Miliband to make major speech on the economy this week

Labour leader will deliver speech on the economy on Thursday as new ICM poll shows his party continues to trail the Tories in this area.

One of the reasons why many Labour MPs remain pessimistic about their party's chances of winning of a majority in 2015 is that, even after a double-dip recession, Labour continues to trail the Conservatives on the economy. While the latest Guardian/ICM poll gives Labour a 12-point lead (its highest since May 2003), it also shows that more voters (29 per cent) blame the "unsustainable spending" of the last government for the slowdown than the Tories' cuts (23 per cent).

For Labour, the concern is that such ratings are often a better long-term indicator of the election result than voting intentions. History shows that at general election time, when the opposition comes under greater scrutiny, voters usually side with the party that they view as the most economically competent. With the economy likely to return to sustained growth in 2014, the danger is that the coalition will increase its advantage in advance of 2015. 

If Ed Miliband is to firmly establish himself as a prime-minister-in-waiting, he will need to improve his party's standing in this area. I'm told that the Labour leader will make a major speech on the economy this Thursday, outlining his party's priorities ahead of the Budget on 20 March. On the same day, Jon Cruddas, the head of Labour's policy review, will deliver a speech on "the condition of Britain" (an echo of the book of the same name by G.D.H. Coleto coincide with the launch of a major new IPPR project on living standards, described to me as the think-tank's most ambitious programme since its famous Commission on Social Justice, which helped shape Labour's 1997 manifesto. 

After Cruddas warned in his Resolution Foundation speech last week that "simply opposing the cuts without an alternative is no good" (interpreted by some as a coded critique of Ed Balls), expect Miliband to say more about his vision of a remade capitalism. 

Ed Miliband speaks at the CBI's annual conference last year. 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.