Uk politics

Labour turns up the heat on health reform

The exodus from Liverpool has begun, following Ed Miliband’s speech. This means that there will be scant coverage of the events that occur hereafter. Shadow Health Secretary John Healey recognised this and gave an interview to this morning’s Guardian in order to highlight the speech he will make tomorrow. Healey is clear, as Ed Miliband was earlier this afternoon, that the government’s NHS reforms are a costly disaster and betrayal of the British people. Healey adds that they also threaten David Cameron, who has made “promises he is now breaking”. It’s good political posturing on a ‘Home’ issue for Labour.

How’s Miliband doing?

In a word: badly. Ed Miliband has now led Labour for a full year, but has made no progress with regards to its standings in the polls. When he took over, the Labour party was at 37 per cent in the polls, according to Ipsos MORI. Considering that 60 per cent give the Coalition government the thumbs down, he's had ample opportunity to improve this figure. And yet he's failed. In their latest poll, MORI again have Labour on 37 per cent.   When it comes to his own personal ratings, the picture is even worse. As Miliband has become more well-known and more people have formed an opinion of him, the number "satisfied" with his performance has actually decreased. This month, it hit its lowest point to date at 31 per cent.

The danger to a free press

“In Britain, a free press is non-negotiable,” Ivan Lewis has just said – before suggesting ways that Government might, ahem, oversee this freedom. The shadow culture secretary has an idea: a register system to license journalists. “As in other professions, the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off,” he said. He wants “a new system of independent regulation including proper like-for-like redress, which means mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page”. It’s an odd type of independence: one that would be prescribed by the political elite. And what type of journalists might it target?

Ed’s “something for something” society

Fraser’s already commented on the welfare angle of Ed Miliband’s keynote speech to the Labour party; the welfare proposals are part of a broad analytical sweep that can be reduced to the catchphrase, ‘the something for something society’. Miliband’s vision of society will reward those who work and abide by the rules at the expense of those who do not – those who loot, who fiddle expenses, those who pursue short-termism in business. According to the Guardian, he will also emphasise the importance of social mobility and equality. To that end, he will encourage universities to take more people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Miliband woos the strivers

Finally, a good idea from the Labour conference. In his speech tomorrow, Ed Miliband will say he'd give workers priority over the jobless for social housing. This is the dividing line he was reluctant to draw when asked to by Andrew Marr on Sunday. It's a clever move, and one that recognises the resentment felt by the strivers against the welfare dependent. He will say: "The hard truth is that we still have a system where reward for work is not high enough, where benefits are too easy to come by for those who abuse the system." So councils dolling out housing should not only take need into account, but whether applicants "are working, whether they look after the property and are good neighbours." I can't see why IDS would oppose this, and perhaps consensus can be reached.

Balls’ Brownies

In his speech today, Ed Balls proved himself worthy of the "Son of Brown" tag, slipping in more than a few "Brownies". I thought CoffeeHousers would be interested in some of the figures behind his claims... Balls claimed that "we went into the crisis with lower national debt than we inherited in 1997". That is flatly untrue. Public sector net debt when Labour took over was £350 billion. In 2006-07 it was £500 billion. Even adjusting for inflation, Brown and Balls had added £62.8 billion in today's money to the national debt they "inherited" by the time the crisis started: Balls' defenders will say that he meant "debt ratio" – and, to be sure, debt did not rise as fast as GDP over those years so the ratio fell (from 42.5 per cent to 35.

It’s not Brown, it’s Balls

Ed Balls’s speech to Labour conference just now was a typically Ballsian performance. There was intellectual aggression, dividing lines with the Tories and a bit of class warfare from this privately educated Oxbridge graduate. The meat of Balls’ address was a Brown-style five point plan. The new elements of this were a National Insurance holiday for new workers and a reduction in Vat to five percent for home improvements and maintenance. The former struck me as a classic bit of opposition politics, work out what the government might try and do and announce it first.

Welfare worries

Away from Liverpool, the big stories of the day are the markets’ reaction to the putative Eurozone deal, which has been mixed so far, and the Telegraph’s splash about the progress of the Universal Credit, the coalition’s flagship welfare reform. The scheme is designed to simplify the benefits system and save circa £5 billion a year by reducing the scope for claims to be duplicated and errors made; it is a crucial cog in the coalition’s plan to make work pay. James Kirkup reports that the Treasury has apparently put the credit at the top of its “to watch” list of government projects that are at risk of running over schedule, over budget or failing to be launched at all.

New Balls?

Given that Ed Balls’ strategy has backfired on his party so far, with Labour ten points behind the Tories on economic credibility, something has to change. Either the policies, or the shadow chancellor. Read between the lines of Balls’ speech today, and you can see a man backtracking – and trying to hold on to his job. Even when Balls tells porkies, he does so with imagination and élan. He is always worth listening to. He had the 8.10am slot on Today this morning. Here’s what jumped out at me: 1) Mea Culpa, kinda. The other day in the Commons, Balls said sorry – you could tell then that it’s the first of many.  He repeated it again, while making clear that he is no more guilty than any finance minister anywhere around the world.

Balls’ new rules

It’s Ed Balls’ speech today, and he’s cleared it with Ed Miliband – a courtesy that Gordon Brown never extended to Tony Blair. He promises to introduce a new set of fiscal rules, which I’m sure will make the nation’s heart leap, given how well the last set of fiscal rules worked. But what jumps out at me is his pledge to use any money raised from flogging off the banks for deficit reduction, rather than a giveaway. Here’s what Balls is expected to say, 'Even as bank shares are falling again, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are still betting on a windfall gain from privatising RBS and Lloyds to pay for a pre-election giveaway. We could also pledge to spend that windfall.

Exploiting a conservative moment

Away from the resurrection of David Miliband, other Labour modernisers convened at the Progress rally earlier this evening. These weren’t just any old party hacks; they were grandees: Douglas Alexander, Tessa Jowell, Caroline Flint, Liam Byrne and Jacqui Smith to name a few: and the audience was reverential. They were discussing The Purple Book, the latest contribution to the debate about Labour’s future. The central thesis of the book is that the state is passé. As Jowell put it, “People are much more sceptical, much more hostile to the idea of the state spending their money on their behalf.

For one night only, David Miliband returns

David Miliband was studiously loyal to his brother in his one speaking appearance at Labour conference. He told Movement for Change, the community organising group that he founded, that ‘Ed deserves huge praise’, that ‘Ed has led with purpose and conviction and that ‘we’ll all here because we want to put Ed into Downing Street’ But the brother over the water did come with three warning for Labour. The first was that ‘if Labour becomes a sectional party, we’ll never be elected to government.’ The second was that there’s ‘never been more distrust of the state across the industrialised world’ so if Labour becomes ‘a big state party, we’ll never get over the mistrust of the state’.

A Labour attitude to Scotland

As a coda to James' post on Labour's attitude to Scotland and the Union, it's worth relating this little snippet from Ivan Lewis MP at a fringe event earlier this evening. Lewis said that, despite the SNP's current high-flying poll ratings and the need for Labour to learn lessons north of the border, "most Scots don't want independence". The upshot is that some in Labour think that the party will return to power in Scotland as a matter of course and minimal effort is required to reverse losses. Given the situation in Edinburgh, descibed so vividly by Hamish Macdonell, Lewis' complacency is quite striking.

Labour spokesmen divided on whether they’ll campaign for the Union with Cameron

Douglas Alexander has just told Andrew Neil that he will campaign for Scotland to stay in the union with ‘anybody else who wants to join me’. This opens up a difference with Alexander’s normally close political ally, Jim Murphy. Murphy, Scottish Secretary in the last Labour government and currently shadow defence secretary, recently declared that he wouldn’t share a platform with David Cameron during any referendum campaign. When asked about this earlier in the day, Alexander said that he was more interested in making the argument about the value of the union rather than arranging the chairs. But Alexander does seem to hold a different position than Murphy on the question of whether Labour figures should campaign with Cameron or not.

A preview of just how personal the Boris Ken struggle will be

If anyone had any doubts about just how personal the 2012 London mayoral campaign is going to be, they should have been dispelled by Ken Livingstone’s speech to Labour conference today. Ken claimed that the Mayor had ‘got what he wished for’ in above average unemployment and accused him of standing for a ‘privileged minority’. He then went on to draw an equivalence between Boris’s student antics and those of the rioters: “What is the difference between the rioters, and a gang of over-privileged arrogant students vandalising restaurants and throwing chairs through windows in Oxford? Come on Boris – what’s the moral difference between your Bullingdon vandalism as a student and the criminality of the rioters?

Labour’s tuition fee gambit

As James noted earlier this morning, Ed Miliband said that Labour may go further with its policy capping tuition fees when it reveals its manifesto later this parliament. Shadow universities minister John Denham has since said that a graduate tax remains the party's long-term aspiration. Denham's comments muddies the already dark waters on the issue: first Miliband opposed a hike in fees, now he seems to recognises that they must rise but should be capped, and at the same we're told that the aspiration is a graduate tax. Liam Byrne has added a further confusion by saying that the top 10 per cent of graduates will pay "a little more" to meet the costs of the cap.

Miliband’s growing argument

Ed Miliband turned in a crisp performance on the Andrew Marr show this morning. If he is having media training, it is paying off. In a clear sign of where Labour’s economic policy is heading, he constantly stressed that growth was the key to getting the deficit down. But he was far less clear on how he would stimulate the economy beyond a proposed cut in VAT. Miliband was also asked about his proposal to cut tuition fees to £6,000. I’m not convinced by the politics of this move. It leaves fees in place and raises them from where they were under the last government which is hardly a radical change or enough to fire up the student vote. But, interestingly, Miliband suggested that Labour would try to go further on this issue by the time of its manifesto.