No shit sherlock.

New Labour always meant ‘No Labour’

And I’d give it a few years if I were you, I think we will see “fairness” very high up the political agenda.

“plenty of people have asked on Twitter whether I, and Liberal Conspiracy, will now become slavishly pro-EdM since he is in power”

Let’s wait until he’s in power, shall we? Many people mistake leadership of the opposition for power. It’s a mistake Tony Blair and David Cameron never made.

Two points.

Restricting immigration is not necessarily right-wing it can actually be quite a left-wing perspective.

Where is you evidence that trade unions are unpopular amongst swing voters?

You seem to have swallowed the right-wing media narrative on this quite uncritically. I really don’t think that people are really exercised by the power of trade unions. They are much more likely to be concerned about job insecurity, cuts to public services and inequality.

Lord Ashcroft’s research which you posted here recently established this quite conclusively.

The red-ed tag can be put to bed now (bed “red-Ed”) – or as Ed would say “come on”. As PMQs showed yesterday, he’s a far more serious and credible politician than many on the Tory right gave him credit for. Even Tim Montgomerie can see that, and he’s an armpit of epic proportions.

Your characterization of Ed is perhaps slightly over-stated – I think Ed’s emphasis on values does put him in the mainstream of European social democracy whereas his brother was not willing to break with new Labour’s neo-liberalism. But I hope that Lefties are not as nearly as myopic as you suggest. As I said at http://www.leftfutures.org/2010/09/labour-renewal-starts-here-and-the-left-needs-to-back-it/

“The reality is that Ed Miliband is not on the Left of the party — he is squarely in the mainstream centre — but he is a Leader the Left can and should support whilst also pressing for inclusiveness and democratic reform in the party. In return for that support, the Left need only ask for the right to argue its case in a fair and open debate.”

It’s not yet certain that he will provide the Left with that opportunity but there are some good signs. One is the appointment of Peter Hain to chair the national policy forum, for example, with his track record of support for a genuine voice for the grassroots and criticism of Blairite sham-democracy (see http://www.leftfutures.org/2010/10/the-resurrection-of-peter-hain/). Another is the appointment of Dianne Abbott and a sprinkling of other lefties to the lower orders.

On the unions, he will continue to demonstrate pointedly that he is not in their pocket, but he did also, in his conference speech, though the headlines focussed on his few words on strikes against cuts, make a far more robust defence of trade unionism than I have heard from a Labour leader since Michael Foot. I suspect that will continue too.

Excellent thoughtful piece

“he will have to deal with working-class anger over immigration.”

Why only working class anger?

‘Immigration’ really means a plethora of issues where the root of the problem is a lack of shared British values. Working class people are not the only ones who have worked this out.

And I’d give it a few years if I were you, I think we will see “fairness” very high up the political agenda.

Well, Labour weren’t that bad at redistribution so I’d say it was always fairly high up on their agenda too.

8

Oh really, you think?

The problem, both with the statement “Labour weren’t that bad at redistribution” and indeed with the whole tenor of the OP, is the assumption that we can expect Newer Labour to be different. After the euphoria of Ed’s election has subsided, it might be wise to reflect both on what he actualy stands for (the vision thing), and the material he has to work with (the vehicle for getting elected and implementing the vision).

Whilst it may be rather to early to expect anything much from the Young Pretender, even if he DOES come up with anything like a coherent progressive and radical centre left alternative, I’m pretty sceptical of his ability to sell it to his party, never mind the electorate.

Sunny, I realise that following your conversion you have a vested interest in “talking up” the rationality of Newer Labour, and promoting it as the only game in town. Those of us who have not seen the light, or been taken up by the rapture, are going to need a lot more convincing.

@Galen10

Did you not get the memo? It’s Nouvelle Labour

I’m staying out of saying anything substansive on this topic until seeing the spending review and Miliband’s response to it. Although Sunny makes v good points particularly after the * * * * * * * bit.

is the assumption that we can expect Newer Labour to be different.

Well, it depends where you stand really. If you’re so far on the left that you see changes as essentially inconsequential, then I can see why you think that. You’re looking for the kind of changes that aren’t coming soon enough.

But I’m more near the centre, so I welcome incremental change. I saw the apology over Iraq a positive thing. After conversations with people on the Labour right, I think many of them accept they got things wrong at the last election. I see general sentiment moving in the right direction. I think that’s positive.

Jon – completely agree with that you say. To be honest I’m still slightly depressed by the reaction by many on the left, who seemed to be looking for the smallest of excuses to say ‘see, we told you so!’ and then go back to the usual sniping from the sidelines.

If he’s even just red enough to provide a decent welfare state, health service, education etc, and he’s intelligent enough to realise that being rabidly authoritarian will lose him votes, that’s fine by me.

Seems a sensible post, but from an outside perspective the problem Mr Milliband faces is balancing the demands of swing voters and core voters, considering that the Blair solution of appearing to be all things to all men is no longer available – Labour need to be substantive about what they would do, as seeking power for power’s sake will be walking into the long-term plans of the Conservatives.

I don’t think this is impossible, but considering that the standard swing voter is a liberal (often portrayed as female) person in a professional or self-employed job, whilst the standard Labour core voter is portrayed as a working class man working in a factory, or (if you listen to the polemical right) on benefits, there is a bit of a strech to design a policy to suit both (and I doubt Peter Haine is the man).

I don’t think this is impossible, but considering that the standard swing voter is a liberal (often portrayed as female) person in a professional or self-employed job, whilst the standard Labour core voter is portrayed as a working class man working in a factory, or (if you listen to the polemical right) on benefits, there is a bit of a strech to design a policy to suit both (and I doubt Peter Haine is the man).

Not just the polemical right, but more or less everyone it seems:

And it’s true that the two groups southern voters most identify with Labour are benefit claimants and the trade unions, but I’m afraid that’s true of every region of Great Britain. The third group is ‘immigrants’.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/10/southern-discomfort-is-now-labours-universal-discomfort/

@Tim J

The very link I was going to post!

Miliband doesn’t just need to announce the death of New Labour, he has to dance on its grave.

The public perception of Labour is of its profligacy, incompetence, authoritarianism, control-freakery and illiberality. Brown bears a lot of responsibility because these were his trademark traits. Considering the damage caused by the invasion of Iraq its ironic that by just admitting they were wrong they may well get off the hook on that one.

My feeling is that the public mood will quickly turn against the Coalition. The standard mantra of deficit fetishism will not stand up when city bonuses are still averaging five-figure sums while services and jobs are cut around the country. Hanging the blame on Labour will be harder to fight unless there are substantial breaks with previous ideas and that is where I think their weakness lies.

Of course, it’s governments that lose elections rather than oppositions winning them so hopefully Miliband’s job will largely be done for him when the extent of the ideological change the Coalition are introducing becomes clear.

And, as Dennis MacShame is suspended from the PLP and reported to the police over his expenses… tumbleweed blows across Lib Con Boulevard.

Ed Milliband is a man with a problem, two problems in fact and they will both have an impact on his ability to be an effective leader of the opposition.

Like any leader of a party that has just gone into opposition he is having a hard time being taken seriously. Yes he gave a good, if not spectacular performance at his first PMQ’s, which matters less than you’d think. Remember William Hague? He used to wipe the floor with Tony Blair some weeks, not that it did him much good at the ballot box; political anoraks think PMQ’s is important, the public aren’t really fussed.

The second problem relates to the one thing that could help Labour win back the support of the public, the backlash against the cuts to public spending. At least it would if the party were in a position to lead the protests, but to do that it needs A) a viable alternative to frenzied cuts to front line services and B) a strong network of grassroots activists to lead the fight at a local level.

Ed Milliband has put together a stronger than expected front bench team so achieving A) is possible but B) looks unlikely because his predecessors hollowed out most local parties in their war against the left.

@17

“Ed Milliband is a man with a problem” – Aye, people can’t spell his name right for one thing

On your B) point: Funnily enough it was Ed’s brother who put a lotta effort into building a grass-roots network. I don’t know too much about it myself at the moment but if it works it could very well reap the dividends that you mention are possible.

@10

Perhaps Labour Nouveau would be more apposite?

I do agree with the “wait and see” thing up to a point, I suppose I’m just too jaundiced by past disappointments to expect anything too positive.

@11

I’m not sure I do see myself as particularly far to the left, in fact I’ve always been very suspicious of the far-left of the Labour party. I’m definitely less sanguine that you appear to be about the significance of the first “green shoots”. I can see where you are coming from given yur recent politcal “journey”, and that you feel a pragmatic, incremental approach is the best way forward. You may well be right, that from the standpoint of the Labour party it IS the best option.

My concern is that even if the apologies for past mistakes are sincere (and I’m still not sure they really are), such incremental change just isn’t going to cut it. More worryingly still there is nobody in the Labour party, or on the broader centre-left, who is in a position to articulate, still less put into practice, a more radical progressive response to the Coalition and the economic, social, environmental and security challenges we face.

I’d honestly like to think the Labour party was up to that job, but on current evidence I just don’t think it is.

Ed’s problem with Comments about having our party back ,or ken Livingstone saying the party is now inn the hands of the unions (expecially with Livingstones action yesterday) Is the press will portray him as old Laobur If Livingstone behaves himself stays in and loses ,He’ll say it was because the NEC expelled the likes of Tower Hamlets members and that Laobut loit the mayoralty as it wasn’t left wing enough, Plus With Sadiq Khan As shadow Justice secretary Labour will appear weak or law and order (the one issue they were more popular than the tories on before the election), Diane Abbot who got introuble on this Week for saying Chariman Mao did more good than harm could be embaressing for him too.