011-09-28 11:54 — Marcus (not verified)

I agree with Dan.

Ed is unelectable and i believe by lurching towards the left he is making a critical mistake that will enable the Lib Dems to take the centre-left ground and take a good proportion of the popular vote with them.

Dangerous times for Labour ahead. I can envisage that far from witnessing the decimation of the Lib Dem vote some tribalist Labour supporters dream about, we might actually see a fight between the Lib Dems and the Tories to form the next government.

Think about it. Both will take credit for turning the country around, both will have experience of growth in the economy by then and both will appear to be the parties ready to govern.

Yesterday was the beginning of the move from Blairite pink policy towards blood red politics.

Ed Miliband with his strange persona and Rubiks cube loving awkwardness is the Michael Foot of the early 21st century.

Prepare for marginalization and potentially even the long-term death of the movement.

What you talking about Willis? Well, before Smith and Blair changed things Labour were unelectable and there was a real risk for the future of the party and movement.

Despite this, Ed seems to think that by going with his Red-Ed beliefs he can stay electable to the masses.

Good luck to him on that one.........................

Britain, especially England is a centre-right country with libertarian and some would say isolationist ideals. It is not statist, it is not authoritarian, it is certainly not socialist.

The economic cycle is also pointing towards wealth generation and NOT wealth distribution as being the theme so i am afraid for our democracy.

It looks like the end of Labour if they continue on this Miliband powered path of self-destruction and delusion.

I therefore understand where Dan is coming from with this.

The question is, will the blindly Labour tribalists see this before it is too late?

Fri, 2011-09-30 09:24 — swatantra nandanwar

Ed should be worried and the Party very worried.
Ed's got one more year to prove he can make a breakthough in his relationship with the Public. If he can't then he should quit and give someone else a chance and Labour a chance.

Wed, 2011-09-28 13:18 — elrob

Dan doesn't like Ed. I don't care.

Wed, 2011-09-28 13:23 — elrob

Jane
Please do not continue with the theme of being an outsider. Absolute nonsense from someone who is Oxford Educated and moved straight into government as an adviser before becoming an MP.
----------
He did not call himself an outsider, he called himself an insider with the heritage of an outsider (his parents were European Jews).
from the speech:

So this is who I am.
The heritage of the outsider.
The vantage point of the insider.

Wed, 2011-09-28 13:27 — elrob

I never ever want the likes of robert Taggart to vote Labour. Never! Vile, uneducated, narrow-minded bigot!

The North built Britain; the South took the money.

Wed, 2011-09-28 16:12 — Charles Wright (not verified)

Robert Taggart

Leaving aside the anti-semitism and childish characterisation of Donacaster - Ed M was not privately educated or born into the conventional privileged north London middle class. He is the son of a refugee who did well in a career teaching at university, and sent his children to the local comprehensive (from which they won places at Oxford). Was he born and raised as part of the Labour elite? Less so than Peter Mandelson for example. And my sense is that most of the Labour hierarchy certainly from the early 80's (when Ed was a young teenager) would have wanted little to do with Miliband senior.
Raised in a political family certainly, so perhaps unsurprising that he's pursued that career, like many others (although it's also true that he worked albeit briefly outside politics after graduating).
So privileged rich boy? (like those currently in charge)I don't think the facts bear that out - and no doubt Ed's strategists will be wanting to get more of the personal story out over the coming period.

There's another argument of course about the extent to which MPs are increasingly "professional" people drawn from a relatively narrow section of society generally. I would like to see the Labour Party attempt to address this.
Finally, the point was made somewhere above that our system is increasingly presidential. I thought Alex Ferguson got it right - we need to move forward as a team.

Tue, 2011-09-27 17:21 — Abelard Potter-Purbright (not verified)

I have to ask Dan - why are you in the Labour party? It doesn't sound as if you share any values with the traditional Labour movement - so if it's purely cynical self-interest do you really think Blairism is the coming thing?

Tue, 2011-09-27 17:30 — charles maggs (not verified)

If no one likes you, you don't win elections. Would you care then?

Tue, 2011-09-27 17:56 — Hal Berstram (not verified)

Dan, it's true that many people liked Tony Blair in 1997. Still somewhat true (to a lesser extent) in 2001. Not really true at all in 2005 - 35% of the vote, wasn't it? If it hadn't been for our pathetic excuse of an electoral system that you helped the Tories defend back in the spring, Labour wouldn't even have won back then.

And after that... if Tony Blair had stood in 2010 he'd have no doubt been buried under a landslide.

So no... Blairism is not the answer. Not any more.

As it happens I didn't particularly rate Ed's speech. Too much bashing of benefit claimants for my liking.

But he still stands a much better chance of becoming the next PM than anyone from the Blairite school of political thought.

Tue, 2011-09-27 18:22 — thinkov

he needs to be hated by the people that like you Dan

Tue, 2011-09-27 18:55 — Jane (not verified)

I found the speech depressing. I was particularly aggrieved at how conference responded to Tony Blair. I now know what EM is against although some of the issues he raised are unworkable such as legislating for good and bad businesses. Please do not continue with the theme of being an outsider. Absolute nonsense from someone who is Oxford Educated and moved straight into government as an advisor before becoming an MP. He is seeking to distance himself from previous PM's and some mistakes in policy even though he served in their government. Bombadier is an example as it was his government that drew up the legal criteria for bids.

Delivery was not very good. He has been overcoached with too many pauses, stupid hand movement etc. It detracted from some good substance issues.

In all very uninspiring. Not to worry - he does not want my vote anymore after 40 years of support for the party. His speech left me cold and I feel left out. I acknowledge that the left of the party will be gushing in their praise as he ticked many boxes for them. However, this does not lead to election victory.

Tue, 2011-09-27 19:10 — Chris Wilcox (not verified)

Blair was a Thatcherite by his own admission. And not a leftie.

When you gonna fess up Dan? Labour can't do anything right at present in your eyes.

Tue, 2011-09-27 19:20 — matthew fox (not verified)

An article by Dan Hodges attacking Ed Miliband, it must be a " Collector's Item ".

Then again he has been granted his wish, Conservativehome have this article as a must read.

Congratulations Dan, your being feted by some of the country's most morally bankrupt individuals.

Tue, 2011-09-27 19:45 — maxinemf

I fail to understand the anti EM comments by Dan Hodges. What could DM have done that EM is already trying to do. Face it, DM had his chance and the labour party did not like waht he had to offer. EM found his voice on the Murodch question, he found his voice on tuition fees and many other issues where he out trumped DC. We have so called economic experts all around the world who don't know how to respond to the economic crisis. We have governments in the US and the Eurozone who have all failed to articulate a credible recovery plan. If the so called experts and governments have not been able to do it; why would you hold this against EM. NAME ME ON POLITICAL LEADER WHO HAS A CREDIBLE RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT CRISIS WHICH WORKS????? We have seen already that simply adopting a deficit reduction programme as in the UK will not do the trick.

Tue, 2011-09-27 20:40 — Dagmar (not verified)

Nobody likes you Dan, yet here you are with the same article rewritten for the hundredth time.

Tue, 2011-09-27 20:45 — kenny jenkins (not verified)

Nodody liked Margaret Thatcher. Nobody liked Harold Wilson. We don't actually elect Prime Ministers in this country, we vote for contituency MPs who are on the whole members of parties. The party with the most MPs gets to form a government. The notion that party leaders are really important is a myth put about by media simpletons who like to avoid talking about any of the real issues. Ed isn't Tony Blair, or Gordon Brown, or Napoleon Bonaparte, so he's not going to appeal to people who hunger for a fuhrer.

Tue, 2011-09-27 22:17 — David (not verified)

This is getting boring now. We know you hate Ed. Can't you add anything original or interesting to the discussion?

Tue, 2011-09-27 22:34 — David Lindsay

“I’m not Tony Blair.” It is the sort of legend that should be borne by all manner of merchandise. Did you hear how the audience approved? He hated them, and at last they feel able to express how much they hated him. Around this time in 2007, we were heading into the first season for a decade in which Halloween, Guy Fawkes, Remembrance Sunday, Advent and Christmas did not feel faintly illegal, and were not acts of defiant resistance to the Occupation of our country by someone who was essentially her enemy. But now, under the Heir to Blair, we are back to where we were.

The superb Peter Oborne, whom Ivan Lewis could give the job of deciding which journalists should be licensed and which should not, was on fine form on last night’s Dispatches. The most inappropriate Middle East Peace Envoy imaginable has conflicts of interest coming out of his ears in order to enhance even further the fabulous wealth that has come his way in return for having lied this country into war, to which he has blithely admitted on television with no apparent adverse effect. Does it only count if you say it on Newsnight, or on the Today programme, or to a Dimbleby? It turns out that he is nothing but a paid shill of Wall Street, Murdoch, the Israelis and the Gulf monarchs. Among other things, he is paid by J P Morgan to stop the starvelings of the Gaza Strip from exploiting their own supply of natural gas.

The wonder is that he has not been made United States Secretary of State. Perhaps he would have been if the Presidency had passed to two of the very few people in the world even viler than he is? One of them promised to nuke Iran if so instructed by the Israelis or by her viciously misogynistic (and Jew-hating) campaign backers in the Gulf. The other, on whose behalf she was really running, was Mr NAFTA and Mr GATT, the man who caused the crash by repealing Glass-Steagall, the Butcher of Bosnia and the Monster of Mogadishu, the bomber of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in order to distract attention from his sexual activities that he falsely asserted were no such thing. Tony Blair always wanted to be him.