There is no need for Miliband to choose between radicalism and pragmatism

Neil O'Brien has underestimated the sophistication of the Labour leader's approach.

The longer Tories keep underestimating Ed Miliband, the better for Labour. So I feel slightly disloyal in pointing out where and why Neil O’Brien got it wrong in his essay in this week's New Statesman.

First, Ed didn’t go from "joke" to 45% in the polls by chance. For two years, he has kept setting the political agenda. Time and again, commentators and politicians who didn’t take him seriously missed the importance of what he was saying and its resonance outside Westminster.

His phrase "squeezed middle" was met with derision. A year later it was the Oxford English Dictionary's "word of the year".  Ed’s "producers vs predators" conference speech was taken as a sure sign he hadn’t got what it takes to be a "proper" political leader. Three months later, everyone was fighting to own responsible capitalism. And, now, as another banking scandal rages, it turns out that Labour has the best framework to understand what is going on.  He pitched "responsibility at the top and the bottom" against the exclusively anti -poor rhetoric of the government’s welfare reforms and forced a debate about top pay.

Miliband’s judgement on these issues reflects a profound belief that Britain can be more different than most people in politics dare imagine. I don't think for one moment that David Cameron thought hacking Milly Dowler’s phone was a good idea, but he couldn’t imagine a politics without Rupert Murdoch’s influence. Ed could, which is why he made the right calls on BSkyB and Leveson. This week, George Osborne’s inability to see the banking crisis as anything but a chance to score political points has, once again, put the Tories on the wrong side of a strategic argument. Sorting out the City today is more important than who might have done what ten years ago.

None of us in Westminster have yet broken free of the public cynicism about all politicians. But, maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to understand that Ed Miliband does things differently. Maybe it’s not such a surprise that Labour has recovered rather faster than most of us thought possible.  

Of course, the Tories certainly haven’t helped themselves. The NHS bill did not have to become a golden opportunity for Ed to hone his PMQs skills. The Budget did not have to be so incompetent.  Labour's attack was only possible, though,  because Miliband and Ed Balls had already defined fairness and growth as the two crucial budget tests.

But O’Brien’s biggest misjudgement is the belief that Miliband’s Labour is torn between radicalism and pragmatism, and that this choice has to be resolved one way or another. Ed Miliband is coming from a different place altogether.  As a new Fabian book, The Shape of Things To Come, shows, his genuine radicalism stems from a deep belief that it is only through far-reaching changes in the economy, society and politics of Britain that we can deliver for those who want practical answers to practical problems

He's confident that the economy can be reshaped by an active state enabling successful private business; an ambition that goes beyond the odd token grant and investment that passes for Osborne's "industrial strategy". The rules of the game can be set to favour long-term investment, innovation, competition and better jobs. If we don’t, we won’t be able to pay our way in the world. But as importantly, too much of Labour’s public spending was driven by problems of failing markets.  The cost of tax credits rose in an economy producing too many poorly-paid jobs. Housing benefit paid the cost of a private sector of limited supply, poor quality and high rent. 

There are some in Labour who assume that progressive change is measured by the level of public spending. But the emerging consensus among those Ed has promoted is that there is no foreseeable point where the public spending taps are turned back on. The cost of an ageing population, the need to invest, and the impossibility of increasing taxes for the squeezed middle will see to that. So it is the construction of a different economy, one that offers through work what past governments delivered through redistribution, that will let Labour deliver its aims even in lean times. O'Brien's belief that Labour's spending instincts are bound to spill out misreads the way Labour's debate is going.

This is a radical change, although some elements of an active industrial policy were pioneered by Peter Mandelson at the business department before the 2010 election. But it also has the best chance of delivering what Britain’s worried, vulnerable and socially conservative voters want to see; the ones who increasingly thought Labour doesn’t stand for them any more; the ones who didn’t think the economy worked for them.

O’Brien is right to say there are many issues that remainchallenging for Labour, not least welfare. But it’s telling that he sees this as a tactical issue for the Tories. Adopt an unpleasant policy that will really hurt some people and challenge Labour to vote against it. The truth is that time is running out for that sort of politics. The public know what politicians are up to. They don’t like it.

While few people will vote for a party that is seen as soft on fiddling or downright idleness, maybe there’s a bigger prize in offering a welfare system that actually works better. Shifting investment from tax credits to affordable child care, or landlords' rents to bricks and mortar. Rewarding those who work and contribute over those who didn’t.

So Miliband might respond to O'Brien's false choice by saying that in these times, radicalism is the pragmatic option. But as one of the authors of The Shape of Things To Come says, "Ed's self confidence in speaking about morality and culture sets him apart from the 'left liberal' social democrat norm of the past 50 years". This is not radicalism unrestrained by the views of real voters. The tough issues like migration and welfare will be tackled but not, I suspect, by the occasional lurch to the right, but by building a vision of Britain's future that connects Miliband's radical instincts to the instinctive fairness of the British people.

In a few weeks' time, kids across the country will ask, "are we nearly there yet?" In truth, not yet. But there is a radicalism, coherence and optimism to Ed Miliband's politics. I hope Neil O'Brien continues to underestimate it.

The Shape of Things To Come: Labour’s New Thinking, edited by John Denham, is published by the Fabian Society and FEPS.

"There is a radicalism, coherence and optimism to Ed Miliband's politics." Photograph: Getty Images.

John Denham was a Labour MP from 1992 to 2015, and a Secretary of State 2007 to 2010. He is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.