Labour reshuffle: Miliband has rewarded the outriders for his project

Tristram Hunt and Gloria De Piero, two notionally "Blairite" figures, distinguished themselves by engaging with Miliband's political and ideological themes.

Ever since his election as Labour leader in 2010, Ed Miliband has often appeared a lonely figure. Few of his original shadow cabinet voted for him and many have seemed reluctant to engage with the defining themes of his leadership such as "responsible capitalism", "predistribution" and "one nation". 

"I am my own outrider," he has often privately remarked with a mixture of pride and regret. But one of the aims of the reshuffle was to ensure that this is no longer the case. Rather than punishing "the Blairites", as the Tories would have it, Miliband rewarded those who have engaged with his political and ideological project. It is 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. While notionally "Blairite" figures (who voted for David in the 2010 leadership contest), they have sought to give greater definition to his intellectual themes. Expect promotions for other contributors such as Dan Jarvis, Rushanara Ali and Kate Green when Miliband reshuffles his junior shadow ministerial team today. 

At the same time, the Labour leader rewarded his original supporters for their loyalty. Rachel Reeves was promoted from shadow chief secretary to the Treasury to shadow work and pensions secretary, Sadiq Khan, his leadership campaign manager, remained shadow justice secretary (the post he has held since 2010 and to which he is committed) and Hilary Benn, whose alleged lethargy had prompted calls for his removal, was left in place as shadow communities secretary. 

One final point worth noting is that "the Blairites" - Stephen Twigg, Liam Byrne and Jim Murphy - all chose to accept demotions, rather than leaving the shadow cabinet and seeking to wield influence on the backbenches. That is an acknowledgement of Miliband's significantly strengthened position. Over the summer he often appeared desperately weak; in office but not in power. But after defining the conference season, he wields new authority. By remaining in the tent, these big beasts have signalled their confidence that Labour can win the next election and that they will serve in Miliband's team. 

Newly appointed Labour shadow cabinet ministers Gloria de Piero, Tristram Hunt and Emma Reynolds take part in a photocall in London yesterday. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.