Exclusive: David Miliband boosted by fresh endorsement

David Lammy, chair of Ken Livingstone’s mayoral campaign and influential black MP who nominated Dian

David Miliband today receives a significant boost to his campaign for the Labour leadership with the endorsement of the influential black MP David Lammy.

Lammy, MP for Tottenham, is highly respected by London's ethnic-minority communities and about a third of all Labour Party members are based in and around the capital city. Lammy was also recently appointed by Ken Livingstone as chair of the former mayor's campaign for re-election in London.

In what sources say will be David Miliband's final major endorsement, Lammy will introduce the former foreign secretary to a congregation of about 200 black people at the Freedom's Arc church in Tottenham, north London, at 7pm this evening. Presiding over the service and event will be Pastor Nims Obunge, who is responsible for London's main anti-knife-crime initiative.

Lammy nominated Diane Abbott so she could become the first black figure to stand for a British political party leadership, but -- like Jon Cruddas, who also nominated Abbott -- has decided to back David Miliband for the job of leader itself. Miliband's supporters this morning said that support from the two MPs underlines the idea of their man as a "unity candidate" who can appeal to white working-class people as well as ethnic minorities.

Writing exclusively for newstatesman.com, Lammy argues that David Miliband has the "vision" to change the Labour Party and lead it to victory. Lammy refers to the need for Labour to avoid its "comfort zone" -- the now-controversial expression over which the Miliband brothers are battling, with Ed Miliband claiming that it is the "New Labour comfort zone" that must be shed. A source close to Lammy says he is friends with both David and Ed Miliband and has spoken to them during the campaign but, in the end, decided -- like Douglas Alexander -- to opt for David.

Lammy compares Miliband's campaign with that of Barack Obama, who mobilised his volunteer force to help in US communities. "Already [Miliband] has trained 1,000 community organisers as part of his campaign. In time, they will help communities speak with one voice about the things that matter to them," Lammy says.

He explains: "I nominated Diane Abbott because I wanted that debate to have as many voices as possible. Three months on, we have reached decision time. The question is which of the candidates can forge a credible and inspiring new project for the left . . . David offers a vision of people enjoying politics again, feeling proud to be in the Labour Party."

The former education minister goes on: "David offers the hope of a genuinely new political project. This means more than a shopping list of promises to different interest groups. Such a politics can appeal, but never stands the test of time. Instead, David promises a new direction."

Lammy offers his own critique of New Labour in government, especially on civil liberties and the economy, and adds: "David offers change because he understands that a new economic model doesn't just mean more regulation of the banks; it means a market economy built on the values of mutuality, reciprocity and local decision-making. He gets that people should be able to make decisions together as citizens, not just be treated as consumers."

He concludes: "For this vision alone I would support David. But there is one more vital thing that he will change: our habit of retreating in a comfort zone in opposition -- and staying there while the Tories do great damage to our country's social fabric. The people who depend on us cannot afford us to do this again. They need us to hold the government to account and to provide a credible and exciting alternative. In David Miliband we have one. I, for one, will be voting for him."

James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.
Getty
Show Hide image

No, the Brexit vote wasn't just about immigration

The data shows that most voters want a fairer society. Labour must fight for this in the Brexit negotiations. 

The result of the UK referendum to leave the European Union has shaken the political establishment to its core. As I have argued since then, it should be a wakeup call to all political parties.

Some have also argued that the referendum result is having international repercussions, with the election of Donald Trump to the White House cited as "Brexit Plus Plus". With the imminent election in France, and Germany’s later this year, responsible analysts are trying to understand why people voted the way they did and what this means. Too often, there are knee jerk explanations without any evidentiary justification to back them up. 

Analysis of who voted to leave shows the majority of people who voted to leave live in the South of England, and 59 per cent were from the middle classes (A, B, C1). Only 21 per cent of people in the lowest income groups voted to leave.

Analysis of why people voted as they did is more complex. This includes an increase in Euroscepticism particularly from older, middle class voters; concerns about globalisation and the impact on jobs; inequalities and being left behind; and new voters who didn’t vote in the 2015 General Election, for whom immigration was a concern. When this analysis is overlaid on analysis of that election, some themes emerge. The attitudes and values of the majority of the British public are firmly rooted in the desire for a fairer society, based on principles of equality and social justice. Although immigration played a part in the election and referendum results, perceived competence, being "left behind" and disillusionment with the direction of change were the key drivers.

Whether people voted to remain or leave, they did so because they believed that they and their families would be better off, and the majority who voted believed they would be better off if we leave the EU. Labour accepts and respects this. We have said that we will vote for Article 50, but we intend to hold this Tory government to account to ensure we get the best possible deal for the country.

In his speech last week, Jeremy Corbyn set out the issues that Labour will hold the government to account on. We have been absolutely clear that we want tariff-free access to the single market, to ensure that Britain continues to trade openly with our European neighbours, and to protect the cost of living for families struggling to get by. Getting the best deal for the UK means that we must continue to have a strong relationship with our EU neighbours.

Under my work and pensions portfolio, for example, we know that 40 per cent of pension funds are invested outside of the UK. If we want to guarantee a dignified and secure retirement for our pensioners, we must ensure that savers can get the best returns for the investments they make.

We also know that many of the protections that have until now been offered by the European Union must continue to be guaranteed when we leave. Provisions that secure the rights of disabled people, or that protect worker’s rights are an essential part of British society, enhanced by the EU. These cannot be torn up by the Tories.

Defending these rights is also at the heart of our approach to immigration. The dire anti-migrant rhetoric from some parts of the media and certain politicians, is reprehensible. I reject this scapegoating, which has fear and blame at its heart, because it is not true. Blaming migrants for nearly seven wasted years of Tory austerity when they are net contributors of over £2bn a year to the economy is perverse.

Of course we need to respond when public services are coming under pressure from local population increases. That’s why Labour wants to reinstate the Migration Impact Fund that the Tories abolished. We also need to ensure new members of communities get to know their new neighbours and what’s expected of them.

We believe that migrants’ broader contribution to British society has too often been obscured by the actions of unscrupulous employers, who have exploited new arrivals at the expense of local labour. A vast network of recruitment and employment agencies has developed in this country. It is worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Last year over 1.3m people were employed in the UK by these agencies. In 2007, 1 in 7 of these people came from the EU. We should ask how many are recruited directly from the EU now, and offered precarious work on very low wages whilst undercutting local labour. Labour will put an end to this practice, in order to protect both those who come here to work and those that grew up here.

Importantly, however, we cannot let our exit from the EU leave us with skill shortages in our economy. Our current workforce planning is woeful, particularly for the long-term. We need to reduce our need for migrant labour by ensuring our young, and our not so young, are trained for the jobs of the future, from carers to coders. Again, the Conservatives have undermined people’s chances of getting on by cutting college funding and the adult skills budget.

Unlike the government, Labour will not shirk from our responsibilities to the nation. Our plans for Brexit will respect the referendum result, whilst holding the Government to account and delivering a better future for all our people, not just the privileged few.

Debbie Abrahams is shadow work and pensions secretary.