Ever since Ed Miliband was elected as Labour leader in 2010 all the talk has been about how he is taking Labour back to the left, but the truth is very different. The problem is he has gone along with this narrative and now runs a deeply divided party, saying one thing, but doing another.
The first big tell-tale signs that Ed Miliband wasn’t moving Labour to the left were promises from his Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Rachel Reeves, to be “Tougher than the Tories” on benefits. This might have been a momentary blip, until she followed up with this in an interview published in the Guardian on the 17th March this year:
“We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work,”
Ed Miliband brought up benefit restrictions himself in his interview with Jeremy Paxman last week, as a way to reduce immigration, which brings us to his other favoured topic: toughening up Labour’s position on free movement, even bringing out a “Controls on immigration” mug this week.
However if all is still not clear, it is not just immigration and welfare where Ed Miliband’s party is distant from the left – Labour is, along with the Conservatives, fully signed up to replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system. A Labour MP recently said that Ed Miliband would “never agree to scrap Trident”
So there we have it. Labour are not on the left, but they are happy to use their activists, their rhetoric and their votes. The truth seems to be that Ed Miliband is “Blue Labour”, which is more right wing on social policies than New Labour, but more left wing on the economic issues. The other problem is that Ed Miliband has gone so far down the business bashing agenda that he has alienated much of the private sector and as Jason Crowley recently asked about Ed Miliband: “But what if he is wrong?”.
* Eddie Sammon is a member of the Lib Dems in France and a regular reader of and commenter on Liberal Democrat Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Elvis Costello and The Attractions: Watch Your Step
West End ward surgeries today #dundeewestend
Speculation over Labour's benefit cuts
Being a good conference guest
Simon R
Robin Bennett
Mike Peters
Tessa Skoczylas
31 Comments
Better BlEd than REd?
The labour party last looked and sounded vaguely socialist in 1983. It has and continues to garner votes by the bucket load by paying lipservice to working class ideals whilst in government serving the interests of those who belong to its client backers.
If the short term is measured in days, little of this matters to Miliband. If he becomes PM, however expect opprobrium and unpopularity to outstrip that for Nick Clegg.
Miliband appears to have believed in the imminent self destruct of the coalition for most of the parliament voicing opposition tailored for the short term. The consequence is a set unrealistic expectations which will trip him up from the start. Just one example of many is his citation of food banks as an indicator of government failure: how as PM would he respond if their use and numbers continue to increase? He has set up too many such hostages to fortune.
Eddie, Is that really a picture of you at the top of this article? If so — you are much younger than I imagined!
You say that — “..Ed Miliband has gone so far down the business bashing agenda that he has alienated much of the private sector..”
What does this mean ?
What actual “business bashing” has he been involved in? Why do you define “business bashing” as being something to do with “the left”?
I suggest that UKIP and their close cousins in The Conservative Party are more guilty of “business bashing” by their constant threat to the majority of UK businesses of imminent Brexit.
I suggest that using the state and tax-payers money (by subsidising low wages and rip-off landlords) to prop up inefficient and uncompetitive business is a major part of The Conservative agenda.
Is that approach not giving competitive and efficient businesses a bashing?
Why isn’t landlordism being propped up with £24 Billion of housing benefits not a clear example of bashing business? Why should people invest in manufacturing and innovative industries when they can clear a profit by sitting on property and collecting the rent (housing benefit)?
The Tories (UKIP. Conservative, or whatever) are keen to “bash business” by setting artiificial barriers to the free movement of workers. Some agricultural businesses will collapse overnight if that happens. Is that not “bashing business” !
“Bashing business” seems on balance to be a preserve of “the right” in UK politics.
I used to vote Liberal Democrat, believing they were a left of centre party.
May 2010 put paid to that .
There are thousands of people just like me so perhaps you should attend to the mote in thine own eye before complaining about others.
Eddie
“So there we have it. Labour are not on the left, but they are happy to use their activists, their rhetoric and their votes.”
You mean like the ‘Clegg Coup’ did to the left of the Liberal Democrats. Which is why MartinB, me and many others have either gone or ‘down tooled’ for this election.
I don’t think Labour are deeply divided. They got that out of their system in the 80s. Maybe there’s a few Blairites grumbling in the background, but certainly less genuinely divided and the Conservatives and a lot less embroiled in internal ideological arguments than the Lib Dems. They’re very well organised. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again it’s no good fighting this election as if it was still 1987. Most everyone knows that Labour are no longer a socialist party just as they know that the Conservatives are no longer interested in preserving traditional values. What I keep wondering is when will the Lib Dems finally understand the coalition is over and actually offer a liberal alternative. Coz if sniping at the SNP or Labour or The Greens was ever going to work it would be working by now.
EdM was elected, above all, as the Unity candidate & judged on that basis he is a sucsess, so far. Of course its a unity based on fudging differences rather than resolving them & the result is completely incoherent but that matters a lot less to Labour types than it would to us. The latest example is the assertion by the leader of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs that “Austerity” was off the agenda & that “30 to 40” Labour MPs would vote against any cuts in The Queens Speech.
Right now the only thing holding Labour together is the Tories failure to open up a consistent lead.
I’m sorry but this article just reeks of desperation.
Yes Labour has adopted a policy that involves some tough decisions on welfare. Interestingly, the author of this article doesn’t even bother to actually lay out what the policies are and why they are apparently not left-wing, preferring instead merely to quote a couple of statements by the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary. This really is quite lazy.
And in respect of Trident, the idea that being in favour of renewing Trident automatically removes one’s credentials is profoundly silly. It was Clement Attlee who created the independent British deterrent and took us into NATO. Every Labour government has retained our nuclear weapons, and as a strategic decision that has nothing to do with where you are on the political spectrum.
On the fundamental economic questions, Labour has a solid centre-left policy slate. To be lectured on that by a Liberal Democrat is hilarious. And the comments about Ed cynically manipulating activists, as if all activists are political automatons whose place on the spectrum is axiomatically determined by a policy on nuclear weapons and immigration, is exceptionally lazy journalism.
It seems as if the LibDems only reason to exist these days is to criticise other parties (apart from the Tories, who always seem to get a pretty easy ride here these days) whilst acting as if they are the One True Way. I’ve lost track of the number of attacks on Labour, the SNP, the Greens, UKIP, etc. Remember when LibDems used to claim to be non-tribal and in favour of plural (and positive) politics? Remember when people used to have a reason for voting LibDem?
Personally, I have no idea what your party really stands for any longer other than pointing out the motes in other peoples’ eyes (as long as they’re not Tories). The only thing I know for sure the LibDems are “for” is improving mental health services. Yet as a mental health patient, I’ve watched MH services become much worse since this government came to power.
Labour are hard left under Miliband. They are threatening to undo the 2012 Health and Social care act, throttle the outsourcing companies, renationalise large amounts of the rail network, and undermine foreign investors by opposing ISDS and global trading of public services in TTIP. Their anti immigration stance is also hard left, as it will benefit the trade unions and working class people, whilst making life harder for the skilled and business.
In short a far left party pandering to nationalism.
@Stimpson: “Labour are hard left under Miliband. ”
I always look forward to your posts, as they are brilliantly funny! In your world, you probably saw Thatcher as a dangerous Marxist. Anyway, thanks again for the laughs!
Thatcherism is the centre ground economically, although she didn’t go far enough.
Her nationalist leanings however were nonsense. Only the Lib Dems can be trusted with running the country. The pandering to the kipper vote amongst the Tories is scary.
Eddie, nothing like quoting a ‘curates egg….. You, I’m sure by accident, forgot to finish the quote, which was “Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”
I wish the current LibDem party would make up it’s mind where it stands on Milliband; half the contributors brand him as ‘Red Ed’ and now here you have him as ‘True blue Ed’…..
@ Stimpson.
Tbh, nationalisation has never strictly been a socialist policy. The first taking of an organisation into public ownership, was the London Underground in the 1930s, under a Tory administration of all people.
@ Stephen Campbell.
A dangerous Marxist is a contradiction in terms if ever there was. Marxists are so engaged in sectarian navel gazing, they’re about as dangerous as a Labrador.
Expats “Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.”
Remind me again which bit of Ed’s background and experience qualifies him as a “working person”.
@ MartinB ”
I used to vote Liberal Democrat, believing they were a left of centre party.
May 2010 put paid to that .
There are thousands of people just like me so perhaps you should attend to the mote in thine own eye before complaining about others.”
I’m exactly the same, I voted Lib Dem because I believed the Labour Party was no longer a party of the centre left and that they party of Kennedy was to the left of Labour. Never again. In fact I just placed a bet with Ladbrokes that they Lib Dems would win 25 seats or less.
Tabman 30th Mar ’15 – 7:48pm ….Remind me again which bit of Ed’s background and experience qualifies him as a “working person”….
If we are down to personalities let’s try to agree on who Nick’s background qualifies him to represent?
Eddie, I don’t think a simplistic left-right spectrum is helping you here. You are right to draw attention to the small-c conservative parts of the current Labour ‘offer’, which do seem to originate with the ‘Blue Labour’ part of its brain and are (I hope I’m not alone in assuming) the hardest parts for LibDem voters and members to stomach.
But that is not to say that they are ‘right wing’ even within Labour terms; less socially tolerant, yes, and as centrist and controlling as we have ever claimed they were, yes, but ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’? Not proven, even given the rediscovery of pricing controls. Certainly not ‘right wing’ in the way Blair could be. They are deliberately being vague on this one, and some of their emphases as seen so far could have come out of past LibDem manifestoes – looking for a fairer taxation balance, the mansion tax, the emphasis on remaining inside the EU…
Everyone is forgetting how far the culture of the nation has drifted, even since Major, let alone Callaghan. Dividing the political spectrum into two doesn’t help us make the point about what is distinctive in a (currently) third party in a what is now in campaigning and messaging terms, at least, a genuinely kaleidoscopic multi-party environment. We need more sophisticated languages (and I recognise the power the left-right divide has over my own glib language). The old weapons are blunt. I don’t think many people are thinking of voting for Labour because of where they may or may not be on some notional spectrum.
There are many things in the Labour manifesto that make me want to campaign hard against them and would make me deeply queasy about a coalition or an agreement with them; that is also hugely true of the Tories with whom we are in coalition.
If we have a cat’s chance in hell in 6 weeks time (we’ll be lucky) of doing a deal with any other party in any way, we need to stop clichéd thinking that says, ‘we could NEVER accept X party because they’re the devil incarnate’ and just scrutinise their policies, and be honest about where there are and aren’t compatibilities (but tbh, I can’t see a lot of obvious synergy with UKIP or the DUP). Right now, I still see slightly more compatibilities with Labour’s manifesto, to be honest, even if some of the more left-leaning parts of our identity and plans for the future have been played down.
Aside from the issues of internationalism vs parochialism and devolutionism vs centrism, and social control versus personal freedom (which are both also issues we have with almost every other party in one form or another), Many of the biggest differences with Labour are about personality and trust, not policy.
Thanks for the comments, and the fairly polite tone!
Martin, I agree perhaps these divisions will become clearer after the election if Labour win.
John Tilley, yes it really is me! I am 27. The right can be anti business too and your analysis is something to think about. The purpose of the article was not to just brand the left anti business though, it was because I was going to put my analysis into a comment, but felt it was too long so warranted its own article.
Paul Barker, I have been agreeing with your analysis on the potential for a Labour split more and more recently. Basically I think Labour are vulnerable to a “triple squeeze” – left, right and nationalist.
Stephen Campbell, I have no pro Conservative bias and the article wasn’t planned. The tipping point for it was Labour’s anti immigration mug. I will seek to challenge the other parties too.
Matt (Bristol), I agree the biggest differences between Labour and the Lib Dems might be one of personality and trust. I am also aware the left-right analysis, and even other spectrums, are inadequate, but I think the point I make about Miliband not being left wing besides on the economy is accurate.
Thanks again for the comments. I also forgot to credit Jason Crowley’s article in helping my analysis, so here it is:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/ed-miliband-s-problem-not-policy-tone-and-increasingly-he-seems-trapped
@Glenn
“I don’t think Labour are deeply divided. They got that out of their system in the 80s.”
As a Labour voter, I rather hope that isn’t true. I’ve never understood why people get so agitated about parties being “divided”. Sensible, rational adults will always have disagreements about all sorts of things. So what? Show me a party where everybody says they agree with each other and I’ll just assume that half of them are putting on an act.
Stuart,
The thing with Labour is they learned from the experience of being unelectable and reorganised their party. This is why I don’t think they’ll get into very public splits. It wasn’t just an ideological shift it was a structural one. Liberals have always been more open which is why the idea of towing a party line is anathema to so many people here on Lib Dem Voice. The Conservative on the other hand always seem like they’re on the verge of another Night of the Long knives.
rofl – is this wise Captain Mannering ? We have just launched our election campaign on the basis that Labour would lurch to the left and we need the Liberal Democrats to anchor them to the centre ground of British politics and we have Lib Dem voice telling us Labour isn’t of the left.
Don’t you just love the photo of Miliband and Paxo?
Lol, yes Mary and considering how the interviews went I think he could have looked at Cameron in the same way!
Caracatus, but it does suggest a disagreement on economic policy, which is central to the Lib Dem campaign – that Labour can’t be trusted on the economy.
I like Ed Miliband, but he is no saint and Lib Dems receive a lot of lectures from Labour activists on social justice that don’t correlate with what their senior politicians are saying.
Well done Eddie – especially your last line.
Eddie,
Well done for contributing [from your posts over the years – as an entrepreneur, I believe]. I usually don’t agree with you as I’m further left of centre, but your points are always good to weigh carefully as they are from a sector of LD opinion which I admire. The qualities I see in you, which appeal to me, are that you believe in individuality and the care of workers. So you are a beacon for good business – which too often can replace individuality with group-think, and care with couldn’t care less.
One point not mentioned too often is that Miliband is now taking over the positioning of the LD Party in the left-right spectrum – moving ever towards the centre as Clegg has been seen moving further right by supporting bad very right-wing Tory policies which punish the poor [as is reported by the media anyway]. I don’t always think badly of Clegg [though I usually do] but consider that if you are to support a coalition government dominated by the right, you need to have thought through, very carefully, how individuals and caring people would see your foolishness if you put a foot wrong. And Bingo! House! QED! Fait accomplit!
Thanks, Ruth and Tony.
Eddie, your answer to me got me thinking back to when I was 27 .
It was 1979. There was a General Election. They were very different times. If you had lived through the 1970s you would possibly see 2015 in a different light.
The result of the 1979 general election proved to be absolutely catastrophic for UK businesses. Manufacturing businesses in particular were put to the slaughter. Not because of dangerous politicians of the Left but because of a Conservative ideologue in Downing Street.
You are young enough to have no recollection of the dismay and destruction of millions of jobs and thousands of businesses at the hand of Thatcher. But there are still communities across the country that have not yet recovered from being “taken for a ride” by The Conservatives.
Hi Eddie
Re “The party can tone-down its emphasis on centrism, but it should be part of the campaign because of how close the party actually is to the centre-ground”.
I have no problem with being on the centre ground when we are (though would much prefer the term ‘the liberal common ground’). A key issue is with making equidistant centrism a destination in itself – and then seeking to anchor us to it.
The Liberal Democrats are simply not a middle of the road centre party, we are a party of distinctive Liberal and democratic radical reform.
Sometimes the ‘centre ground’ may be the place to be – but when you consider the record of successive Conservative and Labour governments, more often than not, ‘the centre’ is far from being the place any Liberal Democrat should wish to be.
The biggest problem with ‘the centre’ is that, by definition, we position and define ourselves through the policies and beliefs of our political opponents.
And then we wonder why people are confused as to what we stand for and why we struggle to build a rock solid base.
@ Stephen
“The biggest problem with ‘the centre’ is that, by definition, we position and define ourselves through the policies and beliefs of our political opponents.”
Hole in one 😉
The public quite likes the idea (but not always the reality) of compromise and parties working together to solve national problems. ‘Moderation’ also tends to go down well, for it suggests reasonableness, common sense and pragmatism, which we Brits tend to set great store by. But moderation is not a philosophy or a policy, and the centre ground is a moving target to which it is difficult to remain ‘anchored’. Instead the danger is that you get carried along with the tide and wash up on the nearest shore like driftwood.
Being a smaller party that rejects the old left/right dichotomy as a hangover from the last century and the division in heavy industry between capital and labour, the Lib Dems are understandably drawn to equidistance, especially when the two main parties retreat to their familiar territory and vacate some space in the centre. This is not just true of the party under Nick Clegg but of the old Alliance and indeed the Liberal Party for much of the postwar period.
I’m not saying the Liberals were only or primarily a centre party; nor am I denying that they had, and cherished, their own definitions of ‘radicalism’ and indeed in some cases believed themselves to be the true radicals in British politics. I realise that glossing over that would be inviting opprobrium from Stephen, John Tilley and others who emphatically did not join the Liberals to split the difference. But the fact remains that the Liberals portrayed Labour and the Tories as beholden to their respective class interests and therefore unable to broker sensible compromises in economic policy and industrial relations. This could certainly be, and was, interpreted as laying claim to the ‘centre ground’. Then with the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1980s, there was much talk of the ‘radical centre’, a not wholly successful attempt to fuse the desire to appear radical and exciting and mould-breaking while also conveying a soothing image of sweet reasonableness and impeccable moderation in the polarised political climate of the time…
So equidistance has its attractions (nicely captured in John Cleese’s party political broadcast for the Alliance in 1987) to an electorate that does not believe either the left or the right has a monopoly of wisdom. The downside is that it can become rather tepid and managerial and look like you are sitting on the fence on all the big questions.
But I think the main problem is that, as Stephen suggests, it puts you in a reactive position strategically, and allows your opponents to define you and determine where you will pitch your tent. The danger is that pragmatism (a virtue) looks like opportunism (a vice), and that the sensible rejection of doctrinal certainty degenerates into an abdication of original thinking from first principles.