Ed Miliband: "a thriving political culture and a thriving New Statesman go together"

Labour leader at the Statesman's centenary party.

Labour leader Ed Miliband paid tribute to the New Statesman’s role in creating a "thriving political culture" at a Westminster party to celebrate the magazine’s 100th anniversary last night.

And Miliband joked that the New Statesman made an "excellent choice in the Labour leadership contest [in 2010], one of three publications do so…one was a blog and the other was the Sunday People".

Noting that editor since 2008 Jason Cowley has increased print circulation in recent years, Miliband said that the title’s website now attracts around one million monthly readers, he said the New Statesman would probably have died after 85 years if it wasn’t for Geoffrey Robinson MP. He was proprietor until 2008 when the title was bought by Mike Danson’s Progressive Media (which also owns Press Gazette).

Describing the New Statesman as a magazine which has "an extraordinary history" he noted that it has a "complicated relationship with the Labour Party" and made somewhat shamefaced reference to his comment during Prime Ministers’s questions earlier this year when he said that David Cameron was "scraping the barrel" by quoting the New Statesman.

He said: "Sometimes Labour leaders make unflattering remarks about the New Statesman" and noted that Tony Blair included a veiled jibe against the magazine in his autobiography.

Saying that the New Statesman was important to the Labour Party, Miliband said: "Politics is not just about politicians, it’s about the ideas that shape the political culture of our country."

He noted that "both CND and Charter 88 come out of the New Statesman" and added that "a thriving political culture and a thriving New Statesman go together".

He said: "The unsung heroes of this magazine are the people who work for it. You don’t come and work for the New Statesman for the money, you do it because you care about our country and you care about our world…and it’s to them that I pay tribute to tonight."

This piece first appeared on Press Gazette.

Ed Miliband at the New Statesman's centenary party. Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.