Ed Miliband’s turn to the left at the Labour Party conference is a “strategic mistake”, says Benedict Brogan in The Daily Telegraph. His argument – broadly that our system of capitalism must change – has “populist appeal” but is “fundamentally flawed”.
Yes, “community-building, wealth-creating capitalism” is preferable to the “asset-stripping, granny-selling horrors” of Southern Cross care homes. And few are delighted by casino capitalism, bankers’ bonuses, widening income inequalities and the “grinding ratchet of inflation”. But if Miliband “gets marks for setting out a challenging critique”, his solutions “fill all of us with dread”.
He would have government choose between ‘predators’ and ‘producers’. How exactly he doesn’t say, but “he invites us to imagine some kind of Treasury Corporate Morality Directorate”. In addition, company boards would appoint workers’ representatives, schools would receive quotas of places at top universities and firms would be protected from foreign competition. “This is a model for crushing enterprise in favour of expanding the state” and will not appeal to an electorate known for its “aspiration and hunger for economic freedom”.
Miliband put a good case, arguing that “the values we cherish are not reflected in the ethics that underpin our economy”, says Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian. But it will not improve the prospects of either Miliband or Labour. Ultimately, it is personality, not policy that counts and the words focus groups use to describe Miliband are “weird”, “weak” and “geeky”. Politicians “spill gallons of ink” discussing the “smallest policy shifts”, but the real problem is that, in Cameron, Miliband is competing against a man who has long looked the part of a leader.
The instant reaction to Miliband may not be fair, but it is “very powerful”, agrees Daniel Finkelstein in The Times. The idea of Miliband as prime minister causes focus groups to laugh. He’s also a “tiny bit too left-wing”. A “leader can’t fake his basic politics” and, reasonable and moderate though Miliband is, he’s “firmly a social democrat” and he will, inevitably, shift his party to the left. “Although he uses promising language about rights and responsibilities, in the end his policy is to borrow more, spend more, tax well-off people more, regulate more and intervene in the economy more. His incredible suggestion of a different tax rate for bad and good companies is almost touchingly retro.”
Miliband is being briefed that this shift is possible because the centre ground is moving in the same direction, but historically this drift happens over decades, not years. This leaves Labour in a difficult position: “telling the leader to be himself is poor strategic advice”. Elections are won on the centre ground, and “the centre ground is where it is, not where you want it to be”.
No one was listening to what Miliband said anyway, says Matthew Norman in The Independent. It will take years to detoxify Labour’s brand. It took Labour 13 years to recover after 1951 and 17 after 1979. The Tories were out of power between 1997 and 2010. Nothing Miliband said “offered a clue as to how he will buck that trend”.