Ed Miliband and Tony Blair speak in Westminster Hall on March 20, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Miliband won't win by telling voters how great New Labour was

Defeated parties do not regain power by fighting old battles but by convincing voters that they have changed.

The demand of John Hutton and Alan Milburn's piece in today's Financial Times is a familiar one: defend our record. Ed Miliband has frequently been charged by members of the last Labour government with failing to devote sufficient time to reminding voters of the achievements of that administration. The Tories, it is said, have been given free rein to trash the party's brand.

Hutton and Milburn's primary complaint is the failure to rebut the Conservative claim that it was excessive public spending that caused the economic crisis. As they write: "The last Labour government could be considered one of the most prudent in modern times. After a decade in power it had cut the deficit and cut the national debt. Mr Osborne cannot have been unduly concerned about Labour spending plans when, in 2007, he committed the Tories to sticking to them. Among the Group of Eight rich countries, only Canada had less public debt." 

In 2007, both the deficit (2.4 per cent of GDP) and the national debt (36.5 per cent) were lower than in 1997 (3.4 per cent of GDP, national debt of 42.5 per cent). It was the crash that caused the deficit (which swelled to 11 per cent after a collapse in tax receipts), not the deficit that caused the crash. 

The claim that Miliband and Ed Balls have failed to point all of this out is unmerited. Indeed, Balls in particular, has often been accused of mounting too aggressive a defence of Labour's fiscal record. In January 2014, he told The Andrew Marr Show: "Do I think the level of public spending going into the crisis was a problem for Britain? No, I don’t, nor our deficit, nor our national debt – what happened was a global financial crisis which pushed up the deficit." Similarly, in 2011, Miliband commented: "The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats I think are pedalling a very dangerous myth because they want to tell people that it was somehow all because of a decade of overspending under Labour. It wasn’t. It was because of a financial crash – a financial crash that happened all round the world."

Both men have rightly resisted the demand from the right, and occasionally from the left, to "apologise" for Labour's profligacy. But if they have refused to be as vocal as Hutton and Milburn would like, their caution has been wise. The perception that the last Labour government "overspent" is now so ingrained that there is little to be gained from mounting a desperate rearguard action. Miliband and Balls have instead focused on reassuring voters that they would be wise spenders in office, pledging to eliminate the current deficit and reduce the national debt as a share of GDP. 

The wider complaint from Milburn and Hutton is that "They have worked harder to distance themselves from New Labour than to defend its record". Indeed, and they have been right to do so. Defeated parties do not regain power by fighting old battles but by convincing voters that they have changed. They win arguments about the future, not about the past. Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and, to a lesser extent, David Cameron all won by defining themselves against both the government of the day and their parties’ former incarnations. Cameron’s failure to achieve a majority reflected the incompleteness of his modernising project.

Voters who deserted Labour betweeen 1997 and 2010 will not be assuaged by reminders of its achievements: the minimum wage, the shortest NHS waiting times, Sure Start and a million fewer pensioners in poverty (any more than they were at the last general election). They will be won back through an honest reckoning with its mistakes: the indifference to inequality, the Iraq war, the lack of financial regulation and the disregard for civil liberties. Miliband was quicker than most to recognise this (the key to his leadership victory in 2010). His failure, if anything, has been an inability to more clearly detach Labour from its past. Those who have abandoned the party for Ukip, the SNP and the Greens have not done so because they believe Miliband has too little in common with his predecessors. 

There are numerous criticisms that one can level at the Labour leader's performance, and that of his party, since 2010. But it does not follow that an unremitting defence of its past record would have served the opposition any better. Indeed, it would likely have served it far worse. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.