Even Newer Labour?

Bit of a strange speech by Milliband E at the conference I thought.  It may be the result of selective reporting by the media, but it seemed to me that he spent most of his time rubbishing pretty well everything that the last three Labour governments had done.  Not that I didn't agree with much of what he said, but it does raise the question of just what party he is intending to lead.  Can you really be leader of the Labour party if you have specifically divorced yourself from what that party has done and stood for in the past?  Tony Blair realised that the party had to be rebranded if it was to convince the electorate that it was not just same-old, same-old, but he was careful to make the point that this was still Labour - just New Labour.  He didn't seek to get rid of Clause 4 and other baggage on the grounds that it was wrong, simply that it was outdated and irrelevant in the 1990s.  But in his anxiety to confess that the party has made mistakes in the past, Red Ed seems to be seeking to shut the door on what has gone before, in which case can it still really be considered to be the Labour party?