PMQs review: Miliband says "no" to an EU referendum but Cameron fails to notice

Rather than attacking the Labour leader for opposing a referendum, the Prime Minister claimed he had no position.

Ed Miliband knew that he would be challenged by David Cameron at today's PMQs to say whether he will match his pledge to hold an in/out referendum on the EU. And he also knew that laconically replying, "I ask the questions", wouldn't be good enough. So his answer, when it came, was a clear one: "My position is no! We don't want an in/out referendum." It was a response that will have been greeted with cheers across CCHQ. The Tories now have an on-the-record pledge from Miliband to deny the voters a say on the EU. 

Oddly, however, Cameron failed to take advantage of Miliband's error. Rather than attacking the Labour leader for opposing a referendum, he accused him of having no position at all. "His whole argument about uncertainty is undermined by his inability to say whether he supports a referendum or not", Cameron said, adding: "go away and get a policy". For today, at least, Miliband was spared. 

The Labour leader devoted most of his questions to asking Cameron whether he would still campaign for an "in" vote if his renegotiation strategy fails. The Prime Minister simply replied, "I support Britain's membership of a reformed EU", leaving open the question of whether he supported Britain's membership of an unreformed EU.

A better response came when he declared, "only the leader of the opposition would go into negotiations expecting to fail." As a holding answer, this is not a bad one. Since any renegotiation will not begin until after 2015, Cameron will not have to elaborate any further. He turned the debate to his advantage by arguing that Miliband was unable to answer "the most basic question of all": do you want a referendum?" When the Labour leader replied "no", the Prime Minister apparently failed to notice. His party, however, did. If Miliband continues to oppose a referendum, they can accuse him of denying the British people a say over an institution that has changed dramatically in the 38 years since the first and only EU referendum. If he later comes out in favour of one, they can accuse him of performing a humiliating U-turn. The Tories have Miliband exactly where they want him. 

David Cameron delivers his speech on the UK's relationship with the EU at Bloomberg's headquarters in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

There are risks as well as opportunities ahead for George Osborne

The Chancellor is in a tight spot, but expect his political wiles to be on full display, says Spencer Thompson.

The most significant fiscal event of this parliament will take place in late November, when the Chancellor presents the spending review setting out his plans for funding government departments over the next four years. This week, across Whitehall and up and down the country, ministers, lobbyists, advocacy groups and town halls are busily finalising their pitches ahead of Friday’s deadline for submissions to the review

It is difficult to overstate the challenge faced by the Chancellor. Under his current spending forecast and planned protections for the NHS, schools, defence and international aid spending, other areas of government will need to be cut by 16.4 per cent in real terms between 2015/16 and 2019/20. Focusing on services spending outside of protected areas, the cumulative cut will reach 26.5 per cent. Despite this, the Chancellor nonetheless has significant room for manoeuvre.

Firstly, under plans unveiled at the budget, the government intends to expand capital investment significantly in both 2018-19 and 2019-20. Over the last parliament capital spending was cut by around a quarter, but between now and 2019-20 it will grow by almost 20 per cent. How this growth in spending should be distributed across departments and between investment projects should be at the heart of the spending review.

In a paper published on Monday, we highlighted three urgent priorities for any additional capital spending: re-balancing transport investment away from London and the greater South East towards the North of England, a £2bn per year boost in public spending on housebuilding, and £1bn of extra investment per year in energy efficiency improvements for fuel-poor households.

Secondly, despite the tough fiscal environment, the Chancellor has the scope to fund a range of areas of policy in dire need of extra resources. These include social care, where rising costs at a time of falling resources are set to generate a severe funding squeeze for local government, 16-19 education, where many 6th-form and FE colleges are at risk of great financial difficulty, and funding a guaranteed paid job for young people in long-term unemployment. Our paper suggests a range of options for how to put these and other areas of policy on a sustainable funding footing.

There is a political angle to this as well. The Conservatives are keen to be seen as a party representing all working people, as shown by the "blue-collar Conservatism" agenda. In addition, the spending review offers the Conservative party the opportunity to return to ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ as a going concern.  If they are truly serious about being seen in this light, this should be reflected in a social investment agenda pursued through the spending review that promotes employment and secures a future for public services outside the NHS and schools.

This will come at a cost, however. In our paper, we show how the Chancellor could fund our package of proposed policies without increasing the pain on other areas of government, while remaining consistent with the government’s fiscal rules that require him to reach a surplus on overall government borrowing by 2019-20. We do not agree that the Government needs to reach a surplus in that year. But given this target wont be scrapped ahead of the spending review, we suggest that he should target a slightly lower surplus in 2019/20 of £7bn, with the deficit the year before being £2bn higher. In addition, we propose several revenue-raising measures in line with recent government tax policy that together would unlock an additional £5bn of resource for government departments.

Make no mistake, this will be a tough settlement for government departments and for public services. But the Chancellor does have a range of options open as he plans the upcoming spending review. Expect his reputation as a highly political Chancellor to be on full display.

Spencer Thompson is economic analyst at IPPR