Ed Miliband and the "timidity Gestapo"
Caution and a lack of debate at the top of the Labour Party are hampering its fightback; Miliband kn
By Rafael Behr Published 16 June 2011
It hurts to be rejected, especially after a long relationship. Labour is still reeling from the pain of being jilted by the electorate last year. At first, as with any break-up, there was an element of denial. Look! We're ahead in the polls. They want us back! It has taken a while for the dismal realisation that it is all over to set in.
Deeper awareness of how hard it will be to woo back lost voters has been accompanied by rising impatience with Ed Miliband's leadership, hence the eruption of what-iffery around his brother David. The trigger was a leak of the speech the elder Miliband would have given, had he won the top job. For a broken-hearted party, the release of that document was like a sordid one-night stand with an ex. It was a desperate quest for comfort by a faction that is feeling particularly lonely.
Members of Ed's inner circle blame "people who were big in New Labour 15 years ago". They also know that sources quoted in newspapers as "friends of David" are no such thing. Those with a better claim to that title concede that the former foreign secretary feels frustrated but say he has accepted "domestic exile" - withdrawal from front-line politics, for fear of stoking endless speculation about ulterior motives.
Fear and hope
No one in the shadow cabinet is plotting for a change of leader. They are all scarred survivors of the debilitating Blair-Brown wars and, for the time being, inoculated against conspiracy.
That doesn't stop them grumbling. There are two main complaints about Ed. The first is that he isn't performing like a prime minister-in-waiting. He doesn't land enough blows on David Cameron in their weekly Commons jousts; he looks awkward on screen. Some politicians can be coached out of presentational problems. Margaret Thatcher had vocal training to soften her strident tones. George Osborne's voice has dropped half an octave and a portion of its sneer since he became Chancellor. Then again, Gordon Brown's aides toiled in vain to get him to lighten up.
While many Labour MPs worry about Ed's lack of televisual dynamism, they all seem to like him in person, which is not often the case with party leaders. Loyalty more often flows from fear and hope of promotion. Miliband's amiability is, however, connected to the second charge against him: chronic caution. Tony Blair and Cameron defined themselves in opposition by picking fights with their own parties. Miliband is determined not to follow that approach. His aversion to conflict is generally appreciated by MPs but it leaves many wondering what other strategy he has to get noticed. His aides point proudly to the unfulfilled predictions of many media commentators that the party would collapse into civil war. But the price for harmony is paid in lost momentum. There is unity but it is brittle.
One Labour frontbencher talks about the "timidity Gestapo" around the leadership that clamps down on independent thought. Policy ideas or even just ruses to make mischief with the coalition are knocked down with orders to await further instructions. Another shadow minister compares the lack of debate at the top of the party to the experience of being buried alive. The root cause of this stasis is uncertainty at every level about what to defend and what to denounce from the party's legacy in government. Everyone agrees on the need to apologise for something about the New Labour years. Unfortunately, no one can agree what it is.
Did Brown sabotage Blair's good work or did he fail to bury Blairism deep enough? Was the problem a loss of nerve over reform of the state or slavish submission to rampant market forces? Probably a bit of both.
While Miliband takes his time addressing these questions, the Tories gladly supply answers of their own: Labour ran out of money because public spending is all it knows; it takes a Conservative chancellor to pick up the pieces; only major pruning of the state will restore economic confidence and drive recovery. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has a sturdy defence against these charges: the deficit soared when government revenue collapsed after the global financial crisis. Blame the bankers. Osborne's aggressive cuts - "Too far, too fast" - are cruel, unnecessary and dangerous. The cuts will kill confidence and delay recovery.
This has been the defining argument of the past year and both Eds seem prepared to wait for it to be resolved before setting out an agenda for government. Yet there is every chance the Osborne-Balls grudge match will not be a clear win. There will be no definitive moment when the referee blows the whistle and one party lifts the Competence Cup. In reality, it is shaping up to be a scrappy 1-1 draw. There will be some growth but also stubborn unemployment. Osborne will lean hard on the Office for Budget Responsibility to declare his fiscal targets met, perhaps cooking the books if necessary. Then he will bribe voters in a pre-election Budget. (He learned those tricks shadowing Brown
at the Treasury.)
Jilted party
A Populus poll for the Times on 14 June put Cameron and Osborne 18 points clear of Miliband and Balls on the question of who is more trusted to run the economy. Senior Labour figures worry that the public will credit the Tories with an economic mission accomplished, even in an anaemic recovery. "Osborne will turn around and say, 'We cut the deficit, here's your bonus,'" says one despondent shadow minister. "We need a strategy to head that off and we need it now."
Miliband, at least, recognises that a strategy for the future demands some accommodation with the past. On 13 June, he made a thoughtful speech owning up to Labour's tolerance of irresponsible behaviour at the top and bottom of society. He regretted the failure to nudge people on benefits into work and the unwillingness to restrain greed in the City. It almost sounded like an apology.
Voters expect penitence before they will take a party back and there lies a painful conundrum for Miliband. He cannot set out a new programme for government without defining what was wrong with his party's record - and he can't do that without threatening the fragile unity that is his biggest achievement as leader. That leaves jilted Labour looking sorry most of all for itself.
Rafael Behr is chief political commentator of the New Statesman
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


26 comments
Why do people whinge about "over-spending" on the public sector. The public is everyone - all of us. When tax money is spent on the public, it is spent as it should be. The problem is not policies which improve the standard of the public's work and home lives - the problem is that the ruling elite and the wealthy middle class who serve and emulate them have chosen to detach themselves from the contract which ensured public money should be spent on the public. They have done it by dodging taxes they should pay and backing parties whose ideologies justify their utterly self centred and anti social behaviour. These are the people who should be despised, not those who serve the public.
Many EU politicians similarly believed they could live on ever increasing debt with no comeback- a brainless boom forever policy. The left wing EU is awash with debt. The process is easy to sell to the public who enjoy living beyond their means.
Now there is recession and the public throughout the EU and not just in the UK realize their country's indebtedness. In the public mind now the left are associated with financial and economic incompetence. Hence there is a trend to elect right wing governments in the EU. If the coalition achieve any sort of turnaround by 2015 if will rubber stamp the idea that the whereas the left can't do financial competence the right can.
This will make it very difficult for Labour to get the public to vote for them in 2015 as they the public will not want to risk excess public spending running up huge debts again.
The EU is entering a stage of difficult demographics due to ever-bulging retired populations having to be supported by a relatively small number of workers. This means cuts will be the order of the day for the conceivable future. Can Labour hope to sell itself as a party that can make these cuts?
Socialism is are only salvation. It's time we followed our Greek comrades and called for an end to this neo -liberal loonacey, and nationalise the railways, banks (for good this time), gas, water, transport, and power generation. Then and only then will people have a real choice of policey. Ed then you would have Balls. (it's friday and I've had a bad week)
@jono_ld123 : "... simply focus on attacking, criticising and pointing out all the Conservatives' faults"
Before 2008, Labour borrowed and spent £350Bn and precided over the fastest decline of UK industry since the 1970s. But what did our kids get for it?
My recommendation would be Ed Milliband should work on his fresh-out-of-posh school nievety. All jolly Oxbridge priveledge debating society what ho!
He could take lessons from Ed Balls:
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/31346/ed-balls-nazi-costume-attacked-v...
Nice guy.
It is consoling that so many extremists of the neo-liberal right read the Staggers. Mayhap a conversion could occur.
It may have escaped your attention but Labour is in the middle of a far reaching policy review, this cannot be done in five minutes to suit the ever changing opinions of so-called political journalists. Labour are ahead in the polls, barely 9 months after sustaining bad defeat in the general election this is something of an achievement, but where is the praise for that?
How do you expect one man to turn around the fortunes of a party that was booted out of office after 13 years in just 9 months? It is absurd.
Why not track down the culprits that decided it was a good idea for labour to take 5 months in choosing a leader, 5 months in which the Tories were able to ludicrously pin the blame for a global recession on labour? If you at the NS care so much, then start headlining that it was not labour's fault that we had a GLOBAL financial recession and that before that hit we had low borrowing and record low national debt?
Why not accentuate that Osborne now seems to be saying (when he can be found) that he is expecting 4 years of poor growth and rising unemployment and if that happens of course then the deficit far from being paid down in 4 years, will INCREASE. Now that is news, it is real and it affects the lives of the poor, the needy, the disabled, the young the elderly, students etc etc far more than this ridiculous and unrelenting journalistic trash of attacking the Labour party all the time.
Why doesn't his publication do some investigative journalism on the scandal of Tory donors and their sticky dirty money grabbing fingers in every government contract going? We all know what is going on, but it is systematically failed to be reported on.
Or does reporting this require a degree of putting one's neck on the block and displaying some political courage?
http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2011/06/last-1000-polls-show-labour-sust...
I realise that you labour is in the lead poll deniers do not want to read this, but I think you should if only to stop making yourself look like complete Tory Tits!
Last 1000 polls show Labour sustaining record performance under Ed Miliband
Labour's polling score in the last 1,000 polls. You can see from the graph that Ed Miliband is sustaining higher polling percentages than either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair. Indeed one has to go back to 2002 to find a comparable performance for Labour
when we talk about the welfare state, it is so easy abuse it.
for example i can tell of many people i know personally who are reasonably well off and who get tax credits to pay for their childrens private education !!! the law of unintended consequences springs to mind.
labour was oblivious to this. it is far better to increase the tax free thresholds and provide incentives for those on lower incomes and reduce tax credits.
Labour need to defend the poor and vulnerable. Apologies about the past seems pretty irrelevant to people who are now under attack.
The coming public sector disputes risk painting Labour as being the party of public sector workers and benefit claimants. If that is allowed to stick it will be electoral disaster. The party needs a strategy to deal with this and fast.
No, you are so out of touch. Without a party to defend the public realm and those unable to defend themselves, there is no hope for millions of voters. You are living in the toxic land of the Daily Mail, thinking that those on benefits are a problem. They are not - these are people who have a right to decency and respect. When you are made redundant, or have a heart attack or a stroke, or get cancer, you might begin to get the point.