Show Hide image

Ed Miliband must resign

. . . on political heroes, nationalised banks and family confessionals

It is surely time for another big government resignation. No, I don’t mean another departure by Peter Mandelson, who has to be banished from office as frequently as exceptionally naughty children are banished from school, and for similar reasons. We need a Labour politician to do a bit of grandstanding and resign on principle. He or she should storm out of a cabinet meeting, and tell the waiting cameras outside No 10 that the entire political class has lost the plot. The country is crying out for such a gesture, and any minister who dared make it would become an instant hero, particularly among the young who, as Joss Garman, co-founder of Plane Stupid, pointed out in the Observer recently, are increasingly furious that they will inherit both a clapped-out economy and a clapped-out planet.

Conventional wisdom states that storming out and seeking mass popularity is bad for a political career. Best, it is said, to stay on the inside and court friends. But we do not live in conventional times: all politicians (with the possible exception of the Lib Dem deputy leader Vince Cable) are discredited, and one who breaks the rules might well find himself at the helm in a future hour of crisis, as Winston Churchill did in 1940.

Nothing is to be gained by staying inside government at a time like this. You find yourself implicated in more bad decisions.

All we need is the right cabinet minister. My choice is the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband. He is 39 (and therefore, as Garman pointed out, closer in age to the people who throw custard over Mandelson than he is to Gordon Brown), physically presentable, a plausible leader who has moved ahead of his brother in the betting on Brown’s successor and, as fashion demands, very slightly diffident. I realise there are no guarantees and this may turn out to be a pointless sacrifice. But sorry, Ed, you’re the man to make it.

What should be the resignation issue? I suppose something environmental such as airport runways would do, but the government’s failure completely to nationalise the banks might be better. Most people understand why banks must be saved, but can’t see why taxpayers should keep pouring in money without bankers doing what they’re told, such as extending credit. Every bank is now dependent on government support. Even where they don’t own majority shares, taxpayers are insuring “toxic assets” and guaranteeing customers’ deposits. So why not put this commanding height of the economy – the most commanding height of all, now that we don’t mine coal, manufacture steel or run trains on time – into full public ownership?

I am no economist, so perhaps there are things I don’t understand. If so, readers will no doubt enlighten me. While they are about it, they could also explain:

1. Why we are told that withholding financiers’ bonuses, in the US or UK, will lead to “an exodus of talent”. Where will these people go? Who wants them?

2. Why “quantitative easing” – which, I believe, involves increasing the amount of money in circulation – has to be done by buying gilts and bonds, many of which are held by rich foreigners who probably won’t spend their windfalls, and certainly not on British goods. Why not hand cash out to people such as New Statesman readers who would spend it at, say, local farmers’ markets?

3. Why it is so difficult to stamp on tax havens. Several are British colonies and the European havens (such as Monaco) depend on neighbouring states for vital services such as power supplies.

Governments that lose revenue need only issue mild threats. Why don’t they?

I have other questions, but that is enough to be going on with.

I am troubled by one of Suzanne Moore’s many objections – spelt out in that admirable home of progressive thinking, the Mail on Sunday – to last week’s NS issue edited by Alastair Campbell. A six-page interview with Alex Ferguson, she says, is “really going to grab the female reader”. This is called irony, as is my last-but-one sentence.

What she means is there’s too much football. Since I prefer rugby and cricket, I agree. But in my day as editor, we tried a women’s issue, edited and written by women (including Ms Moore) about childcare and so on. Very good it was, too, but circulation fell. If you want to keep out the footballers, Suzanne, you must make a better job of rallying the sisterhood.

I am also troubled by Decca Aitkenhead’s recent interview with William Hague in the Guardian. Thanks to earnings from writing and public speaking, he has no debts and no mortgage and can therefore, he says, “be frank” and “stand up strongly for things”. I have not noticed Hague standing for anything different from what he stood for before he made his fortune. Leave that aside.

What concerns me is the recollection of what my Tory parents, long dead, always said: that Labour governments couldn’t run the country because Labour MPs and ministers had no money. I pointed out to them that ministers were not expected to finance the government from their own resources. But what they meant, I guess, was that only people with independent incomes could be trusted to govern in the wider public interest without bothering about their personal and family prosperity. Now almost every MP claims big allowances, favours augmenting their already generous pensions and loses no opportunity to grab non-executive directorships. Were my parents right, after all?

This column names the guilty men. Who started this business of writing about their children’s private lives, to which the Myersons (from whom it has been impossible to escape in recent weeks) have merely added a twist by inviting their son to bite back? I nominate my fellow NS columnist Hunter Davies, who entertained Sunday Times readers in the 1970s with tales of his daughter Caitlin. Nominations for earlier pioneers are invited.

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 30 March 2009 issue of the New Statesman, The end of American power

Ralph Steadman for the New Statesman.
Show Hide image

Tim Farron: Theresa May is "the prisoner of the Ukip wing of her party"

The Liberal Democrat leader on his faith, Blairism and his plan to replace Labour as the opposition. 

This is Tim Farron’s seventh general election. His first was in 1992, when his Tory opponent was a 36-year-old called Ther­esa May. He was just 21 and they were both unsuccessful candidates in the Labour fortress of North-West Durham. He recalls talking “to a bunch of ex-miners who weren’t best pleased to see either of us, some kid Liberal and some Tory”. Now he sees his former and current opponent as “the prisoner of the Ukip wing of her party . . . I think it has rendered Ukip almost pointless – she is Ukip now.”

May was elected to parliament in 1997, but it took Farron until 2005 to join her. She leads the dominant Conservatives while he heads a party of only nine Liberal Democrat MPs. Still, their reversal of fortunes gives him hope. “After the 1992 election, every­one said there’s no way for a non-Tory government, and it turned out there was. So let’s not assume it’s a given there’s a Tory government [for ever].”

In April, I accompanied Farron to Manchester Gorton, in the lead-up to a by-election that was cancelled by May’s decision to call a snap election on 8 June. Still, the 46-year-old’s party has been in campaign mode for months; Lib Dems spoke of using last December’s Richmond Park by-election to test their messaging. It clearly had an effect: the incumbent Conservative, Zac Goldsmith, lost to their candidate, Sarah Olney.

Brexit, to which the Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed, will be a dominant theme of the election. Their party membership has just exceeded 100,000, close to an all-time high, and they have enjoyed much success in council by-elections, with more to come in the local elections of 4 May.

However, any feel-good factor swiftly evaporated when Farron appeared on Channel 4 News on 18 April. He was asked by the co-presenter Cathy Newman whether or not he believes that homosexuality is a sin, a question that he answered obliquely in 2015 by saying that Christianity started with acknowledging that “we’re all sinners”.

This time, he told Newman, he was “not in the position to make theological announcements over the next six weeks . . . as a Liberal, I’m passionate about equality”.

The Channel 4 interview divided opinion. One Liberal politician told me that Farron’s stance was “completely intolerable”. Stephen Pollard, the influential editor of the Jewish Chronicle, described it as
“a very liberal position: he holds certain personal views but does not wish to legislate around them”. Jennie Rigg, the acting chair of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, said it was “as plain as the nose on my face that Tim Farron is no homophobe”.

Farron declined the chance to clarify his views with us in a follow-up phone call, but told the BBC on 25 April: “I don’t believe that gay sex is a sin,” adding, “On reflection, it makes sense to actually answer this direct question since it’s become an issue.”

For his critics, Farron’s faith and politics are intertwined. He sees it differently, as he told Christian Today in 2015: “. . . the danger is sometimes that as a Christian in politics you think your job is to impose your morality on other people. It absolutely isn’t.”

Tim Farron joined the then Liberal Party at the age of 16 but didn’t become a Christian until he was 18. Between completing his A-levels in Lancashire and going to Newcastle University to read politics, he read the apologetics, a body of Christian writing that provides reasoned arguments for the gospel story. “I came to the conclusion that it was true,” he told me. “It wasn’t just a feel-good story.”

In speeches, Farron now takes on the mannerisms of a preacher, but he had a largely non-religious upbringing in Preston, Lancashire. “I don’t think I’d been to church once other than Christmas or the odd wedding,” he says. “I went once with my dad when I was 11, for all the good that did me.”

When we meet, it is Theresa May’s religion that is in the spotlight. She has condemned the National Trust for scrubbing the word “Easter” from its Easter egg hunt, a row it later emerged had been largely invented by the right-wing press in response to a press release from a religious-themed chocolate company.

“It’s worth observing there’s no mention of chocolate or bunny rabbits in the Bible,” Farron reminds me. “When people get cross about, in inverted commas, ‘us losing our Christian heritage’ they mean things which are safe and comfortable and nostalgic.” He pauses. “But the Christian message at Easter is shocking, actually, and very radical.”

British politics is tolerant of atheists (such as Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg) alongside those who, like David Cameron, are culturally Christian but whose faith is “a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes”. But the reaction to Farron’s equivocation on homosexuality prompted many to wonder if a politician who talks openly about his faith is now seen as alarming. Nebulous wishes of peace and love at Christmas, yes; sincere discussions of the literal truth of the Resurrection? Hmm.

Tim Farron’s beliefs matter because he has a mission: to replace not only Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the opposition but Theresa May in Downing Street. Over lassis at the MyLahore curry house in Manchester, he tells me that Britain is facing two calamities. “One is Brexit, indeed hard Brexit . . . and the other is a Tory government for 25 years. We have to present a genuine, progressive alternative that can not only replace Labour as an opposition, it can replace the Tories as a government.” This is ambitious talk for a party with nine MPs. “I understand the ridicule that will be thrown at me for saying those things: but if you don’t want to run the country, why are you in politics?” He pauses. “That’s a question I would ask most people leading the Labour Party at present.”

What does he think of May, his one-time opponent in North-West Durham? “She strikes me as being very professional, very straightforward, somebody who is very conservative in every sense of the word, in her thought processes, her politics, in her style.” He recalls her 2002 conference speech in which she warned Tory activists: “Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us: the nasty party.”

“In many ways, she was the trailblazer for Cameron in being a softer-focused Tory,” he says. “It now looks like she’s been trapped by the very people she was berating as the nasty party all those years ago. I like to think that isn’t really her. But that means she isn’t really in control of the Conservative Party.”

Voters, however, seem to disagree. In recent polls, support for the Conservatives has hovered between 40 and 50 per cent. Isn’t a progressive alliance the only way to stop her: Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru all working together to beat the Tories?

“Let’s be really blunt,” he says. “Had Jeremy Corbyn stood down for us in Richmond Park [where Labour stood Christian Wolmar], we would not have won. I could have written Zac Goldsmith’s leaflets for you: Corbyn-backed Liberal Democrats.

“I’m a pluralist,” he adds. “But any progressive alliance has got to be at least equal to the sum of its parts. At the moment, it would be less than the sum of its parts. The only way the Tories are losing their majority is us gaining seats in Hazel Grove –” he ticks them off with his fingers, “– in Cheadle, in the West Country and west London. There’s no chance of us gaining those seats if we have a kind of arrangement with the current Labour Party in its current form.”

What about the SNP? “Most sensible people would look at that SNP manifesto and agree with 99 per cent of it,” Farron says. “But it’s that one thing: they want to wreck the country! How can you do a deal with people who want to wreck the country?”

There’s no other alternative, he says. Someone needs to step up and offer “something that can appeal to progressive younger voters, pro-Europeans and, you know, moderate-thinking Middle England”. He wants to champion a market economy, strong public services, action on climate change, internationalism and free trade.

That sounds like Blairism. “I’m a liberal, and I don’t think Blair was a liberal,” he replies. “But I admire Blair because he was somebody who was able to win elections . . . Iraq aside, my criticisms of Blair are what he didn’t do, rather than what he did do.”

Turning around the Tory tide – let alone with just nine MPs, and from third place – is one hell of a job. But Farron takes heart from the Liberal Party in Canada, where Justin Trudeau did just that. “I’m not Trudeau,” he concedes, “He was better-looking, and his dad was prime minister.”

There is a reason for his optimism. “I use the analogy of being in a maze,” he says, “You can’t see a way out of it, for a progressive party to form a majority against the Tories. But in every maze, there is a way out. We just haven’t found it yet.” 

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

This article first appeared in the 27 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Cool Britannia 20 Years On

0800 7318496