David Miliband sets out the fraternal dividing lines
James Forsyth 2:00pm
David Miliband is one of those politicians who speeches improve when you read them on
paper, his delivery still distracts more than it adds. If the Labour party is going to pick the Miliband who is the more natural platform speaker then David hasn’t got much of a chance. But
if they want the Miliband who is more prepared to think about why Labour really lost then David might well be their man.
On Saturday, Ed Miliband talked about how Iraq, a ‘casualness’ about civil liberties and a failure to regulate the banks properly had cost Labour the election. This might be Ed Miliband’s genuine analysis but it is also what Labour members want to hear: Labour lost because it wasn’t Labour enough. To be fair, he did mention immigration but only in a specifically left-wing way—‘immigration is a class issue’, he said because it depresses wages.
By contrast, David Miliband today talked about how Labour had ‘lost focus on education and anti-social behaviour’ and was ‘playing catch-up on political reform, immigration and housing’. This strikes me as a more balanced assessment of why Labour lost. The mention of education is also a slap at Ed Balls, who is expected to enter the leadership race soon. He put the brakes on the education reform agenda as soon as he arrived at the department.
Miliband senior talked about a politics of power, protection and belonging. It is not the snappiest of soundbites but one can see something in there that could help Labour connect to both the white working class voters and aspirational middle class voters it lost at the last election. But if Labour is serious about being a force in the South again, it needs to deal with the sense that people were over-taxed compared to the services they were receiving.
So far one doesn’t see anyone in the Labour leadership contest who will give Cameron and Clegg sleepless nights. But as Cameron showed in 2005, candidates can grow in stature during a leadership race. For that reason, a long contest is in Labour’s interest.
Previous
Old Slaughter
May 17th, 2010 2:08pm Report this commentIt also proved you can fall away.
Something out of left-field (not necessarily left-wing) is most likely.
Catesby
May 17th, 2010 2:15pm Report this commentSince they'll be using AV, the result will be skewed anyway to the least offensive, everyone's second choice, compromise candidate.
Which will probably be Ed M.
He's no great orator either. Sounds like he has a minor speech impediment. Or talks through his sinuses.
ollie
May 17th, 2010 2:15pm Report this commentI don't think Labour will be trusted to go near the country's coffers for a very long time. Doesn't really matter who the leader is - like it didn't matter when Hague and IDS were.
By the way, David Miliband would be a disaster for Labour - he is intrisically attached to the cynicism, spin and economic lunacy of New labour. He is the epitome of the machine politician. At least Ed has less baggage. Anyway, both of them are lightweights.
Brown, for all of his numerous personal failings, was a big hitter on his day. These two chumps are scared of their own shadows.
Colin
May 17th, 2010 2:31pm Report this commentWho cares?
I'm willing to bet, and I have, that it is neither of them. The same goes for Balls.
A dark horse has yet to emerge, but it will...
michael
May 17th, 2010 2:37pm Report this commentHave either of them got the bottle to sack each other ?
Nickle
May 17th, 2010 2:50pm Report this commentBanks are peanuts in comparison the elephant in the room - government debts.
i.e. It's a trick. It's a case of trying to emulate a magician and say, look over here at the naughty banks. Don't whatever you do investigate government debts.
Will J
May 17th, 2010 2:50pm Report this commentJames Forsyth is one of those journalists who writing improves when it is checked by a proofreader...
lescam
May 17th, 2010 3:00pm Report this comment"He's no great orator either. Sounds like he has a minor speech impediment. Or talks through his sinuses".
Yes I notice that as well. With the greatest respect to Ed Miliband, after the "leader" (I use the term loosely) they have just got rid of, with his facial tics and tombstone voice, you would think Labour would go all out for appearance, and ability to speak clearly and eloquently. I know appearance isn't everything (or shouldn't be, in an ideal world) but today's politics, which are won or lost on TV, demand that politicians aiming for the top have a good "face for TV". Nothing wrong with E.Miliband's face, but his speaking voice is poor. David Miliband is unquestionably superior in this respect.
In any case, a candidate who is "close to Brown", ie E.M. and Ed Balls, should be a non-starter.
Rhoda Klapp
May 17th, 2010 3:04pm Report this commentStill I'm left wondering where the bloody hell he was while all these mistakes were being made. In the cabinet, you say? And what did he do about it? SFA, you say? Well, what part of collective responsibility does he not get? Oh, overborne by the tyrannical leader, you say? Well, he should have resigned and run against, when it mattered. Self-serving creep.
Rhoda Klapp
May 17th, 2010 3:05pm Report this commentStill I'm left wondering where the bloody hell he was while all these mistakes were being made. In the cabinet, you say? And what did he do about it? SFA, you say? Well, what part of collective responsibility does he not get? Oh, overborne by the tyrannical leader, you say? Well, he should have resigned and run against, when it mattered. Self-serving creep.
King Prawn
May 17th, 2010 3:12pm Report this commentIt might surprise a lot of people, but Labour did not lose the election because of Iraq. If that is the case, why did Labour win in 2005?
The truth is that more people supported the invasion of Iraq than the commentariat wish to believe. The problem has always been the conduct of the war itself and how the Army has not been given the necessary equipment.
Labour lost the election because of Brown.
They did not like the following:-
1. The way that Brown's policies during the recession and the way he just thrown money down the drain.
Why did the NHS take on 20,000+ managers last year? Why was those same managers given a 7% pay rise last year? Why were post office workers given a 6% pay rise recently together with shorter working hours? Why did Brown bring in the 50% tax band knowing full well that wealth creators would leave the UK in droves leading to an overall fall in tax revenues?
2. People did not believe Brown's deathbed conversion to the reform programme.
How could Brown suddenly champion Foundation Hospitals when it well known that he neutered the original legislation? How could Brown be believed on Schools reform when he put his main henchman, Ed Balls, in charge of Education and immediately put the academies back under LEA control? How could Brown be believed on welfare reform when everyone knew that he blocked Frank Field from making important reforms in 1997/98?
Brown was not a credible candidate in our more highly pPresidential system. And most of the Labour Party knew it!
dearieme
May 17th, 2010 3:15pm Report this commentThe fraternal dividing lines:
"You say banana and I say.."
"Oh shut up!"
charles hercock
May 17th, 2010 3:46pm Report this commentLets steer away from family squabbles and bring on Ed Balls to keep Dave in for a generation
Alan Douglas
May 17th, 2010 3:55pm Report this commentMy goodness, there are people who have not had enough of elections yet ? Sad.
Who leads the ex-Labour party is of no interest, and won't be for at least 10 years.
Let's think happy thoughts instead, and let these dark people machinate to their heart's content, just don't bother humans with it all.
Alan Douglas
Vulture
May 17th, 2010 4:13pm Report this commentThe Miliband brothers have got about as much public appeal as an outbreak of Athletes' Foot.
Apart from the fact that he talks like a speaking clock that has been unaccountably loaded with one of his father's Marxist lectures from the 1950s, Millipede Maj. will be forever haunted by his limp banana as Hague was by his baseball cap.
And as for a 'tough' immigration policy, coming from them, that's rich. Horses and slamming stable doors spring to mind. Mind you, if we had actually had such a policy in the 1930s neither of these two annoying little tits would be troubling us now.
Publius
May 17th, 2010 4:33pm Report this commentI can see why these Primrose Hill pseuds might appeal to the commentatiat, but I can't see how they can appeal to the wider Labour public without a very great deal of Mandelsonian spin.
Personally I have much more time for Cruddas. At least he seems grounded in something other than fashion and theory. (But then again, I'm not a Labour voter.)
John Stapleton
May 17th, 2010 5:00pm Report this commentOn the basis that it is really about choosing the most televisual 40-something white man, I would go for:
1. Andy Burnham - lovely eyes, kind of cheeky chappy look
2. Ed M - also has slightly doe-eyed look which is occasionally quite fetching
3. David M - doesn't do it for me but some people go for the geek look (remember that Prof Brian Cox is the housewives' choice at the moment)
4. John Cruddas - hm, no
John Stapleton
May 17th, 2010 5:02pm Report this commentOh I forgot:
5. Ed Balls. No No No
Nash
May 17th, 2010 8:21pm Report this commentLabour lost because of Brown, Blair, Campbell, McBride and Whelan and because of the absence of truth in anything they said.
They also did support our military and were essentially incompotent!
HFC
May 17th, 2010 8:22pm Report this commentI surmise that Labour next election leader will be going up to uni this autumn where he (yes, he) will be successful in landing a top activist job in the students union whilst studying law or PPE. From there he will be spotted and given a spad role by a shadow(y) minister.
Etc.etc...
Back to top