Ed Miliband finds his voice but loses his message

Saturday’s speech mattered, but for a sense of direction you need to look further back.

Ed Miliband's speech to the Fabian Society was instructive. In terms of what was said, it was something of a textual car crash; new liberalism collided with blue socialism, which in turn was shunted into the good society and finally rear-ended the "big society". There may well be a progressive majority willing to embrace civil libertarianism, spurn the legacy of Thatcherism and shun consumerism, but it won't be found in Billingsgate Fish Market.

Since Christmas, Labour's new leader has hit his stride. The way he channelled the media agenda in the run-up to the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election, zeroing in on real doorstep issues like VAT rises and bankers bonuses, was a case study in focused opposition politics. Yes, you can credit his newy formed media team. But they're Ed Miliband's hires and he's the guy standing front of house. The recent plaudits, rightly, are his.

Yet Saturday showed that while Miliband has started to find his voice, he's still struggling to identify his audience. In isolation, the appeal to disillusioned Liberal Democrats resonates. His community organising model is generating interest among activists. There are welcome signs he is preparing to reach out to Labour's lost working class.

But he has not yet managed to find a way of knitting these themes together in one coherent narrative. As an observer said, "It was as if he was reading four different speeches, and he hadn't written any of them." The result is that, in trying to speak to everyone, he risks speaking to no one.

A few weeks ago Miliband released his New Year statement. Amid the tumble of Australian wickets and outcry over the government's decision to let swine flu cut a swath through the population, it passed mostly unnoticed. But according to party sources it's that message that will provide the "template" around which he intends to base his political strategy.

"People knew it wouldn't get much coverage," said an insider, "but Ed's office wanted a reference point. They wanted something they can point to in six months' time and say, 'This is what we said the themes would be and these are the themes that are now cutting through.' "

Those themes are the economy, social mobility and the new politics. Of these, it is the economy that his team has been pushing hard over the past weeks, with tactical success. The team is also beginning to engage with the difficult strategic issues, such as the deficit and, in particular, what they see as the myth of Labour's deficit denial. "It only resonates because it rhymes. We're going to nail it," said a source.

But that clarity and focus also need to be translated into a coherent political vision. On Saturday that vision remained obscure.

On the economy, for example, Miliband's critique of New Labour appeared straightforward enough: "The first part of the way we must change is to show we can build a fair economy, with wealth creation and social justice for all at its heart." Except it was preceded by: "Our period in office was marked by notable successes: record levels of employment, a decade of continuous growth until 2008, low inflation, low interest rates and the minimum wage. What is more, we used the proceeds of growth to both rebuild public services and tackle poverty. Whereas before 1997, relative poverty had trebled and the public realm had crumbled, we comprehensively changed the direction in which our country was headed."

Is Milliband's pitch really going to be that he will save us from the regressive policy agenda that delivered record employment, a decade of growth, slashed inflation, slashed interest rates, introduced the minimum wage, rebuilt public services, tackled actual poverty, tackled relative poverty and began to rebuild the crumbling public realm?

Some supporters believe those who criticise the absence of an agenda do so because they just cannot stomach the one on offer. They point to Saturday as evidence of a clear, moderate, centre-left shift away from Blairite orthodoxy. "People know precisely where Ed's going; it's just that some of them don't like it," said one.

That may be true. But it is also true that some of his messages are being nuanced to the point of obscurity, while others are simply contradictory. If you praise "the New Labour tradition which embraced dynamic markets", your statement "It won't be enough to rely on a deregulated market economy providing the tax revenues for redistribution" is diluted. To say Labour "lost sight of people as individuals, and of the importance of communities", is meaningless. Individuals and communities are not the same, as Thatcherism graphically illustrated.

Ed Miliband has found his voice, but as a result he's trying simultaneously to say too many things to too many people.

He has his template. Now he must use it.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May is paying the price for mismanaging Boris Johnson

The Foreign Secretary's bruised ego may end up destroying Theresa May. 

And to think that Theresa May scheduled her big speech for this Friday to make sure that Conservative party conference wouldn’t be dominated by the matter of Brexit. Now, thanks to Boris Johnson, it won’t just be her conference, but Labour’s, which is overshadowed by Brexit in general and Tory in-fighting in particular. (One imagines that the Labour leadership will find a way to cope somehow.)

May is paying the price for mismanaging Johnson during her period of political hegemony after she became leader. After he was betrayed by Michael Gove and lacking any particular faction in the parliamentary party, she brought him back from the brink of political death by making him Foreign Secretary, but also used her strength and his weakness to shrink his empire.

The Foreign Office had its responsibility for negotiating Brexit hived off to the newly-created Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) and for navigating post-Brexit trade deals to the Department of International Trade. Johnson was given control of one of the great offices of state, but with no responsibility at all for the greatest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War.

Adding to his discomfort, the new Foreign Secretary was regularly the subject of jokes from the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues. May likened him to a dog that had to be put down. Philip Hammond quipped about him during his joke-fuelled 2017 Budget. All of which gave Johnson’s allies the impression that Johnson-hunting was a licensed sport as far as Downing Street was concerned. He was then shut out of the election campaign and has continued to be a marginalised figure even as the disappointing election result forced May to involve the wider cabinet in policymaking.

His sense of exclusion from the discussions around May’s Florence speech only added to his sense of isolation. May forgot that if you aren’t going to kill, don’t wound: now, thanks to her lost majority, she can’t afford to put any of the Brexiteers out in the cold, and Johnson is once again where he wants to be: centre-stage. 

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.