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

The future of policing is still at risk even after George Osborne's U-Turn

The police have avoided the worst, but crime is changing and they cannot stand still. 

We will have to wait for the unofficial briefings and the ministerial memoirs to understand what role the tragic events in Paris had on the Chancellor’s decision to sustain the police budget in cash terms and increase it overall by the end of the parliament.  Higher projected tax revenues gave the Chancellor a surprising degree of fiscal flexibility, but the atrocities in Paris certainly pushed questions of policing and security to the top of the political agenda. For a police service expecting anything from a 20 to a 30 per cent cut in funding, fears reinforced by the apparent hard line the Chancellor took over the weekend, this reprieve is an almighty relief.  

So, what was announced?  The overall police budget will be protected in real terms (£900 million more in cash terms) up to 2019/20 with the following important caveats.  First, central government grant to forces will be reduced in cash terms by 2019/20, but forces will be able to bid into a new transformation fund designed to finance moves such as greater collaboration between forces.  In other words there is a cash frozen budget (given important assumptions about council tax) eaten away by inflation and therefore requiring further efficiencies and service redesign.

Second, the flat cash budget for forces assumes increases in the police element of the council tax. Here, there is an interesting new flexibility for Police and Crime Commissioners.  One interpretation is that instead of precept increases being capped at 2%, they will be capped at £12 million, although we need further detail to be certain.  This may mean that forces which currently raise relatively small cash amounts from their precept will be able to raise considerably more if Police and Crime Commissioners have the courage to put up taxes.  

With those caveats, however, this is clearly a much better deal for policing than most commentators (myself included) predicted.  There will be less pressure to reduce officer numbers. Neighbourhood policing, previously under real threat, is likely to remain an important component of the policing model in England and Wales.  This is good news.

However, the police service should not use this financial reprieve as an excuse to duck important reforms.  The reforms that the police have already planned should continue, with any savings reinvested in an improved and more effective service.

It would be a retrograde step for candidates in the 2016 PCC elections to start pledging (as I am certain many will) to ‘protect officer numbers’.  We still need to rebalance the police workforce.   We need more staff with the kind of digital skills required to tackle cybercrime.  We need more crime analysts to help deploy police resources more effectively.  Blanket commitments to maintain officer numbers will get in the way of important reforms.

The argument for inter-force collaboration and, indeed, force mergers does not go away. The new top sliced transformation fund is designed in part to facilitate collaboration, but the fact remains that a 43 force structure no longer makes sense in operational or financial terms.

The police still have to adapt to a changing world. Falling levels of traditional crime and the explosion in online crime, particularly fraud and hacking, means we need an entirely different kind of police service.  Many of the pressures the police experience from non-crime demand will not go away. Big cuts to local government funding and the wider criminal justice system mean we need to reorganise the public service frontline to deal with problems such as high reoffending rates, child safeguarding and rising levels of mental illness.

Before yesterday I thought policing faced an existential moment and I stand by that. While the service has now secured significant financial breathing space, it still needs to adapt to an increasingly complex world. 

Rick Muir is director of the Police Foundation