David Miliband suggests Coalition unemployment policy may have some merit

Earlier on we had a briefing with David Miliband who has been touting the proposals for tackling youth unemployment from a commission which he chaired.

In his opening spiel he said: “In terms of reforming the welfare state we’re saying that if you’re unemployed, if you’re on the Work Programme for a year you should automatically get a part time job guarantee – part time so that you can spend the rest of the time looking for work.

“We say that if you’re unemployed or on the Work Programme for two years you need to be in a long term subsidised job.”

The Work Programme is the Coalition’s flagship back-to-work policy, which sees contractors tasked to find jobs for the unemployed.

It’s interesting that David is suggesting ideas that incorporate the Work Programme because the official Labour Party line espoused by Ed has been to slag it off and say the previous government’s Future Jobs Fund (FJF) should be reinstated (see here and here).

So did David Miliband’s comments today mean he supported the Work Programme on some level and stood against the FJF – he did claim that the Work Programme was not extensive enough but went on to say…

“The Future Jobs Fund had good aspects including the sense of reality that it was a real job, but it also had some problems, for example in targeting different needs amongst young people – it was an emergency response to the recession.

“We say very clearly that we want to learn from the Work Programme, not reopen the debate to go back to it or not have it – we can actually learn from it.”

David’s response appears to be a break from Ed’s idea that the FJF should just be reinstated. Meanwhile there is the clear suggestion that the Coalition’s Work Programme has positive aspects.

I’m sure David would say this isn’t criticism of Ed's chosen path of course, just a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

A Miliband takes an effective line...

Was flicking through Hansard and noticed Miliband managing to attack the Government, while not betraying his progressive politics – David that is.

"It is nice to be able to speak in the House in full and enthusiastic support of the manifesto on which I was elected, and consistent with my previous votes in the House for 100% election and 80% election to the Lords, in 2003 and 2007. I look forward to getting the chance to vote on the matter again.

"I wish first to dispose of three very bad arguments against proceeding towards an elected House. The first is that we need to sort out the functions of the House of Lords before doing so. The truth is that there is agreement on that point. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber not equal to the House of Commons, prevented by statute from pre-empting the supremacy of this House and established by law and by practice to persuade and restrain this House.

"The second argument is that the public have got other things on their mind. The idea that the Government have a bad economic policy or health policy because they are distracted by House of Lords reform is frankly risible. We are elected to this place to debate the big issues of the time, and I do not believe that it is sufficient to say that this is not people’s main preoccupation.

"The third bad argument is by far the most tempting. It is: because the Deputy Prime Minister is in favour an elected House, is sponsoring the debate and will sponsor the Bill, it must be a bad idea. That view has many supporters in both main parties, as we will discover, and one can see the force of the point.

"When the right hon. Gentleman said before the election that he wanted to unite the nation, he could scarcely have imagined that people of all shades of opinion would come together so quickly to agree that he is not a very lovable rogue. However, although that is a tempting argument, I hope that my colleagues, especially Labour colleagues, will not fall for it. The right hon. Gentleman needs no help from either of the two so-called main parties to administer his fate, and there is a much bigger game here than the temptation to kick a man when he is down. The roadblock to reform is not, in this case, the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government’s puppetmaster, the Prime Minister. We should not be diverted by the temptation of kicking smaller fry."

Gafferama...

The image of the new generation?

Ed Balls wants to be Chancellor shocker

ED Balls has all but laid to rest any doubt over what job he wants after admitting to Lobbydog that he would “love to be Chancellor”.

His comments were made as New Labour leader Ed Miliband weighs up which leading figures in the party should take up which key positions.

He’s thought to be considering his brother David for the role of Chancellor, but there is still doubt over whether the defeated leadership candidate will remain in front line politics.

Meanwhile Mr Balls – widely considered to have best articulated Labour’s argument against Government cuts – is also a leading contender for the job.

When I asked him if he would confirm whether he wanted to be shadow chancellor Mr Balls was cagey. But asked whether he would want to be Chancellor, he was not so shy.

“Chancellor, I’d love to be chancellor. The question is whether I want to be shadow chancellor. Of course I’d like to be chancellor but at some point in the future – but in terms of the shadow cabinet decisions those have got to be for the leader.”

When nominations for Labour’s shadow cabinet ballot close tomorrow Balls will know whether David Miliband is sticking around, and whether his main rival for the job is out of the way.

I'll give Clarke another shot when I beat Cameron...

First it was Blair having a dig at Ken Clarke, and now Labour leadership contender David Miliband has a go too.

Speaking with Lobbydog, the shadow foreign secretary dropped the following comment into the conversation.

"It seems Ken Clarke wasn't good enough for the Tories in the past, but if I become leader and knock out Cameron then maybe he can try his luck again."

Cheeky, and yet bold. It fits in with the rather silly spin war being waged between David and his brother Ed over who is more positive about winning the leadership.

Both have been putting out statements saying they are “increasingly confident” of victory. But I suppose here David takes it to the next level, saying as he does that he will not only win the leadership, but that he'll beat the PM too.

Waiting for his invite...

Lobbydog has been chatting with both brothers Miliband over the last couple of days to weigh up how their campaigns are going.

I also took the opportunity to ask them both about whether they would be going to the unions’ rally against cuts on October 19.

Ed has been fairly unequivocal that he would go along, but David has been conspicuous in his wavering.

Earlier in the week he initially refused to commit, but realising he looked isolated perhaps, later said he would be happy to talk at any marches.

When I asked him whether he would go he said: “I don’t think the invitations have been sent out yet.”

Even if they were going to be, after that comment I‘m not sure he would get one.

Ed's swipe at David

Here is the full text of Ed Miliband’s latest snipe at his brother, as the fight between them for the Labour leadership hots up.

Ed clearly insinuates that his brother David is 'too New Labour'.

"There is clearly an honest disagreement about the future of the Labour Party and different views about the scale of change needed to take Labour back to power. It is a genuine debate about the direction we must take.

"I will keep campaigning on my message that Labour must change to win, and that change must be real and fundamental. Remaining in the new labour comfort zone would consign us to opposition.

"It is important that the next Labour leader understands the scale of the challenge to bring back the 5 million voters Labour have lost since 1997.

"We need to change in order to attract all of these lost voters back to Labour, and that includes the 1.6m voters we lost to the Liberal Democrats, and it also means attracting back the 3 million working families whose votes we lost, as well as the more affluent voters.

"To do that, we have to change. We have to change on the economy, on civil liberties and ID cards, and on tuition fees.

"And we need change our approach to politics, building a party which is a movement, open to new ideas and prepared to listen as well as lead. Staying in the New Labour comfort zone will not allow us to reconnect with those we lost."

What does David have in return?

Balls looks ahead...

Since the Liberal Democrat defection rumours flew around at the weekend the Labour leadership candidates have been laying out the “welcome mat” for political switchers.

This morning it was still going on. Ed Miliband put out a release in which he said: "To those middle class voters who have switched to the Lib Dems, I say look again at how Labour is changing."

Andy Burnham had even ridiculously suggested yesterday that Lib Dem party members who wanted to switch to Labour should get their membership fees subsidized.

But today David Miliband struck a slightly different note. Yes Lib Dems are joining Labour, he told Lobbydog, but there was something more important not to lose sight of.

"We in the Labour party have got to be respectful and open for people who didn’t vote for us last time, but we’ve also got to insist that the main enemy is the Tories," he said.

"That is the absolutely key point. The Government is being run by the Tories. It is them who are going to be the big choice at the next election – Labour or Tory."

Focussing fire on the Tories is a good tactical call from D Miliband who, being the leadership contest’s front-runner, would probably like to think he is setting Labour’s agenda on this and other issues.

But I’ve often found that it is actually Ed Balls, being a natural pernickety political scrapper, who gets these tactical points right ahead of others.

True enough after a moment’s search I found this Times article Balls wrote on August 3.

"We risk falling into Mr Cameron’s trap by focusing our fire too much on the Liberal Democrats…while we must win back voters lost to the Lib Dems, we must not let the Tories off the hook," he wrote.

It’s not the first time either. When the Coalition was considering putting up VAT Balls had been going on about it for weeks.

When it actually happened, and the other candidates began criticising the Government, Balls stopped and moved on to slamming Gove for the BSF schools cock up.

With just a month or so to go before the Labour leadership contest ends, I’m hoping the fight will liven up a bit – a head on battle between D Miliband and Balls would be just the job.

No opposition, not even for the sake of it...

The favourite to win Labour’s leadership contest conceded to Lobbydog this morning that his party had been a less than effective opposition since the election.

David Miliband told me: “Of course. The fact of a leadership election means that people are competing with each other, not just competing with the Tories.

“But beware of any suggestion that the first months of a Government are going to be anything other than, relatively speaking, easier rather then harder – that’s why people talk about a honeymoon.

“And so I think that there’s a strong sense in the Labour party that it’s time to get this leadership election over – and obviously it will be over in the space of a month or so – and that we need to get on with the real battle which is rebuilding ourselves, not just sniping at the Government, but actually providing an alternative.”

He’s giving voice to what many people take as a given.

But to hear Miliband spell it out reveals how frustrating it must have been for some leading Labour figures and MPs to see the Coalition getting the easy ride it has, while Labour has tried to find direction.

Who are you and what have you done with Mandy?

Has Peter Mandelson’s book actually been written by Peter Mandelson? From the stuff put in The Times so far this week I’m not so sure

It seems to be lacking a certain cutting edge and wit, an arrogance perhaps – whatever that thing is that makes Mandy able to be smarmy and endearing at the same time.

And if it’s not smarmy and it has no wit then what does it have – there are no revelations in telling us again that Gordon Brown is a bit of an oddball, which seems to have been the thrust so far.

Today’s offering, that Brown hated Blair and wanted him to leave Number 10, left an air of irrelevance around the whole memoir.

Surely there must be some more up to date morsels in there which The Times can share – perhaps about how the Milibands pull each other’s hair when they argue or how Ed Balls sleeps with his eyes open or something.

Gloria De Piero, MP for somewhere

David Miliband has been so taken with the backing he received from Gloria De Piero MP that one of his supporters posted a lovely blog piece about her on his leadership campaign site.

It’s tough being a Labour Party member in a sea of blue and there is sometimes the suspicion we are used as fund-raising and support fodder for nearby marginals at the expense of developing our own support.

We therefore had mixed feelings when we were fortunate enough to arrange for Gloria De Piero, newly elected MP for Mansfield, to come to Chelmsford to support David Miliband’s campaign for the Labour leadership. A standing audience waited our honoured guest with some anticipation!

Gloria spoke passionately in favour of David, his love of the Labour Party, his personal “manifesto” and his policy ambitions.

Problem is Gloria is MP for Ashfield, not Mansfield. I admit Alan Meale (left), the real Mansfield MP, is a pretty fellow. But I don’t think there’s enough of a resemblance to merit the mistake.

Beckett has a dig at New Labour...

Last night Lobbydog had a long chat with the old war horse Margaret Beckett about what went wrong with Labour and where she thinks it needs to go next.

She still remembers how it felt when the party lost power in 1979 to Thatcher – she also lost her Lincoln parliamentary seat that time round.

Her contribution to the post mortem on the party's demise up to 2010 is that for too long the Labour machine mistakenly discouraged people from talking about things it was doing for the vulnerable in society.

“It was part of the philosophy of how New Labour presented itself that even though it was doing things for the more needy, like tax credits and so on, we didn’t talk about it a lot,” said Beckett.

“That side of policy and of Labour was deliberately played down for a long time.

“There seemed to be a fear that if you constantly reminded people what you were doing to help the most vulnerable then you might appear not to be on the side of mainstream families.”

Meanwhile Beckett's dislike of that side of New Labour seemed to slip out again when talking about who was going to be the next leader. She did have something to say about the front runner.

“There are people round David’s campaign who seem to be suggesting that everyone knows who the next leader is going to be already and that isn’t right,” she said.

She did happen to mention that Ed Balls was rather capable - but wouldn’t commit to anyone just yet.

Vaz and Soulsby back Miliband

David Miliband's leadership campaign has gained the support of Keith Vaz and his Leicester Labour MP colleague Sir Peter Soulsby.

Vaz told LD: "David Miliband is the best candidate and will be a terrific leader."

While Sir Peter said: "Now that things are becoming clear and the dust is beginning to settle, I’m convinced that David Miliband is the best person to take the party forward.

"He has very widespread support from all shades of opinion within the parliamentary party and I also think he’s got the right ability to communicate effectively."

I'll be letting you know which MPs support who as they tell me. No doubt many will wait and see who is looking like a winner. In the mean time here is Miliband's candidacy speech again...

Hoon did he speak to?

I’m trying to work out which constituency party members Geoff Hoon had the “conversations” with, which prompted him to launch his coup.

In Central Lobby the other day Hoon was adamant he’d not spoken to potential leadership candidates or other rebels, and claimed it was chatting to people in Ashfield that led to his decision.

He and hacks had this rather bizarre exchange:

“So you haven’t talked to Charles Clarke about it then?”
“No,” said Hoon.
“And you haven’t talked to David Miliband about it?”
“No”
“Have you talked to anyone in the Government about it?”
“No”
“Have you talked to anyone who recently left the Government?”
“Well – I recently left the Government.”
“Are you saying you talked to yourself about it?”
“No.”

The thing is, members of the Ashfield Constituency Labour Party also have no idea who Hoon spoke to, according to the Nottingham Evening Post.

The people who count – the former Labour leader of Notts County Council and the Ashfield Labour district councillor – all seem as angry at Hoon’s cack handed plot as everyone else.

Perhaps it was the guy that empties the office bins or the canteen lady?

Surely it couldn’t be that Hoon wasn’t utterly candid when he said he was acting independently from any other Westminster rebels or people in Government?

Let me just say...nothing

On hearing that Miliband is apparently going to become European Foreign Minister a colleague drew to my attention the comedy value of this quote from Brown last week.

The PM had just been confronted with the possibility of his Foreign Secretary jumping ship to the continent.

"Let me just say – I have been at the meeting," Brown said.

"That was not their decision – just let me tell you. Also, if there is a shortlist, I am sure David would be on it, because he has excellent qualifications. But he doesn't want to be on it. And indeed – there is no such list."

Covering all the bases there.

Miliband still lights a candle

I'm not sure if the Foreign Secretary was trying to appear thoughtful and statesman-like at a briefing earlier, but in the end he just looked bored.

A little glimmer - a flicker of intention perhaps - escaped when he spoke about potential leadership challenges though.

He said the PM was the right man for the job "last year, this year and next year".

But when specifically asked if he'd rule himself out of a future leadership contest in the same way Jack Straw did he said:

"I never get into speculation about next jobs because if you start to speculate about next jobs you forget about this job.”

Tracking Labour

In a single carriage of the train I took yesterday was Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, David Miliband, Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith, Ed Balls, James Purnell and John Denham.

Now, now bloggers. I know what you're thinking. But remember - I was on the train too.

Caroline Flint and Margaret Beckett joined the pack later.

A Labour spokesman admitted that it was an unusual display of politcal strength outside of a general election campaign.

The party leaders know that to escape a voting booth battering they need all the strength they have.

It was notable that they rolled the big guns into Derbyshire too - one of three Midlands counties that the Tories think they can take.

Two jags, two sh**s and now two loo seats...

Prezza is like Noah's Arc, everything going two-by-two.

As there is so much being said about expenses I’ll keep this short. I only wanted to highlight my two (it's catching) favourite bits news-wise.

1) Prezza claimed for two loo seats in two years. Comedy genius.

2) Even David Miliband’s gardener queried whether it was necessary for the MP to spend so much doing up his home, given the short time he spent there.

Harman V Hague

David Miliband had been possessed by Kenneth Williams and looked like he might at any moment shout “ooooohhhhhh maayyytron!”

The Foreign Secretary’s lips were circled into a tight “O” and his eyebrows were raised so high, it was as though they were trying to re-unite themselves with his carpet-like hairdo.

The bizarre expression was a response to Harriet Harman’s smug disclosure that William Hague, whom she was facing at today’s PMQs, had received £30,000 from RBS for speaking at two dinners.

It was Harman’s bright point in what was one of the liveliest clashes I’ve seen for sometime.

The glorious highlight, however, was watching the expression of various Labour plotters as Hague poked fun at Harman’s leadership ambitions.

Harman kept steely faced, Johnson let a faint smile play around on his lips, Hain grinned and Miliband went through more facial contortions than a woman in labour – that’s giving birth, not the party.

“Why doesn’t she now step in?” asked Hague mockingly.

“When Chamberlain lost his party’s confidence Churchill stepped forward. When Eden crossed the Atlantic exhausted, well, SuperMac came forward. This could be her moment.”

After droning for a while about some schemes Harman later responded... “Whilst he focuses on political gossip we focus on fighting for Britain’s future.”

Hague: “Mr Speaker, she shouldn’t describe her leadership campaign as political gossip. That is not how to go about winning the leadership of her party.”

Tory MPs were already in hysterics, but at this point the Labour benches erupted pointing at Hague and shouting “you know!” – referring to rumours that he himself wants to come back as Tory leader.

Hague responded: “I do know about that. I’m only a deputy now, but at least I’m a loyal one.”