Ed Miliband delivers his speech on the EU at the London Business School earlier today. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Miliband's EU referendum stance shows he is confident of election victory

The very fact that the Labour leader feels secure enough to affront Eurosceptics suggests he believes No.10 is within reach.

Ed Miliband always seems to get there in the end. Labour now has a settled policy on an EU referendum: there will be one in the event of a treaty that transfers powers to Brussels. Otherwise there won’t.

It is a sign of how briskly hardline sceptics have set the pace of British debate on this subject that Miliband’s position is technically more enthusiastic about a plebiscite than the stance that David Cameron brought to government in 2010.

The "Sovereignty Act" passed by the coalition in 2011 envisages a vote on a specific treaty if ministers judge that it surrenders power. Labour’s offer upgrades that to a straight in/out vote. From a pro-European perspective that is a sensible adjustment. A vote on a specific treaty practically invites the public to express their distaste for the EU without confronting the risk of actually leaving the club. That makes a "no" much more likely. Pretty much the only way to get a "yes" in any European poll is to make it an all or nothing choice – and even then the odds are tight.

As George wrote earlier, the essential judgments that Miliband has made are, first, that most of Britain is not anywhere near as obsessed with the EU as the Conservative Party consistently proves itself to be and, second, that Labour’s position is only weakened by appearing to take policy dictation from Tory backbenchers via the dubious proxy of a weak-willed David Cameron.

Another important calculation is the aversion that many businesses have to the prospect of gambling with British EU membership (or trusting the people, as the sceptics prefer to see it). As one senior shadow cabinet minister put it to me recently, avoiding a vote on Europe is "pretty much the only Labour policy business likes." Since Miliband’s relations with captains of capitalism are pretty shaky there is obvious merit in underlying the one big interest they have in common. Indeed, the CBI has come out in strong support of the new Labour position, which will be a source of great cheer in the party’s upper echelons.  

The reaction from Tories and Ukip has been predictably intemperate. They each point to the essential unlikelihood of a referendum ever being held under Miliband’s plan and denounce this is a betrayal of the national will. Their problem is that those arguments resonate best among people who have long since decided they won’t be voting Labour. Meanwhile, efforts to sustain a prolonged argument on the subject risk looking quixotic at best, unhinged at worst when most voters’ concerns are elsewhere. Crucially, Labour’s position is now neatly aligned with the Lib Dem stance, enabling a two-against-one dynamic in the argument over who in this debate is reasonable and who are the fanatics. (It would be two-against-two if you count Ukip, but Farage’s party has to keep its distance from the Tories to sustain its own distinct anti-everyone-else identity.)

Above all, Miliband’s position has the virtue of being practical in the event that he ends up being Prime Minister. (He doesn't want to squander his limited political capital in a battle to save Britain's EU membership any more than Cameron does, but only the Tory leader has signed up to that torment.) The very fact that the Labour leader feels secure enough to affront Eurosceptics in the way has done today suggests increasing confidence on his part that No. 10 is within reach.

The political impact of formulating this new position on Europe is probably diminished by its agonisingly long gestation. Countless variants and different permutations of referendums on possible dates and different ways of declaring there will be no referendum have been debated in Miliband’s office (but notably never at shadow cabinet). But this is the Labour leader’s style. He ponders, he waits, he calculates the risk, he decides. It is an approach that tests the patience of his party and provokes sneers in the media. But it also disorients the Tories and has, on balance, proved quietly effective. Increasingly, Labour MPs can be heard admiring their leader’s timing and judgement. No one can be sure that his plan to reach Downing Street next May will come off. But it is getting progressively harder to deny that, in keeping with Miliband's ponderous style, he really might get there in the end. 

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. What now?

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings.

That’s it. Ted Cruz bowed out of the Republican presidential race last night, effectively handing the nomination to Donald Trump. “From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz said. “Tonight, I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.”

What foreclosed his path was his sizeable loss to Trump in Indiana. Cruz had bet it all on the Hoosier State, hoping to repeat his previous Midwest victories in Iowa and Wisconsin. He formed a pact with John Kasich, whereby Kasich left the anti-Trump field clear for Cruz in Indiana in return for Cruz not campaigning in Oregon and New Mexico. He announced Carly Fiorina as his vice-presidential nominee last week, hoping the news would give him a late boost.

It didn’t work. Donald Trump won Indiana handily, with 53% of the vote to Cruz’s 37%. Trump won all of the state’s nine congressional districts, and so collected all 57 of the convention delegates on offer. He now has 1,014 delegates bound to him on the convention’s first ballot, plus 34 unbound delegates who’ve said they’ll vote for him (according to Daniel Nichanian’s count).

That leaves Trump needing just 189 more to hit the 1,237 required for the nomination – a number he was very likely to hit in the remaining contests before Cruz dropped out (it’s just 42% of the 445 available), and that he is now certain to achieve. No need to woo more unbound delegates. No contested convention. No scrambling for votes on the second ballot. 

Though Bernie Sanders narrowly won the Democratic primary in Indiana, he’s still 286 pledged delegates short of Hillary Clinton. He isn’t going to win the 65% of remaining delegates he’d need to catch up. Clinton now needs just 183 more delegates to reach the required 2,383. Like Trump, she is certain to reach that target on 7th June when a number of states vote, including the largest: California.

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings. But while Clinton is viewed favourably by 42% of voters and unfavourably by 55%, Trump is viewed favourably by just 35% and unfavourably by a whopping 61%. In head-to-head polling (which isn’t particularly predictive this far from election day), Clinton leads with 47% to Trump’s 40%. Betting markets make Clinton the heavy favourite, with a 70% chance of winning the presidency in November.

Still, a few questions that remain as we head into the final primaries and towards the party conventions in July: how many Republican officeholders will reluctantly endorse Trump, how many will actively distance themselves from him, and how many will try to remain silent? Will a conservative run as an independent candidate against Trump in the general election? Can Trump really “do presidential” for the next six months, as he boasted recently, and improve on his deep unpopularity?

And on the Democratic side: will Sanders concede gracefully and offer as full-throated an endorsement of Clinton as she did of Barack Obama eight years ago? It was on 7th June 2008 that she told her supporters: “The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.” Will we hear something similar from Sanders next month? 

Jonathan Jones writes for the New Statesman on American politics.