Ed Miliband visits Standard Life on November, 11, 2013 in Edinburgh. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Miliband ties Salmond to Cameron in attack on "race to the bottom"

The Labour leader uses the Scottish First Minister's weapon of choice against him.

If the Union is to survive, it will be up to Labour save it. With just one MP in Scotland (out of a possible 59), the Conservatives recognise that they cannot speak with authority on the country's future. By contrast, even in the baleful circumstances of the 2010 general election, Labour held onto all 41 of its seats north of the border (indeed, its vote actually rose by 2.5 per cent). With the Lib Dems' support in freefall owing to their decision to enter coalition with the Tories (the psephologist Lewis Baston recently predicted that they would lose all but one of their 11 Scottish constituencies), Labour is now the only one of the three main Westminster parties that can credibly challenge the SNP.

For this reason, Ed Miliband and his team recognise that the independence referendum is a significant political opportunity for him. With David Cameron publicly conceding that he lacks appeal in Scotland, Miliband can step forward as the man to prevent the break-up of Britain. 

It is this that he will do in a speech at the Scottish Labour conference today. When Alex Salmond delivered his New Statesman lecture earlier this month, he argued that Scotland could serve as a "progressive beacon" for the rest of the UK by pursuing the kind of social democratic policies shunned by Westminster. But in his address, Miliband will turn this argument on its head by declaring that rather than leading a "race to the top", the SNP would trigger a "race to the bottom". While Labour has pledged to increase corporation tax from 20 per cent to 21 per cent in order to fund a reduction in business rates for small firms, Salmond has vowed to reduce it to 3 per cent below the British level. Alongside this, he has refused to match Miliband's commitment to reintroduce the 50p tax rate (see his response to my question at the NS event) on the grounds that it could undermine Scotland's competitiveness. 

In recent weeks, Salmond has sought to present Labour as Tory stooges after they joined forces with George Osborne against a currency union. But Miliband will use the First Minister's weapon of choice against him by arguing that his stance on tax means he would join David Cameron in a "race to the bottom". Here's the key extract: 

Think how hard it would be to stop a race to the bottom happening if, on one island, we had a border running along the middle so we were divided in two. It would be two lanes in a race to the bottom - with David Cameron and Alex Salmond at the starting blocks - in which the only way they win is for you to lose.

If Scotland was to go independent, it would be a race to the bottom not just on tax rates, but on wage rates, on terms and conditions, on zero hours contracts, on taking on the energy companies, on reforming the banks. Those who can afford it will be paying less, while hardworking families across Scotland will pay more and see their services suffer.

Alex Salmond who claims to be a great social democrat would end up running the same race to the bottom that the Tories have embarked upon. The SNP talk about social justice but they can’t build it - because they can’t be narrow nationalists and serve social justice at the same time.

While Salmond will point to his stances on welfare, inequality and foreign policy as evidence of his commitment to a centre-left agenda, the problem he faces is that Miliband has embraced such policies himself. He has pledged to scrap the bedroom tax (which, like the Poll Tax, has become a symbol of Conservative callousness in Scotland), to reverse the privatisation of the NHS, to invest more in early-years education and childcare, to spread the use of the living wage, to rebalance the economy and to increase infrastructure spending. He has condemned the invasion of Iraq (which so alienated progressives in Scotland and elsewhere), prevented a rush to war in Syria and pledged to pursue a foreign policy based on "values, not alliances". Finally, he has denounced the rise in income inequality (which, as Salmond rightly laments, has made the UK one of "the most unequal societies in the developed world"), and has made its reversal his defining mission.

The core argument he will make today is that if the UK elects a Labour government next May, it won't need Scotland to serve as a "progressive beacon". Rather, it will become a more progressive country through its own means. 

The SNP want to tell you that there is a progressive Scotland and a Tory England. There isn’t. There are millions of people across every part of our country who want a better future for all our young people; who say it is just wrong that so many people in work find themselves in poverty, who want to be part of a country that is more just, more equal, more fair.

Let’s rebuild all of o‎ur country in the cause of social justice. Together, not alone; as neighbours on this island, not as strangers; as friends, not as competitors; in a race to the top, not to the bottom.

 Two decades on from the death of John Smith (whose wife recently made a rare intervention in support of Miliband's party reforms), he will also call on Labour to honour his legacy by successfully defending the Union. 

John Smith was a man who passionately believed in social justice in Scotland - and in the United Kingdom.  Twenty years on, that flame of social justice still burns. And we can honour his legacy by winning the fight for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom.

In addition, according to Labour, he will "talk about his own family’s links to Scotland which saw his father train in the Royal Navy during the Second World War at Inverkeithing."  

For obvious reasons, it is Miliband, far more than Cameron, who has a political interest in the Union enduring. While the belief that an independent Scotland would consign the rest of the UK to permanent Conservative rule is exaggerated (on no occasion since 1945 would independence have changed the identity of the winning party and on only two occasions would it have converted a Labour majority into a hung parliament), the loss of 41 MPs would make it far harder for Labour to achieve majorities in the future. 

Were a Labour (or Lab-Lib Dem) government to be formed on the basis of support from MPs north of the border, the right-wing media and many Tories would denounce it as an illegitimate imposition on the rest of the UK. Miliband, meanwhile, would face the prospect of losing his majority less than a year after becoming prime minister. As a Labour MP recently put it to me, "If we lose Scotland, we could be completely buggered." 

With the polls narrowing significantly, Miliband will hope that today marks the start of the fightback. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Pity the Premier League – so much money can get you into all sorts of bother

You’ve got to feel sorry for our top teams. It's hard work, maintaining their brand.

I had lunch with an old girlfriend last week. Not old, exactly, just a young woman of 58, and not a girlfriend as such – though I have loads of female friends; just someone I knew as a girl on our estate in Cumbria when she was growing up and I was friendly with her family.

She was one of many kind, caring people from my past who wrote to me after my wife died in February, inviting me to lunch, cheer up the poor old soul. Which I’ve not been. So frightfully busy.

I never got round to lunch till last week.

She succeeded in her own career, became pretty well known, but not as well off financially as her husband, who is some sort of City whizz.

I visited her large house in the best part of Mayfair, and, over lunch, heard about their big estate in the West Country and their pile in Majorca, finding it hard to take my mind back to the weedy, runny-nosed little girl I knew when she was ten.

Their three homes employ 25 staff in total. Which means there are often some sort of staff problems.

How awful, I do feel sorry for you, must be terrible. It’s not easy having money, I said, managing somehow to keep back the fake tears.

Afterwards, I thought about our richest football teams – Man City, Man United and Chelsea. It’s not easy being rich like them, either.

In football, there are three reasons you have to spend the money. First of all, because you can. You have untold wealth, so you gobble up possessions regardless of the cost, and regardless of the fact that, as at Man United, you already have six other superstars playing in roughly the same position. You pay over the odds, as with Pogba, who is the most expensive player in the world, even though any halfwit knows that Messi and Ronaldo are infinitely more valuable. It leads to endless stresses and strains and poor old Wayne sitting on the bench.

Obviously, you are hoping to make the team better, and at the same time have the luxury of a whole top-class team sitting waiting on the bench, who would be desired by every other club in Europe. But the second reason you spend so wildly is the desire to stop your rivals buying the same players. It’s a spoiler tactic.

Third, there’s a very modern and stressful element to being rich in football, and that’s the need to feed the brand. Real Madrid began it ten years or so ago with their annual purchase of a galáctico. You have to refresh the team with a star name regularly, whatever the cost, if you want to keep the fans happy and sell even more shirts round the world each year.

You also need to attract PROUD SUPPLIERS OF LAV PAPER TO MAN CITY or OFFICIAL PROVIDER OF BABY BOTTLES TO MAN UNITED or PARTNERS WITH CHELSEA IN SUGARY DRINK. These suppliers pay a fortune to have their product associated with a famous Premier League club – and the club knows that, to keep up the interest, they must have yet another exciting £100m star lined up for each new season.

So, you can see what strains and stresses having mega money gets them into, trying to balance all these needs and desires. The manager will get the blame in the end when things start to go badly on the pitch, despite having had to accommodate some players he probably never craved. If you’re rich in football, or in most other walks in life, you have to show it, have all the required possessions, otherwise what’s the point of being rich?

One reason why Leicester did so well last season was that they had no money. This forced them to bond and work hard, make do with cheapo players, none of them rubbish, but none the sort of galáctico a super-Prem club would bother with.

Leicester won’t repeat that trick this year. It was a one-off. On the whole, the £100m player is better than the £10m player. The rich clubs will always come good. But having an enormous staff, at any level, is all such a worry for the rich. You have to feel sorry . . .

Hunter Davies’s “The Beatles Book” is published by Ebury

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 29 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, May’s new Tories