Ed Miliband ditching the "command and control" politics of the New Labour years

He wants it to be all about grassroots, community campaigning.

There are a couple of interesting hints about Labour's strategy going into the 2015 general election in the Independent today. Andrew Grice secured what appears to have been a much-interrupted interview with Ed Miliband on a train to Carlisle, and the Labour leader was keen to put the focus on Labour's efforts at community organising and grassroots campaigning.

Miliband said:

It’s not just about winning elections… It’s about constructing a real political movement. It’s a change from machine politics to grassroots politics.

A seemingly bland bit of politician-speak, but Labour are also investing cash in this strategy - as Grice points out, by the end of this year, Labour will have employed 170 full-time organisers in its 106 target seats, who in turn will recruit and train volunteer organisers in time for the 2015 election.

There was also a mention for David Miliband's Movement for Change campaign group, which he set up in conjuntion with American political guru Arnie Graf. David may be off to New York, but it seems like his grassroots organisation is about to become pretty important to Labour as the party moves away from the centralised election strategies of the New Labour years.

As my colleague George Eaton's recent interview with American journalist Sasha Issenberg reveals, the more data you have on your potential voters, the more likely you are to be able to target your persuasive messages at them effectively. By getting more organisers and volunteers out on the doorstep early on in the election cycle, Labour should be able to collect information that will pay dividends when the polls open in two years' time.
 

Ed Miliband claims his "One Nation" message is cutting through. Photograph: Getty Images

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.