How Miliband's TUC conference speech could work to his advantage

Should the Labour leader be booed and heckled, as on previous occasions, it will undermine the Tories' claim that he is the plaything of the union leaders.

After a summer for Labour to forget, Ed Miliband's fightback will begin at next month's TUC conference. Today's Times reports that the Miliband will address the annual union gathering for the second time (having first done so in 2011) on 10 September. 

At first there might some be glee among the Tories that the Labour leader has, as the paper puts it, "chosen an audience of union bosses" to hear his first speech since the party's recent woes began. But it's worth pointing out how the occasion could work to his advantage. 

Every time Miliband has addressed a large gathering of trade unionists since becoming Labour leader he has been booed and heckled (at the 2011 anti-cuts march, at the 2011 TUC conference and at the 2012 anti-cuts march), usually after warning that the party will have to keep most of the coalition's spending cuts and make some of its own. After the Labour leader's recent clashes with Unite over Falkirk and his pledge to match the coalition's current spending plans for 2015-16, it would be surprising if history did not repeat itself. 

While the Tories might try to present this as evidence that Miliband is a "weak" leader who presides over a divided party it would sit uneasily with their recent narrative that it's Len McCluskey and co. who call the shots in Labour. Far from writing the party's policies (as the Tories would have it), McCluskey has entirely failed to persuade Miliband to embrace his "no cuts" stance. A common joke among Unite activists is that they wish they were as influential as the Tories claim.

After months in which he has been framed as a leader in hock to the unions, footage of Miliband being booed could be just what he needs to expose the Tories' fantasies. 

Ed Miliband addresses trade unionists in Hyde Park after a march against the coalition's spending cuts on 20 October 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496