What David Miliband's latest intervention means

The politics behind the Labour MP's New Statesman leader.

David Miliband's leader in this week's New Statesman, which he has guest-edited, is his most significant political intervention since his much-discussed attack on "Reassurance Labour" in the NS earlier this year. In an echo of that piece, the former foreign secretary mounts a critique of "defensive social democracy", an explicit rebuke to those in Labour who believe the party should simply ride the wave of discontent over austerity. He writes:

[I]f defensive social democracy delivers a win - and it is a big if- the problem will be with governing.

Miliband acknowledges that Labour has a bold economic narrative - "that Britain needs fundamental change in its market structure and culture to compete in the modern world." But he is clear that far more detail is needed for the party to convince voters that it represents a credible alternative to the coalition. In a significant overture to the Liberal Democrats, he suggests that the party should take Vince Cable's 2012 Budget submission to George Osborne, lamenting the lack of a "compelling vision" beyond austerity, and "promise to implement it." It is a statement that some in Labour will see as a snub to the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, who has set out his own five-point plan for growth.

Rather than simply renew commitments to "tax and spend", Miliband writes, Labour needs to make "switch spends". He highlights a proposal by IPPR, the think-tank where he worked before becoming Tony Blair's Head of Policy, to use a ten-year freeze on child benefit to pay for universal affordable childcare. It is a call for Labour to move beyond the dualistic approach of either supporting or opposing the coalition's cuts.

Miliband's fear is that Labour will "confuse being a better opposition with becoming a potential government". His praise for Jon Cruddas, the MP now leading the party's policy review, who Miliband notes is "not a policy wonk - a great advantage", is a sign that he believes Labour will avoid this trap. But his closing assertion that the Labour "cannot be conservative" is a warning to his brother not to appease the party's status quo faction.

David Miliband warns against "defensive social democracy" in his leader in this week's New Statesman. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.