Exclusive: Labour MPs launch new Milibandite group

The One Nation group will seek to "outride" for the Labour leader's ideas and demonstrate that the party has moved into a post-Blairite/Brownite era.

Since Ed Miliband became Labour leader, many have noted the lack of an identifiable band of supporters to champion his ideas and defend him from attack. For fear of fracturing party unity after his narrow victory in 2010, Miliband avoided cultivating a political faction as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair did. "I am my own outrider", he has often privately remarked. It is an approach that has left him vulnerable to internal criticism, most notably last summer. One question frequently asked during those torrid weeks was "where are the Milibandites?"

Among the aims of last week's shadow cabinet reshuffle was to offer an answer. The Labour leader rewarded those who have engaged with his political and ideological project and who have shown consistent loyalty. It was notable that both Tristram Hunt (promoted to shadow education secretary) and Gloria De Piero (promoted to shadow minister for women and equalities) contributed chapters to the recent book One Nation: power, hope, community, regarded in the party as the founding text of the Milibandites (it was co-edited by two of his early supporters, Rachel Reeves and Owen Smith). Other contributors, such as Dan Jarvis, Rushanara Ali and Kate Green, were also promoted to more senior posts.

In an attempt to continue to give greater definition to Miliband's project, those involved in the book have now launched a formal One Nation group. The aim, one shadow cabinet minister told me, would be to "outride" for Miliband's ideas, to champion community politics (a central theme of the book) and to demonstrate that the party had moved into a "post-Blairite/Brownite era".

In its supportive stance towards Miliband, it is analogous to the Conservative 301 Group, the loyalist faction formed to act as a counterweight to the 1922 committee. The test of the group's success will be whether it can advance Miliband's project without merely being seen as a front for the leadership.

Newly appointed Labour shadow cabinet ministers Gloria de Piero, Tristram Hunt and Emma Reynolds take part in a photocall in London last week. 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.