Europe, public spending, union power grabs...Labour have plenty of splits of their own

By Mark Wallace
Follow Mark on Twitter 

The media is intent on a "Tory splits" narrative. Given the obsessive focus on any hint of disagreement on the blue side of the House, it is surprising that there has been so little reporting of Labour's splits.

They do have them - three in the last four days, in fact. Here they are:

The EU

Yesterday, various figures from the left and right of the Labour Party launched Labour for a Referendum - only days after Ed Miliband publicly rejected the idea of giving the people a say on Britain's EU membership. The rebels aren't just eurosceptic "usual suspects" like Kate Hoey, they include Brussels fans like former Europe Minister Keith Vaz.

Labour calls for cut in EU budget in sign that they are ready to play Eurosceptic card against Cameron

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

One of the alliances that Number 10 has most feared is between Eurosceptic Tory backbenchers and the Labour Party. It feared it on the IMF bailout and it fears it on the EU budget.

In an important intervention in tomorrow's Times (£) Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander make the case for a real terms cut in the EU budget:

"Labour will argue against the proposed increase in EU spending and instead support a real-terms cut in the budget... When we speak of budget reform, some will want to focus only on cuts to “EU fat cats” in Brussels. But we should not be distracted by a debate simply about bureaucracy: administration represents only about 6 per cent of EU spending. The big areas for reform lie elsewhere. Far too much money still goes on agricultural subsidies, instead of on policies to promote growth, cohesion and development or to support the EU’s vital role in international affairs. So further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) must not just be discussed but implemented. The CAP amounts to about £45 billion and the UK makes a net contribution of about £1 billion per year. Although the butter mountains of the past are long gone, the need for reform is no less urgent. The CAP is an obstacle to international trade liberalisation, creates too few jobs and introduces distortions so there is not a level playing field. The EU cannot afford this waste. EU structural funds — currently used to promote growth and investment in the EU — must be reformed if they are to deliver the vital support that Europe now needs. These funds make up around 35 per cent of annual EU expenditure but are distributed according to overlapping and, at times, competing objectives agreed decades ago. Today that money must be spent on promoting growth and jobs in deprived areas. Schemes that do not meet this threshold can no longer be justified."

I agree with every word.

This is clever politics from the Shadow Chancellor and Shadow Foreign Secretary in at least four ways:

1. It will appeal to the Eurosceptic family including The Sun, Mail and 70% of Britons (including a large proportion of Labour's target voters).

2. It is a rare fiscally responsible position from a fiscally irresponsible party.

3. It creates a headache for Cameron and potential tensions with his Europhile LibDem Coalition partners.

4. It diverts attention from the GDP figures and the implications of good economic news for Labour's big bet on economic failure (Anthony Wells notes today that the Coalition's economic ratings are bouncing upwards).

And is it a sign of Labour Euroscepticism to come? Will Miliband embrace a referendum before Cameron? Over to you Prime Minister.

Labour say it's too soon to hold a referendum, and say Cameron is wrong to say it's too soon to hold a referendum

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

The present political situation has created a wonderful example of opportunistic politics: Labour's attempt at condemning David Cameron for his referendum stance. 

Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, wrote for the Guardian today:

"Of course, there are also those within the Labour party who have speculated about the possibility of a referendum. But the luxury of speculation is different from the responsibility of decision. And Labour is clear that this is not a decision we could or should sensibly make now."

This is in stark contrast (not) to David Cameron, who wrote in the Sunday Telegraph:

"Yet the fact is the British people are not happy with what they have, and neither am I. That’s why I said on Friday that the problem with an in/out referendum is that it offers a single choice, whereas what I want — and what I believe the vast majority of the British people want — is to make changes to our relationship."

Cameron and Alexander - and their party leaderships - occupy the same, perfectly defensible position: we may have a referendum in future, should our relationship with Europe change, but we should wait and see if that change comes about before holding any such referendum. Despite not being able to get a cigarette paper between the two positions, Alexander launches attacks on Cameron's motives:

"When David Cameron is in trouble, he always throws his right flank a bone. But as prime minister, he can no longer afford to make deals with his backbenchers at the expense of making decisions in the national interest."

It is certainly true that part of the Conservative backbench is pro-referendum, but so is part of the Labour backbench. That is why neither the Tories nor Labour are taking a clear line on this. Alexander's desire to attack Cameron for the sake of it has led him to argue that it's too soon to say if we should have a referendum, but also that Cameron shouldn't be saying that it's too soon to say. 

Now pandering Miliband poses as a Euro-sceptic

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Ed Miliband and his supporters boast of his willingness to stand up to the big, vested interests, the corporate behemoths who delight in victimising hard-working people. However, his attacks on rail companies for increasing fares, on energy companies for high fuel prices, or on Fred Goodwin's knighthood don't quite feel right. They suggest carefully-researched focus-grouped lines of attack rather than real outrage.

Miliband's appearance on ITV's Daybreak this morning may be the worst example of this pandering yet. He tried to pass himself off as some sort of Euro-sceptic:

“I’m very concerned about what David Cameron has done because he trumpeted last December that he got a great deal for Britain, he’d protected us and everything and the way that Europe was going to go about this treaty, what they were going to do wasn’t going to affect Britain. Now he seems to have sold us down the river on a lot of things [my emphasis] so I’m going to be asking him in the House of Commons today what exactly has he agreed to, what protections has he got for Britain. I take a simple view – he would have been better off staying at the table and negotiating for Britain, rather than actually pretending that he had made great progress and then failing to do so.”

Ed Miliband is a conventional Europhile, and it's hard to see how any serious person could view this "sold us down the river" attack with anything other than amusement. Last month, Miliband was condemning the Prime Minister's "catastrophic mistake" in exercising Britain's veto. Now he's suggesting that he would have gone further in demanding powers back for Britain. Miliband is plumbing the depths of opportunistic politics. He transparently does not believe what he is saying about Europe (or perhaps he hasn't decided what he believes). He should resist the urge to attack the Government on every issue. It would save him a lot of trouble, since he's set himself up today as an easy target for "flip-flopper" assaults.

Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary adopts "mature patriotism" towards Europe

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, has written for the Guardian today, on Labour's new policy of "mature patriotism" towards Europe. Alexander writes: 

"Our task is instead to tell a new story about Britain and Europe, rooted in the need for reform revealed by new economic and political realities. To cut ourselves off from a market of 500 million customers wouldn't just imply we had lost faith in Europe, it would suggest we had lost faith in the ability of British companies to outcompete their European rivals. High-value services and high-skill manufacturing need to be underwritten by common standards and competition laws."

Blair's view on Iran is clear. What's that of the Miliband brothers?

By Paul Goodman

When I heard Tony Blair make the following remark in his Marr interview, I felt as though a glass of cold water had been thrown over my face -

"It is wholly unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I think we've got to be prepared to confront them ... if necessarily, militarily."

Others will doubtless compare listening to Blair to being soaked by other substances, or denounce him as a bloodthirsty, deranged warmonger - and so on.

But at least he has a view, and is wiling to express it.  What have Labour's main leadership candidates got to say on the matter?

David Miliband

On his campaign website, David Miliband posts nine foreign policy items.  None of them refer to Iran.  The website says that he's running five campaigns, including one to save Britain's pubs.

Ed Miliband

On his, Ed Miliband carries a statement headed "Foreign Policy": "Ed Miliband believes that Labour must learn the lessons from some of the mistakes it made in government in terms of foreign policy. He believes Labour must not go into the next election still defending the war in Iraq — and that we must base our international alliances on our values, not the other way round."

Ed Balls (because I knew you'd ask)

On his, Ed Balls statement - "Why Ed?" - carries no reference to foreign policy at all.

-

I don't agree with Tony Blair's support for British military action against Iran (though we need a big push on sanctions).  But that country's push to gain nuclear weapons is a vast foreign policy problem.  Because -

• It's likely to spark a regional nuclear arms race.
• That would (as the Israel/Palestine conflict fundamentally does not) further destabilise a region on which we partly rely for natural resources.
• And because during such a race the old rules of mutual assured destruction might not apply.

So, then.  A statement from Ed Miliband consistent with opposition to further wars abroad.  Nothing from David Miliband on Iran (though as an ex-Foreign Secretary he's familiar with the issue).  No question at all on foreign policy to all six candidates during yesterday evening's Channel 4 hustings.  I appreciate that foreign policy was never likely to be front-of-shop during this election - any more than it was during the Conservative one that produced David Cameron in 2005 - but the lack of interest is telling.

You can argue that all Blair's doing is political positioning, carried out against the terrible shadow of Iraq - and its bloody losses.  But isn't that exactly what Ed Miliband's doing?  Where's the sense that Labour's leadership candidates are seriously grappling with vital, urgent global security challenges - especially Iran's drive for nuclear weapons?