It has been a peculiar few years for David Miliband. Once an influential voice in frontline politics, he is now a quiet backbencher after losing out on the Labour leadership to his brother, Ed. Though the signs of a busy political life were clear as he sat down to speak to Varsity before his talk at the Union, the difficulties personally and politically in recent years were not to be seen as he settled in quickly.

He certainly did not take long to get into his stride as he reflected on how the social context of his upbringing meant a father with a more radical political ideology than his son: “I grew up in a period where Britain was having industrial strike, but nothing like the kind of problem of the 1930s and 1940s.”

Family ties have followed Miliband around for much of his career – his brother was a surprise winner in the Labour leadership contest two years ago. Constant rumours of a fractured relationship have evidently given David an air of caution over anything that could be misconstrued regarding his brother.

These rumours were exacerbated by the leadership contest which Ed won after substantial trade union support, leading to questions over how Labour elect their party leader.

Asked about whether he would change the way the Labour party elect their leader,  he hesitates and is at his most tentative, avoiding mentioning his brother directly: “I think that that’s something my – er - the leader of the party will have to address when it comes to maintaining a healthy balance.”

He does sheepishly admit, though, that he cannot do the Rubik’s Cube, while Ed can manage it in an impressive 90 seconds.

Miliband’s political career has, in many ways, been one of comparisons, not just to his brother and his father but to those in the Labour party too. Having been an important figure in the formation of the New Labour image, he has often been categorised as a ‘Blairite’.

He is keen to distance himself from such labels without dismissing the value of New Labour. This was clear in relation to the sensitive issue of the war in Iraq.

Miliband was blunter in his appraisal than Blair’s recent equivocation on the war: “Obviously I would not have supported it because there were no WMDs. If we had known then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a war.”

Now, with worries over the relationship with Iran, Miliband was critical of the government’s move to shut down its embassy in Tehran: “The day Britain closed its embassy in Tehran was a very sad day for British diplomacy.”

However, he was reluctant to comment on the incumbent Foreign Secretary for fear of being perceived as catty. Though relaxed, his political nous was never far away as he quickly added: “I appreciate that it closed the embassy under intense provocation from the Iranians, but the only people who win from its closure are the hardliners Iran.”

We then turned to David’s real reason for being here: the living wage campaign. Earlier in the morning he had spoken with the Cambridge University Labour Club about the living wage, and was positive in pressing the importance of the issue: “I am here to support the living wage campaign that the idea that cleaners and security and others can get a wage that allows them to cover for the basics of life.”

He believes that the answer to living wage lies not in legislation, but dialogue and political activity: “I don’t think that the national government should legislate for it; it’s right that we have a minimum wage not a living wage, but essentially we know that there is a great polarisation of wages.”

When pushed, he admits that “My interest in the living wage campaign is social justice, but it is also very much about practising politics in a way that gets students and university authorities to think how best to do this.”

In preparation for the day, as well as reading Varsity, he spoke to University officials about opening up a dialogue with students on the issue.

“It’s not just about standing outside with a megaphone, but actually about saying here’s a real problem, there’s no costless solution but let’s work through the right way of doing it.”

I asked, then, about the importance of the University and colleges paying the living wage. His message was plain: “Those institutions that are able to lead the way in paying the living wage should pay it as it is the right thing to do.

“There is the basic principle of the dignity of labour in all of this.”

Though there is an ulterior motive behind Miliband’s support of the living wage as a way of engaging students in a political exercise, his commitment to the cause is clear, as is his wish to bridge the large gap between the top and bottom earners. Whatever past associations there may be with New Labour, David Miliband remains focused on helping to forge the party’s future.