Is David Miliband set for a shadow cabinet return in 2014?

The former foreign secretary "is beginning to give serious thought" to a comeback.

When David Miliband was last asked whether he could join the Labour shadow cabinet before the next election, he replied: "You never know". Today's Times (£) suggests that the former foreign secretary, who guest-edited the NS last year, "is beginning to give serious thought to a return to the front line." The paper reports that "an emerging scenario would see him return to the Labour front bench next spring."

The return of the elder Miliband was originally seen as a means of shoring up support for Ed among the party's Blairites, but Miliband's recent political successes (the Budget, his "one nation" conference speech, the Corby by-election) mean this is no longer a factor. He would now be able to bring his brother back from a position of strength. The return of the former foreign secretary would add heft to a shadow cabinet that is short of big hitters. Since retiring to the backbenches, Miliband's interventions - on the economy, on the NHS, on multiculturalism and on the crisis of the European centre-left - have been among the most impressive from any Labour MP.

The question remains "what job would he do?" After Ed Balls revealed that Ed Miliband had refused to guarantee his position, the Times reminds us that the Labour leader has twice sounded out his brother about becoming shadow chancellor, once before appointing Alan Johnson and once before appointing Balls. However, it is hard to see Miliband moving Balls, whose stock remains high, before the next election. Having served as foreign secretary for three years, Miliband will have no desire to shadow William Hague (a brief Douglas Alexander has performed admirably in). More likely is his return in some election campaign role.

While the Tories now rightly recognise that they underestimated Ed Miliband, the return of David, whom many admire, would further unsettle them. For this reason, it is a weapon that Labour may well deploy in 2014.

David Miliband is considering a return to the Labour frontbench next spring. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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.