Lacking in boldness
James Forsyth 1:10pm
David Miliband is right that political parties need to adapt if they are to survive. Membership of all the main parties are down and the number of activists they can call on in shrinking. His John Smith memorial lecture contains some worthwhile ideas on how to open up the Labour party. But, as so often, Miliband has not taken the opportunity to be truly bold.
In the speech, Miliband speaks approvingly of open primaries. So, why not use an open primary for the post-election leadership contest? It would be a way of saying that post-defeat, Labour would look out not in. It would also guarantee that the contest attracts national attention, something that is often not the case with opposition leadership elections—remember just how little coverage the Tory contest in 2005 got. The electorate would feel engaged with the question of what kind of party Labour should be. Finally, it would ensure that Labour picked a candidate with national not sectional appeal.
I suspect that Miliband is not confident enough in his own relationship with the Labour party to suggest such a move. If he did, it might well be seen as a sinister Blairite plot to reduce the influence of the party still further. But a candidate with better Labour credentials than Miliband, would be well placed to make this call.
Previous
Adam
July 6th, 2009 1:29pm Report this commentCome on - he's not going to talk about a post-election leadership contest now is he? That would imply he knows Gordon Brown is going to lose.
Richard
July 6th, 2009 1:45pm Report this commentHe was truly terrible on Marrs Sunday Morning Service yesterday cf Sir John Major (chippy as ever but compelling).
Milliband who bottled Labours last chance of survival is an even less attractive apprentice than the angry chimp himself. He lacks eloquence and quick-wittedness, he is inclined to let the wierdness show through, and he doesnt seem to believe in anything more considered than his own entitlement to tell other people what to do. As he chillingly displayed at the end of his interview when talking (repetitively and bizarrely) about our spymasters speedos. A man who knows he holds his position, like Bercow, because of other peoples ulterior political purposes; and will be binned when the British people have taken their revenge next year.
Marbury
July 6th, 2009 1:56pm Report this commentI think a modicum of realism might be helpful here, James. Are you really suggesting that the foreign secretary ought to be making speeches about how to run the next Labour leadership contest, with an election less than a year away and a leader very much in place? I don't think you'd be describing him as "bold" if he did that. Crazy, maybe.
Vulture
July 6th, 2009 1:58pm Report this commentWith a modicum of luck, James, it will not matter a flying fart who the rump of the Liebour party elect as their leader. I know that you professional wonks live by such non-events, but for the rest of us the hope must be that this utterly discredited party never plays any part in the nation's life ever again. But, just as a matter of interest, who, in your view has 'better credentials' than little Millipede to lead what will be left of the rabble?
George
July 6th, 2009 2:55pm Report this commentShould the headline for this post actually have been 'lacking Balls'?
Denis Cooper
July 6th, 2009 3:00pm Report this commentI notice this in Miliband's speech:
"Yet without parties then where is democratic debate?"
One answer is that without parties the debate would necessarily be between individual members of the demos, the people, and therefore it could be a truly democratic debate; but with parties the debate will tend to occur in the parties and between the parties, to the exclusion of the people, and therefore it will become an increasingly undemocratic debate.
Party politicians like to pretend that their political parties are essential for democracy, and even deserve to be subsidised by the taxpayer; the truth is that the formation of parties in general is inevitable but not essential, while the continued existence of any one party is neither inevitable nor essential.
In fact my view is that all three of the main UK parties have now become major impediments to democracy, and we'd be better off without all three of them.
Jeremy
July 6th, 2009 10:53pm Report this commentRichard:
"...he doesnt seem to believe in anything more considered than his own entitlement to tell other people what to do."
That's an interesting point. The next time somebody interviews Miliband they should ask him: What qualities or attributes do you think you possess which entitle you to tell other people what to do?
Back to top