David Miliband: Labour's move to the left is a mistake

David Miliband has said the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is further from power than at any time in the last 50 years and has refused to rule out a return to British politics.

As Corbyn made clear he did not believe his leadership contributed to Labour’s byelection defeat in Copeland, Miliband said he was “deeply concerned that Labour is further from power than at any stage in my lifetime”.

In an interview with the Times on Saturday, the 51-year-old former foreign secretary said Labour’s shift to the left was a mistake.

“The tempting thing to say is that it’s a mistake because it won’t get us elected,” he said. “But for people like me it’s a mistake because it won’t address the challenges of the country. This isn’t just an electability question, it’s a question of substance. I think one can achieve more radical and substantive change through a different set of positions.”

Elsewhere in the interview, he said: “I don’t think this is just a repeat of the 1980s. We have to really understand the historic nature of the challenge that we have to face.”

The former MP for South Shields, who was foreign secretary under Gordon Brown, has been the president and chief executive of the US-based International Rescue Committee, one of the world’s largest aid agencies, since 2013.

Spinwatch, which campaigns for greater transparency in public and corporate life, notes that the IRC has long been accused of being an instrument of US foreign policy, has documented links to the CIA, and has been an advocate of military intervention - claims the organisation denies.

In the interview, Miliband focused on the IRC’s work with refugees and criticised the populist anti-immigration policies of Donald Trump. “The last few years have seen the reaction against the refugee crisis where the sense is that the only solution is partition, separation – to keep them out,” he said. “I think that is a threat.”

Miliband made a play for the Labour leadership in 2010, but was narrowly beaten by his younger, more leftwing brother, Ed.

Despite a leftwing surge in Labour membership, Miliband said he believed there was still the chance of a revival in Blairite-style politics in the UK, pointing to the rise of Emmanuel Macron in France as evidence.

Asked if he would ever make a return to Westminster politics, Miliband said he felt he was having a greater impact working with the IRC than he would doing something else.

“I’m conscious that [Arsenal manager] Arsène Wenger says never resign an old player, so that’s in my head,” he said. “I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do. It’s hard to see – but what’s the point of saying never?”

Labour’s loss in Copeland on Thursday prompted a new round of infighting in the party. That byelection, and another in Stoke, which Labour held, came as a result of the resignations of two Labour MPs, Tristram Hunt and Jamie Reed, who were both strong critics of Corbyn.

Reports suggest Labour MPs are despondent about the Copeland result, but most are choosing to remain quiet after an attempt to oust Corbyn last summer saw him secure a second resounding leadership election victory.

Even allies have argued that Corbyn must take some responsibility for the Copeland result. The general secretary of the Unison union, Dave Prentis, said no one could objectively argue the byelection results were good for Labour.

“While it was pleasing to see Ukip put in its place, Stoke should never have been in doubt and the result in Copeland was disastrous,” he said. “The blame for these results does not lie solely with Jeremy Corbyn, but he must take responsibility for what happens next.”

Corbyn received support, however, from Mick Whelan, the Aslef general secretary and chair of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation. He said the “uncertainty” caused by last year’s leadership challenge and “misinformation” about Labour’s stance on nuclear power were to blame for the Copeland defeat.

Whelan told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I do wonder, shall we ask ourselves the question: ‘How bad would it have been if we didn’t have Jeremy?’ That’s the question we should be asking ourselves.”