Ed miliband

It’s hard to believe that executives at Barclays had much confidence that the resignation of Marcus Agius as the bank’s chair would place a stopper on the Libor scandal. Ed Miliband drove those doubts home this morning when, appearing on Daybreak, the Labour leader reiterated calls for Bob Diamond to resign. He said: ‘I don’t think that he can carry Barclays forward, Bob Diamond, because he was there, he was actually in charge of the part of Barclays where some of these scandals took place years back and we will obviously hear what he has to say at the Select Committee on Wednesday but I really don’t believe that the

The momentum for a public inquiry into banking is growing. The Daily Mail front page demands ‘Put Bankers In the Dock’. While Ed Miliband has given an interview (£) to The Times in which he calls for an inquiry into the ‘institutional corruption in the City’. Miliband thinks that this inquiry should be tasked with drawing up a code of conduct for investment bankers equivalent to the one governing solicitors. Bankers who breached this code would be struck off.   Now, many will say that Labour have a cheek lecturing on banking regulation given the total failure of the new system they introduced. James Chapman also reports that ‘government sources

The Libor scandal is both a threat and an opportunity for Labour. The threat is that the abuses took place under a regulatory system that was devised by the last Labour government and by a Chancellor who both Eds worked for. As I said yesterday, the Tories are determined to hammer Balls — a former City minister — on this. But the opportunity is that it offers Ed Miliband a chance to act as if he is the tribune of the people, the leader brave enough to take on the powerful. So as with News International and phone hacking, we’ve seen Miliband getting out in front in terms of calling

Ed Miliband was spoilt for choice at today’s PMQs. Scarcely a week goes by without the government reneging on some budget promise, so Labour’s  leader had a whole fistful of blunders to consider. Wisely, he took the simplest option and quoted an apologia made by David Cameron on April 11th. ‘I will defend every part of the budget,’ the prime minister told some interviewer somewhere. ‘I worked on it very closely with the Chancellor. Line by line.’ That was pure gold for Miliband. And pure poison for the prime minister. ‘What went wrong?’ asked the Labour leader casually.   Cameron flipped into full denial mode. ‘I cannot be a U-turn!’

Here we go again. Ed Miliband gave another speech about immigration this morning proving yet again that this is a subject about which no-one is ever permitted to talk. Any time a Labour politicians talks about immigration and the party’s record in government I am reminded of Evelyn Waugh’s acid observation on hearing the news that Randolph Churchill had successfully endured an operation to remove a benign tumour. This, Waugh wrote in his diary, represented  “A typical triumph of modern science to find the only part of Randolph that was not malignant and remove it.” Comparably, it seems a typical triumph of modern politics that Labour should disown one of

Ed Miliband must be livid. He has a sizeable lead in the polls, has taken ground on the economy and watches the government lurch from one self-authored disaster to the next. And then, and then, the trade unions engineer a very public row with the centrist think-tank Progress (which is funded by former Labour donor Lord Sainsbury) over the ‘soul’ of the Labour Party. Jackie Ashley observes in today’s Guardian that this silly spat has grown out of all proportion. Lord Mandelson was asked about it on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday, and he reiterated many of the points made by Denis MacShane in this Coffee House post of the

The attack on Progress by the GMB union at its annual conference is odd and reflects the uncertainty of trade unions as they try and work out their role and status in a 21st century which is proving very unfriendly to trade unions across the world. In the United States, only 7 per cent of the private sector workforce is unionized. The figures in France are similarly low. In Britain, TUC membership has shrunk for the fourth year in succession.   Union bashers may rejoice, and certainly there are Tory MPs who think the last great bit of Thatcherite unfinished business is the extirpation of organized labour. But workers are

It was back to the future at the Leveson inquiry today, as Sir John Major suggested how the press might be regulated. He was calm and confident, launching the odd softly-spoken salvo at former enemies, among them Rupert Murdoch. He said: “Certainly he [Murdoch] never asked for anything directly from me but he was not averse to pressing for policy changes. In the run up to the 1997 general election in my third and last meeting with him on 2 February 1997 he made it clear that he disliked my European policies which he wished me to change….If not, his papers could not and would not support the Conservative government.’

Ed Miliband’s speech last week, in which he grappled with questions of Britishness, identity and Unionism, was a worthy effort. By which you will grasp that it was also, in the end, not quite good enough. The Labour leader spoke as though he had only recently appreciated — or had brought to his attention — that national identity on these islands is often a matter of choice and that — insert obligatory Whitman reference here, please — many people have multiple, layered identities that may, at times, even seem to contradict one another. Gosh, you think?   And, alas, he foundered in the Q&A when he told one inquisitor: ‘People

The Labour Party has a problem with education. On the one hand, it recognises that the academies programme which it inaugurated is very popular with parents. But on the other hand, it knows that the unions, upon which it depends financially, are opposed to reform. This creates tension where policy is concerned: how can the party satisfy voters and the unions? This tension is embodied by the reform-minded shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg (a driving force behind the original adoption of academies), who appeared on Andrew Neil’s Sunday Politics earlier this morning. His words (and there were a lot of them) speak volumes about the party’s difficulty with the word

I hope that CoffeeHousers, regardless of political affiliation, will welcome a speech by a Labour leader that is explicitly patriotic, about England as well as the United Kingdom. As Ed Miliband said today, Labour has too often seemed either uninterested in Englishness or embarrassed by it, when there is nothing in its history and values that justifies this. Miliband was also right to emphasise the legitimacy and strength of ‘multiple identities’ — whether English and British, Scottish and British, Indian and British, or British and Muslim. And he was right to urge the English to ‘embrace a positive, outward looking version’ of national identity. Ideas of national identity that are

Ed Miliband had it easy at PMQs today. The government is bleeding in all directions. And a further haemorrhage has arrived in the shape of Adrian Beecroft, a government adviser, whose proposal to relax employment law has delighted the Tory right and incensed the soft-and-cuddly Lib Dem left. ‘A proposal to fire at will’, is how Mr Miliband described the Beecroft plan. Did the Prime Minister support it or did he agree with the Business Secretary who has covered it in scorn? Cameron didn’t so much duck the question as swan straight past it. He pretended it wasn’t there. Instead he cherry-picked some positive footnotes from yesterday’s IMF statement on

Have you noticed the weird hold that François Hollande has over our politics? If you haven’t, then let me tell you: his name has been almost inescapable in Westminster over the past couple of weeks. Even in PMQs this week, David Cameron and Ed Miliband couldn’t resist of spot of Hollandery. Behind-the-scenes, too, there is much consideration being given to how the new French President should be treated. Political strategists recognise, as I’ve suggested before, that his election could be a significant moment in the life of the Eurozone and the European Union. Potentially, it’s the moment when the supranational consensuses of the past couple of years broke down, leading