Trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party were generally appreciative of the political direction flagged up by Ed Miliband in his Tuesday set piece. But this public expression marked a much deeper problem writes John Haylett in the Morning Star.

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey was pleased by Miliband's references to equality, manufacturing and the "greed culture" of the business elite.
His counterparts Dave Prentis and Paul Kenny of Unison and GMB respectively were no less supportive.
For Prentis, Miliband "recognised that every working person plays in creating wealth in our economy and that includes public sector workers."
Kenny identified the Labour leader's development in the past year from a young man to his emergence "as a senior politician with courage, conviction and honesty."
In contrast, the Morning Star spotlighted Miliband's commitment to a "disciplined" fiscal approach and his utterly misplaced support for policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s on the sales of council houses, reduction of direct taxation on the wealthy and legal shackles on the unions.
"These changes were right," he declared in a reprise of the iconoclastic rhetoric often deployed by Tony Blair.
No, they weren't. They were not only unjust in their asymmetric burden on working people but they were wrong in their effect on public finances and on concepts of how government priorities should shape social policy.
Buying their council homes, in which they may have lived for decades, was financially advantageous for many tenants.
But the right-to-buy legislation and subsequent mass transfers of local authority accommodation depleted the amount of publicly owned housing stock available for steadily increasing numbers of people seeking homes to rent and this crisis was exacerbated by new Labour's refusal to fund further council housing.
Similarly, Miliband's airy-fairy approval of Thatcher's reduction of tax levels of "60, 70 and 80 per cent" ignores the corollary of such relief to the rich minority from making a fair contribution to society.
The corollary is that either public spending has to be cut in response to lower tax revenues or the shortfall must be met by increasing taxation, often indirect, on poorer sections of society.
That remains an issue today with even the current 50 per cent level for those receiving £150,000-plus a year - just 2 per cent of taxpayers - being seen as temporary and the Tories dashing to repeal it in the interests of "encouraging enterprise."
Thatcher's legal hobbling of the unions, including strict rules on postal ballots, was not, as she claimed in her early days in office, about "returning unions to their members."
It was only ever about weakening the trade union movement because the Tories knew that unions constituted the most consistent defenders of not only their own members' pay and conditions but also broader social gains and concepts of social justice.
Miliband's decision to spout this reactionary drivel betrays a failure to appreciate that the Tory policies of the 1980s, largely embraced by the Blair-Brown governments, laid the basis for today's widening social divisions and injustice.
Dealing with the results of this triumph of uncontrolled exploitation and speculation over the post-war social-democratic consensus requires more than vacuous sloganising about a "something for something" society.
Britain's Tory media went into meltdown over what it perceived as Miliband's hostility to big business and his supposed swing to the left, even resurrecting the spurious sobriquet Red Ed.
To be fair, if he had stood at the rostrum and recited the telephone directory backwards, some newspapers would have detected the surreptitious hand of the Communist International in his speech.
More appositely, many trade unionists attuned to Labour leaders treating their unions with hostility tinged with contempt while lavishing extravagant praise on City profiteers will have been gratified by Miliband's swipe at corporate "predators."
The relief they experienced must have been akin to that felt when someone stops beating you over the head with a club.
But relief gives way to frustration when warm words about wealth creators including "every man and woman who goes out and does a day's work" and about millions of public servants delivering "a fantastic service every day of the week" are accompanied by references to "vested interests" or to it being "too easy not to work."
Such confusion appears to indicate either the consistency of a flibbertigibbet or a speech written by a committee.
In fact, it reflects a leader with one foot still in new Labour and the other striving to gain a toehold on social democratic ground, knowing that half of his parliamentary party remain committed to the new Labour god that failed.
This explains his "I'm not Tony Blair" moment, which he must have known would draw elated applause from many delegates, followed by his "both great men" eulogy to the sires of new Labour.
It also provides a reason why he pushed the seemingly undemocratic demand to pick his own shadow cabinet rather than be guided by a ballot among the PLP, which had already plumped in the leadership election for Blairite candidate David Miliband.
The choices he makes in the coming months, on both policies and shadow cabinet, will determine whether he leads the labour movement to victory or falls between two contradictory stools.