What does the new leader mean for New Labour?

Comment from Warwick academics and alumni

David Miliband was the Parliamentary Labour Party's first choice. He was also Tony Blair's natural heir. Working as the Foreign Secretary he had proven himself as a skilful and capable politician but in the end his younger brother Ed was elected as leader. Ed differentiated himself from his brother, and New Labour, by taking a more radical position but how will this translate into policy? Warwick academics offer their insights below but we would also be interested in what you think.

Some commentators have already suggested that the successful election of Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour party implies a sharp Left turn in future Labour politics. Some credibility attaches to this view given that his success depended on receiving a higher proportion of votes from Trade Union members than from Labour MPs and Party members. Ed Miliband also positioned himself to the Left of his brother David in the contest for the leadership. This view, which has been expressed by some both on the Left and Right, seems to me to be mistaken.

In the first place, both brothers are a part of the New Labour Project lead initially by Blair, Brown and Mandelson. The fact that Ed was closer to Brown and David was closer to the Blair camp, tells us more about personal association and loyalty than about policy positions. We can therefore be quite certain that Ed understands and accepts much of the thinking which lay behind the repositioning and re-branding of Labour in the 1980s and 1990s.

The important thing about the present situation is that we have seen no such reaction to defeat.

If we forget personalities, for the time being, and think more about the broader historical perspective, we can find further reasons for rejecting this ‘left turn’ view of the Miliband victory. After electoral defeats in 1970 and 1979, the Labour party moved sharply to the left as a reaction against what was seen as governments of betrayal. The important thing about the present situation is that we have seen no such reaction to defeat. Of course, some lessons will be learnt. We can expect more emphasis on the regulation of the financial services industry. But this shift away from light touch regulation appeals to many well beyond the Labour party. We are also likely to see Labour advocating a less ambitious foreign policy, but again this has more to do with difficulties and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan than with any supposed internal shift of power from Right to Left within the parliamentary Labour Party.

In sum, what matters more than personal rivalries, are the shared lessons that most leading labour positions have learnt, both in opposition in the 1980s and 1990s, and in government between 1997 and 2010.

Roger Duclaud Williams, Politics and International Studies

On 30th May, I was sitting around a table with a dozen other Labour supporters - including another Warwick alumnus, Peter Ptashko - discussing how we could form an effective field operation to help Ed Miliband become the leader of the Labour Party. You can imagine the sense of pure elation, relief and pride when, 17 weeks later on 25th September, I took part in the celebration of Ed's unlikely victory.

Whilst his winning margin was just 1.3%, it's worth remembering that at the start of the contest, Ed was barely polling in double digits, so to win over 34.3% in the first round and 50.65% by the final round was an impressive feat. It is of course easy for me to say, but if David Miliband had won, I'd like to think I would have put the party first and given him my full support immediately. My initial experience is, that is exactly what David's supporters are doing for Ed.

He has gone from being described as a "woodland creature" one day, to a ruthless and merciless political operator the next.

Ed's rebuttal to claims he would 'lurch to the left' were solid, but even if some movement were to occur, it's worth remembering that 80% of the five million voters we lost since 1997, we lost to parties perceived as being more progressive, including the Greens and the Lib Dems. It is obvious to me that much of the right-leaning media is very wary of Ed Miliband. He has gone from being described as a "woodland creature" one day, to a ruthless and merciless political operator the next. The Tory-sympathising press knows Ed is to be feared, but as it has not yet identified the precise nature of his threat, it is casting every aspersion it can about him, in the hope that one may prove correct.

As for the reports of a 'Blairite explosion' after Ed's victory, they left many of us questioning whether the authors of such articles were actually at conference this week. The mood, whilst not at all triumphant, was broadly content, calm and most of all focussed - focussed on continuing to provide effective opposition, not just to the Tories, but also to the increasingly divided Liberal Democrats. What we do is important - what we call it is irrelevant. So whilst the pundits at conference were obsessed with one question on Saturday evening - 'Is New Labour dead?' - rather than respond 'yes' or 'no', many of us saw the question as somewhat redundant.

Ed's election fills me with hope and excitement and I genuinely believe that we are witnessing the start of a progressive and prosperous new era for the party. The government underestimates Labour and Ed Miliband at its peril.

Tom Callow (Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 2004-2007) works in public relations and was an early volunteer for Ed Miliband's Labour leadership campaign. Follow Tom on Twitter @tomcallow

September 25th 2010 is likely to go down in history as the day David Cameron won the 2015 general election. As someone on the centre-left, I find this very disappointing. Labour has made the wrong choice, electing someone who will make them feel comfortable about themselves, rather than someone who will challenge their ‘statist’ thinking. Ed Miliband is more interested in speaking to the Labour Party, when they need someone who will speak to the country as a whole. In many ways, the result is the worst of all worlds – as he has a very weak mandate. ‘Red Ed’ only won on the fourth round of Labour’s arcane electoral system and with the support of trade unionists (David Miliband won among Labour MPs and Labour Party members). I am sure the Tories will enjoy pointing this out for many years to come!

I hope David Miliband agrees to serve as his Shadow Chancellor – as he is figure most likely to offer some economic credibility.

Of course, Ed Miliband may simply have moved to the left to win the leadership. Now he may (rightly) start to shift towards the centre. I fear, however, he will not be able to escape his words during the contest and that the trade unions will be expecting favours for their support (if not immediately, then in the years to come). I hope David Miliband agrees to serve as his Shadow Chancellor – as he is the figure most likely to offer some economic credibility. At the very least, the party should stick to their existing policy of halving the deficit over four years (*incidentally it is often forgotten that their 2010 manifesto also committed the party to reducing the structural deficit by more than two thirds over a parliament). Ideally, as Tony Blair suggested in his memoirs, they would accept the broad thrust of the coalition’s deficit reduction plan, whilst challenging them on particular aspects of the cuts (and offering credible alternatives). There may, for example, be potential for tax to take a slightly higher share of the burden, but even here international evidence suggests the most successful fiscal consolidations have been based mainly on the spending side of the equation. Also, is it really credible for Labour to be arguing for a state that takes around 50% of GDP, as at present? In one of the televised leadership debates no candidate seemed prepared to accept that the state was too big!

Dr Justin Greaves, Research Fellow, PAIS

What do you think? We would love to hear what your comments about Ed Miliband’s election to be Labour’s leader.