Ed Miliband set the agenda this conference season

If Miliband's analysis was so powerful, why is he not being spoken of as Britain's next Prime Minist

Generating responsibility in society, from top to bottom; crafting a something-for-something culture; battling vested interests in the name of the public good; building a British capitalism that is less dependent on financial services; ensuring that wealth is less concentrated in the South of England; demanding that business leaders offer new apprenticeships to our young people to deliver real skills; making it possible for each generation to enjoy a better quality of life than their predecessors.

These were the key themes in Ed Miliband's speech to the Labour Party conference last week. And each of them, every single one of them, was
repeated by David Cameron yesterday.

It happens very rarely that a Conservative Prime Minister directly echoes his Labour opponent. But Ed Miliband's speech explained the unique challenges that face Britain in a way that no other politician had yet done. A week on from Liverpool, even his severest of critics must now admit that Ed set the agenda this conference season.

The question remains, then, why, if Miliband's analysis was so powerful, is he not now being spoken of as Britain's next Prime Minister?

One of the reasons is Miliband's occasionally stilted speaking style. Another is the entrenched media scepticism about his leadership that has undermined him from the start. But most of all it results from the fact that although he has identified the challenges that Britain faces, he has not provided a persuasive account of how we should overcome them. More than that, when he has proposed a solution, it has too often involved the central state.

Writing in response to the Conservative conference this week, Miliband argued that the difference between the Tories and Labour lay in the fact that Labour was willing to use the power of government when the Tories were not. "All the time in the rules it sets --such as on tax and procurement-- governments make judgements", he argued, "encouraging one type of behaviour compared to another."

This is true. But it is not a powerful enough rallying-call for the British people in a time of political trouble. The answer to the challenges that Britain faces cannot be more government alone. The answer has also to involve you and me. The crisis requires changes in the way that we do business, the way we relate to each other in our communities, the way that we bring up our children. Not just changes in government action.

The Labour leader might not like the "can do optimism" that David Cameron offers. He might not relate to its vision of "get-up-and-go". But the British people do. They don't want just to have things done for them by someone else, least alone by those in Westminster and Whitehall. They want to be part of the solution to Britain's troubles, not just part of their cause.

Ed Miliband knows this. But at the moment the British people don't know that he does. In the months ahead, he must put this right. He must showhow we can come together in our own lives to help overcome the current crisis, even while the Conservatives are still in office. If he does that then he might well succeed not only in shaping the agenda of British politics but in helping to bring about the new political era of which he dreams.

Marc Stears is Visiting Fellow at IPPR and Professor of Political Theory at Oxford.

Marc Stears is the chief executive of the New Economics Foundation

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn may be a Eurosceptic, but he still appeals to the values of many Remainers

He reassures Labour MPs defending majorities in heavily pro-EU areas that things will be OK.

There are two facts about Brexit that everyone seems to forget every few weeks: the first is that Jeremy Corbyn is a Eurosceptic. The second is that the first fact doesn't really matter.

The Labour leader's hostility to the European project is back in the news after he told Andrew Marr that the United Kingdom's membership of the single market was inextricably linked with its EU membership, and added for good measure that the “wholesale importation” of people from Eastern and Central Europe had been used to “destroy” the conditions of workers, particularly in the construction industry.

As George Eaton observes on Twitter, Corbyn voted against the creation of the single market in 1986 (and the Maastricht Treaty, and the Lisbon Treaty, and so on and so on). It would be a bigger shock if the Labour leader weren't advocating for a hard exit from the European Union.

Here's why it doesn't matter: most Labour MPs agree with him. There is not a large number of Labour votes in the House of Commons that would switch from opposing single market membership to supporting it if Corbyn changed his mind. (Perhaps five or so from the frontbenches and the same again on the backbenches.)

There is a way that Corbyn matters: in reassuring Labour MPs defending majorities in heavily pro-Remain areas that things will be OK. Imagine for a moment the reaction among the liberal left if, say, Yvette Cooper or Stephen Kinnock talked about the “wholesale importation” of people or claimed that single market membership and EU membership were one and the same. Labour MPs in big cities and university towns would be a lot more nervous about bleeding votes to the Greens or the Liberal Democrats were they not led by a man who for all his longstanding Euroscepticism appeals to the values of so many Remain voters.

Corbyn matters because he provides electoral insurance against a position that Labour MPs are minded to follow anyway. And that, far more than the Labour leader's view on the Lisbon Treaty, is why securing a parliamentary majority for a soft exit from the European Union is so hard. 

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.