Fallout or Fall Out? - The Possible Insight into the Future of Labour Party and David Miliband as He Steps Down

ANALYSIS by Patrick English

Yesterday, David Miliband informed the political world of his intention to remove himself from front line politics and join the backbenches of the Labour Party, after losing the leadership election on the last day to his younger brother, Ed Miliband. The two of them are the sons of the great Marxist thinker, Ralf Miliband, and although both of them fall upon the left hand side of British politics and embrace socialism of sorts, neither hold the strength of views as their father did before them. Truth of the matter is, the differences between the brothers' respective ideologies are minimal at most; aside from the obvious link with the trade unions which Ed boasts, there is not much more to suggest he is more 'left wing' than his brother. So was it a question of how left wing the candidates are, or exactly what they are associated with?


Through the campaign, the both of them insisted that there was no animosity between each other and their campaigns; and both promised that, come the result, they would remain close brothers and friends. However, there was always intense speculation as to what the other brother would do in the event of the other winning. Would they simply accept gracious defeat and take a high ranking cabinet post? Would their pride get the better of them and force them to backlash and contest the result or idea of their brother winning? Or would there be a sudden step back from politics and or the party? As today we found out, David decided the latter was the correct coarse of action, but was it an act of envious distancing from his brother, or was it a well intended and thoughtful step away from Ed?


The main difference between the two, no doubt that which rattled the minds of the grassroots Labour party and the trade unions, is that Ed Miliband was somewhat, although not entirely, distant from New Labour. He has his own ideology and ideas about policy, and has openly spoken out against some of what New Labour did. David, on the other hand, stuck pretty much by the party guns and defended the choices they made, including Iraq when Ed came out openly against it; although David criticised some New Labour policy and decisions and emphasising 'change' in a few of his campaign speeches, he was very much seen as the choice for a continuation of New Labour. Was this what won Ed Miliband the leadership in the end, on the final ballot where the people at the bottom of the party hierarchy cast their final opinion on the leadership debate?

Certainly Ed's promise of 'change' seemed much more appealing to the grassroots party, and his union links ensured their support come the final hour. Ed Miliband played a significant role in Gordon Brown's policy unit during his time as Prime Minister but never really put his face at the forefront of what New Labour was doing. Surely, at such a young political age and career, this could not have been for a future foresight of leadership of the party, especially when New Labour were so popular. Instead surely it must have been for personal ideological reasons, his endorsement and links to the unions would somewhat support this. Cashing in on New Labour popularity was probably much of the motivation behind David Miliband, whom many expected to challenge Gordon Brown to the leadership during the low point of his tenure, and his political moves when working for New Labour. Although not involved much in the forefront of Tony Blair's premiership, he was well and truly involved in Brown's. Ascending to the role of Foreign Secretary, David was an open supporter of the New Labour's vision and policies, so much so to the fact that when Gordon Brown deviated into a form of 'Brownite Labourism' during the banking crisis, David began to criticise it. The choice for Labour Party members could therefore be looked at as thus; New New Labour under David, or Left Wing Union Inspired Labour under Ed. As we all know, the party opted for a new image, under Ed.


How much did this open dismissal of New Labour impact on David's decision to step down? Could he be conceding that the party and the people simply do not want to hear about New Labour ever again? The man himself has come out and claimed that his decision was made in order to give Ed a 'clean slate' and a 'fresh start'. His full official reasoning can be found here:

 David Steps down: Letter and Video

Is this an indication of respect for the winner, or a distancing from what the winner is about to bring about? David could be merely trying to give his brother space to bring about the reform to the Labour Party and its policies that it so badly needs, without a key figure of New Labour plaguing the changes. Or he could be resigning himself to the back benches in order to take his face well away from what the Labour Party is about to become. If it fails miserable, his resigned position would mean that he may perhaps be able challenge again in the future for the leadership under the banner of 'I told you I was the right choice last time!'. A clever ploy, one might say, but then again it wouldn't be the first time that David considered overthrowing a Labour Party leader early in his tenure.


The fact of the matter is that we probably will never know David's true motives for sure. For now we shall assume he is perhaps a little bitter, perhaps a little 'gutted', but also take his word that he is giving his brother some space; which is exactly what removing his New Labour stained face from the front of the Labour Party shall do. It could well be that David is fearful of the potential Union stranglehold on the party that could come into fruition, and if it turns out that Ed Miliband's leadership of the Labour Party turns into a disaster for the party, we shall all be monitoring David Miliband's moves closely once again.

A Tale of Romas, Fuming French, and a Luxemburger.

OPINION by Patrick English

It sounds like a new Burger King advert, but no, this is the extraordinary story of the French state forces dismantling some 500 Gypsy camps and deporting hundreds of Roma Gypsies to their native Romania, and the resulting backlash from the always twitchy EU. The story has thrown up some rather interesting questions, most notably, just who is in the political and ethical right?


Social tensions between the majority French population and the Roma have long been in place, similar to those present between Gypsies in the UK and the home-dwelling population at large. So far as the overall size of the Roma Gypsy population of France goes, they actually don't have much room for complaint. The numbers are similar to those here in the UK, Germany, and Italy:

The unsettling tensions really started between the French government and the Gypsy people residing within France really started on July 19th when a Roma mob rioted in the Loire Valley town of Saint Aignan in response to a Roma man being shot dead by Police there a few days earlier. This sparked a flurry of government and journalist statements and comments condemning the Roma and their camps, one government spokesman described them as:

   'sources of illegal trafficking, of profoundly shocking living standards, of exploitation of children for begging, of prostitution and crime'.

On the 29th of July, Sarkozy ordered the dismantling of around 300 camps. He promised the EU and the world at large that there was no bias or targeting towards Roma Gypsy camps, instead this was a clean sweep of many camps right across France. However, the EU parliament did not take kindly to the actions, and vote to demand a stop to the deportations; the French high command duly ignored this, and pressed on. On Monday, a memo was leaked from a government official revealing that in fact Roma camps were being specifically targeted by the French 'clean-out'. This revelation caused the EU Commission's Justice Minister Ms Reding, of Luxembourg, to accuse Sarkozy's government of nigh on Nazi tendencies:

   "This is a situation I had thought Europe would not have to witness again after the Second World War."

Strong words, and Sarkozy today duly replied:

   "The disgusting and shameful words that were used - World War II, the evocation of the Jews was something that shocked us deeply,"

Can Sarkozy be found guilty of discrimination or racism toward the Roma population? Or is he simply legitimately removing a people who are not living by the rules in his country? Certainly the leaked memo strongly suggests that there is targeting going on specifically directed at Roma Gypsy camps; but Sarkozy denies this, stating that of the 5,500 people evicted so far from the camps, the majority have been French nationals. It is estimated that around 1,000 Roma have been deported from the camps to Romania, each of these has been a 'voluntary resettlement' deportation, with each being paid the equivalent of around 250 pounds sterling to leave. What of the morals and ethics of carrying out such a  'voluntary resettlement'? Certainly there has not been much violence, no one has technically been forced to leave, and the land didn't belong to the Gypsies in the first place but instead the French people, who the government is saying to be returning it too. Sarkozy can also add to his moral mountain the support of the majority of the French people, and the fact that he has unfairly practically been called a Nazi. However, is it ever ethical to split families, destroy homes, and racially target a group for eviction and deportation? Suddenly Sarkozy's moral mountain seems more like a molehill.

Politically, the EU stands accusing Sarkozy of deliberately targeting Roma Gypsies, and illegitimately removing EU nationals who have every right to be in France under the free movement laws in operation in all member states. On the other hand Sarkozy argues that by not paying taxes, not abiding by French land laws, and providing havens for those committing crimes such as prostitution and begging, they are criminals themselves and may be dealt with by the French authorities appropriately. The question is, who has sovereignty in this unique and dangerous situation?

The Lisbon treaty clearly states that the EU parliament is sovereign over any member state's, and that any decision made there must be implemented into national law. However, the French have a form of tradition of not implementing EU legislation or instead watering it down before incorporating it into their set-up. Up until now, it's mostly gone un-quarrelled, but the recent complete blatant dismissal of supposed sovereignty when deciding to push on with the deportations has brought heavy criticism; some members of the Commission have even called for legal action to be taken against France, notably including Ms Reding. Such calls have been played down by other member states and the EU as a body, a sign of them perhaps backing off? If so, does this mean that any large member state of the EU can simply stand up and push away the Commission and Parliament over controversial issues? If the EU chooses to back down, what of it's reputation and supranational sovereignty?

Politically, the EU should have the power to tell France to stop deporting the Roma Gypsies if it voted so. The problem is, it has voted so, and France did not listen. Why? Because in reality, the French people will probably feel that the EU has no real mandate over France, or any other member country for that matter; averagely, only about 30% of the electorate of any member state participates in the EU elections, and most of those who do participate vote for an anti-EU or Euro-sceptic party. Truth be told, the EU has the theoretical upper hand over France, but the French people will feel that in practice they should have the final say on this particular issue. Whether that's fair is irrelevant, they have made the decision to ignore the EU, but certainly it seems that the EU will now have to make a tough decision; does it let France deal with its own issues of such controversy and surrender its sovereignty, or does it assert its power to stand up for those under the French boot, and risk greatly angering the population? Whatever the case for allowing France to deal with asserting its own land laws, something should really be done about the racial targeting of the Roma, their treatment is infringing human rights and almost inhumane.

Carriers and MoD in the Chancellor's Sights - What the Treasury Sees Down the Barrel

ANALYSIS by Patrick English

This week was revealed the cost of building the Royal Navy's two planned Aircraft Carriers after a parliamentary question by a Labour MP. The figure stands at around five billion pounds sterling, and contracts worth around 1.25 billion pounds sterling have been awarded to companies across the UK already. Up to 10,000 jobs now depend on this carrier programme, and mass orders of steel and steel cutting have already been made to Corus. Why then, one might ask, is this funding now looking at being pulled in the upcoming spending review, when contract, funds, and jobs are already circulating and in operation? Further, why would it be seen that the Ministry of Defence should bear so much cutting to its funding in the eyes of those holding the financial axe? It seems non sensual to do so, but there are reasons as to why this could be the case.


George Osbourne and Danny Alexander would immediately turn to the obvious catchphrase for means of explanation as to why this funding is under question in the review, "We are all in this, together." If the middle, upper, and (for some reason) lower classes are looking to be making sacrifices toward helping curb the budget deficit left by the extortionately spending previous government, then so should all government departments. Stopping projects, such as the carries, which won't threaten national security or affect employment (albeit directly) would be easy targets to slash from the MoD's rather hefty annual bill; currently standing at around 40 billion pounds sterling, it is amongst the most costly institutions to the state in the UK. Also interesting to note on a financial level is that research from the Stockholm Peace Research institute places Britain 3rd in the world's list of top spenders on defence in terms of US Dollars. Only the USA and China spent more in 2009 on defence than the UK:

Top 10 Military Spenders - SIPRI 

Perhaps then it would seem just that the MoD take a hit in its budget. After all, the total proposed rumoured cuts in defence by the treasury to the MoD will actually work out at around 20% of its budget; around the same figure which was announced as the coming average for all governmental departments for the coming cutting chop. Therefore it is hardly a case of the MoD being bashed by the new 'age of austerity', the numbers being circulated are large simply because the budget of the MoD is larger than most budgets to begin with.

Politicians at the Treasury and senior officials within the MoD, notably not from the Navy side, would appear perhaps to think that building the carriers is a wasteful and unneeded project for the MoD to persue. The argument from the latter, army officials and military heavyweights, as well as members of the public and world of journalism, is the same for that of supporting unilateral disarmament; 'We don't need nukes and battleships to fight terrorists.' Meaning, with the changing face of world conflict from mass wars to guerrilla insurgency fighting, there is no need for weapons of mass destruction and expensive planes and ships, as they would have little effect on such conflicts. We should instead be investing money in recruiting soldiers and equipping them with the finest gear available whilst ensuring they are supported by fully operational, state of the art support units such as helicopters and artillery. This would be cheaper, and would ensure that we can fight effectively in the changing field of modern combat.


As bizarre as it might seem to cut the proposed construction of the two new aircraft carriers so far into the initial development stages from the budget in this coming reviews, there are actually some valid reasons behind the argument for doing so; the large overall budget and cost of the MoD and defence, the lack of immediate need for such weaponry, and the changing face of how battles are fought. Indeed, it would hardly be a U-Turn, the funding was granted by the previous administration so times have now changed. As large as the figures may be concerning MoD cuts, it is important to remember the size of the overall defence spending and thus MoD budget in order to gain some sense of perspective as to how deep these cuts will be. Numerous arguments against cutting our military speding may be equally valid in stature, but if the decision is made indeed made to cut the carriers and shave billions from defence spending, least we may find some sense behind it.

Welfare Cuts in the October Spending Review

ANALYSIS by Sam Neagus

The October Spending Review is a matter of weeks away, and the pressure is on Chancellor George Osborne to come up with plans to cut public spending, with many analysts predicting that the most extensive cuts will be on the governments biggest single cost; the welfare state. Critics of the coalition governments plans to cut spending so quickly quote a refusual to see the logic in doing so. However, with the interest on the public deficit predicted to reach a huge £67 billion by 2014-15, decisive action has to be taken to ensure that this level is kept to a minimum.

Indeed, since 1988 spending on welfare has doubled in real terms and is now estimated to cost the government £200 billion a year, all of which is funded out of the public purse.

It is thought that one of the first cuts the Treasury will make is in housing benefits. At present, over five-thousand people receive at least £100k a year in housing benefits alone.Quite absurd, and is in no way fair to tax payers for such generosity by the state. However even if cut, the money that this will save in the grand scheme of things is still minor, and so the government has had to search for wide-ranging and extensive cuts which will enable them to claw back such a large deficit.

The first such way the government has proposed is to cut tens of billions of pounds from the ‘middle class welfare’; that is benefits paid to well off families. Frank Field, the so-called government Poverty Tsar, has suggested that the long-established Child Benefit scheme should no longer be provided to families with older children, and there are even suggestions that some other benefits, notably the Winter Fuel Allowance, positively affect beneficiaries and instead go to families with little need for such payments.

However, one concern is that lower-middle class families will lose out if such schemes were cut
and it would have a detrimental effect on their family income. Some analysts have even argued that these schemes needed to be extended as the take up of these programmes is poor among low income families. Having simpler application forms and improving administration would actually save a fair amount of funds, the bureaucracy surrounding them is where the money is really being wasted they claim.
In an additionial cost cutting proposal, the government has indicated that they will move away from setting out to improve poverty targets based on a families annual income, and focus on improving the place of the poorest families in the education and employment sector; thus encouraging ‘self-help’ and in the long term, and improving social mobility by doing so.

As I see it, there are potential improvements the government’s plans to save billions of pounds in public spending, outside of large cuts to welfare. By making means testing something which can actually work, rather than a system which is open to abuse, and not to giving billions of pounds of public money to well off, middle class families who are in little need of such payments, large savings could be made without hitting those further down the income scale hard.

THINK TANK: How the "Issue Attention Cycle" Could Mean We Eventually Have A Green Government

The Green Party, in its current form, has taken all of nine years to gain its first representation in parliament, with Caroline Lucas being elected in Brighton Pavillion in May 2010. At the heart of the party's ideology is environmentalism, and the belief that climate change will destroy life as we know it, if left unchallenged.

A rather excellent read can be found amoungst the works of one Anthony Downs. Downs developed a theory, relating directly to environmentalism, on how issues within the public attention span go through 'cycles' of apparentness and importance. The original works are here, and explain themselves much better than my summary ever could:

Issue Attention Cycle - Downs

The crux of his logic is that while the media and politicians are all ablaze with an issue, so the public remains interested in it, but as the attention from the media and politicians on the issue begins to drop off (often in favour of a new issue, or upon the solution of the issue), so does the public's concern with said issue. However, he also interestingly asserts that there are certain issues that simply do not go away. Instead they stay at the top of the 'cycle' (the peak of concern and apparentness) until a solution is found. These, what some may call, 'Super Issues' are rare, but not uncommon. Downs argues that environmentalism as a whole appears to be one of these Super Issues.


So, a Super Issue environmentalism may be, but why should this mean that a party respresenting the apparent solutions to the environmental problem gets into power? Well, it wouldn't be the first time a political party managed to ascend to government with a Super Issue at the heart of its ideology.


Around 150 years ago, an issue arose from the aftermath of the industrial revolution, that had been seemingly put to rest by Disraeli and his 'One Nation Conservatism'; the poor were getting poorer, and working conditions worsening and worsening. This Super Issue was not addressed propperly by nor Whigs or Tory party, so a new party was born in 1900 to represent those affected by this issue, and have it pushed into government agenda. The name of that party? The British Labour Party. In 1924, Ramsay MacDonald became the first ever Labour Party Prime Minister, and the party went on to govern on and off for the remainder of the century. Admittedly, since then the party went on to evolve into an ideologically based party once working condition improvements and significant steps to take working class living conditions out of poverty, were achieved. But intially it was the drive to resolve those issues that resulted in them taking power in 1924 and the first half of the 20th Century.


Parralells can be drawn between the conditions surrounding the rise of the Labour Party can be drawn with those surrounding the current circumstance of the environmental problem and the Green Party; for one thing, there is a party to represent the issue, for another, the issue is a Super Issue, for another, the issue has not been fully taken up by any other mainstream party, and finally, the Super Issue just appears to be getting worse and worse:

 

SOURCE: Eye-opener on Global Warming

If the Labour Party managed to gain power by representing a group of people concerned by a Super Issue, then why can't the Green Party? If three conditions are filled, then their representation in government becomes a high possibility. Firstly, in ten or so years time, evironmentalism must still be a Super Issue worldwide. Secondly, the British Green Party must model itself around their German counterparts and abandon their more abstract politices and write a much more encompassing manifesto that will compete with the other parties at election time.

However, there is a hindering thorn-in-the-side in the circumstance of the Green Party. They, unlike the Labour Party in the early 20th Century, have an underlying problem when trying to engage voters in resolving their Super Issue; they are struggling, like scientiest worldwide, to convince us that global warming needs addressing right here, right now, at the highest level possible. This so because we are not being directly affected by it yet here in the UK, nor in the northern hemisphere at large.
We hear constant reports of floods in the sub-continent, ice-caps melting in the arctic, and species dying out in the rainforests. But the fact of the matter is that the British voter is actually a highly selfish person when it comes to polling day. Often they consider just personal principals, or contemplate which party offers the greatest personal benefits to them when chosing who to ballot for. It is not often you will find a voter who can say "I voted for Party A because of their foreign policy" for example. Thus, thirdly, global warming must start directly effecting us here in the UK and thus move to the peak of the majority's 'list of concerns' at election time.


Still, if the science is correct and things will get worse and more apparent here in the northern hemisphere, and if more radical and abstract policies are dropped, then in the coming years it is highly plausable that the Green Party will enter the mainstream of British Politics, just as their German cousins have done, and eventually earn governmental representation.

*Note: Upon further consideration, another factor undoubtably contributed to the rise of the Labour Party in the early 20th century; the enfranchisement of the working class males. However, a form of realisation of just how serious global warming is upon the electorate, could be likened to this enfranchisement, as it similarly would give a sudden change in the situation of the electorate at large.

Papal Payment

OPINION by Patrick English

Now no one here at The Comment is saying the Pope shouldn’t come to Britain, that is not a debate, he is definately coming. This is simply a mere exploration on the question of who exactly should pay? Observe the report on the upcoming Papal visit here:

ITN Report on Papal Visit

In the report it is well outlined the difference between the visit of John-Paul II in 1982 and the upcoming visit of Benedict xvi; John-Paul’s visit was a Pastural visit to the churches of Britain, meaning that, aside from his security, his travelling, sleeping, and various activities were paid for by a combination of the Vatican and the Catholic Church here in the UK. However, Benedict was invited by the Queen to come to the UK on an official state visit, as he is the head of the state of the Vatican. Thus, officially, the visit is no longer of religious orientation but instead a visit from a state figurehead. This rockets the costs, which are now said to be stood at around 12 million pound sterling, and puts the burden of those costs directly on the states-people of the country to be visited – us, the taxpayer.

Recent surveys hosted by the BBC show that many are angry at the cost of the visit, but a good argument as to why taxpayers should pay is presented on the video link on the same page by Archbishop Vincent Nicholls, who says that the Pope is a ’spiritual’ leader to billions worldwide:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11191386

Now indeed there are arguments against making every resident of the UK pay for the Papal visit through the tax system. The same article as above contains a statistic that 79% of people questioned felt they had no personal attachment to the visit or the Pope himself. Indeed, perhaps some people of alternate religions will dissagree with the Pope and his beliefs and may even be offended by some of them. It would hardly then be ethical to go and demand that they pay tax for the Pope to come and express said views and beliefs.

However, what would be less ethical and practical, would be to demand that simply Christians or Catholics pay through the nose for the visit. The reality is that some form of “tax on Christians” to pay for the visit would be even more unethical and downright descriminatory, and would hardly be greeted with glee given the current state of the economy and people’s personal finances. Equally, to expect the Churches of the UK to foot the bill is unrealistic; though they could probably afford it, it would mean the collapse of many projects and services provided by the Church that so many rely on. In all, it is easier, more sensible, and actually less controversial to have the entirety of the public pay for the Vatican head of state to visit us for a few days. Should you agree to funding the visit of a world leader who does not share the same views and beliefs as you? Well, you would still invite your friend round for dinner even if they supported a different football team, right?

Government Spending Madness?

OPINION by Patrick English

In the week when it has been revealed that thousands of us have paid the wrong amount of tax to the government, it seems topical talk about one of the most controversial spending agreements of the past governments, to fund the building and research of the Large Hadron Collider.

Costing around $10 Billion US, taking 14 years to complete, and crashing to a halt a mere few hours after its grand turn on, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Geneva, is tasked mainly with finding the highly illusive, theoretical ‘God particle’, around which our basic understanding of what gives things mass revolves. Governments, including ours here, have funded the main bulk of the project, in the hope that it will answer the most burning question in physics to date. However, early results are not looking promising, and in an article from BBC Focus magazine (Issue 220), Proff Stephen Reucroft said thus:

“It is very unlikely that the Higgs boson will be found”

I dare say, this is hardly what the public, scientists, governments, and especially Mr Higgs, will have wanted to hear. But the reality is, it’s looking increasingly likely that $10 Billion US has been spent proving our own grasp of science, wrong.

In fact, this wont come as much of a shock to those who know a thing or two about physics. The basis of most of our understanding of particle and quantum physics is that we prove something right, by proving all other possibilities, wrong. However, this leads the door wide open for ‘wrongness’ in the result itself. What if there are alternate possibilities not thought of at the time of theorising to try and prove wrong? What if there are certain conditions that we cannot physically test that would prove our ‘right’ theory to be ‘wrong’?

It is in fact the latter which was the reasoning behind the international scientific community deciding to build the LHC in the first place; scientists wanted to recreate conditions seen directly after the big bang, in order to observe the particles and their nature at this point in space and time. They had an idea of what to expect; some quarks, heat, and hopefully a Higgs boson or two, but no solid theory. In fact, the entire basis of quantum level physics is about as solidly founded as the UK banking industry, so why pour billions into it?

Truth of the matter is, if indeed the Higgs boson does not appear, it will be back to the drawing board for particle physicists, and a new theory will undoubtedly emerge. Why is it important that we find out what goes on at such miniscule levels? This article sums it up nicely:

http://io9.com/5597216/why-it-matters-that-were-close-to-discovering-the-higgs-boson-particle

The fact of that matter is, if we can establish the building blocks of the universe, it opens all kinds of doors for future discovery; in the universe, the formation of the earth, and life itself. Invaluable scientific information could be just around one of CERNs conrners.

But should the taxpayer be paying for such scientific costs? Well the UK’s contribution to CERN is around the 500 Million pound sterling mark. The bank bailout figure from the The Independant quotes 850 billion pound sterling. Thus, the actual cost to the country isn’t such a large chunk out of the wallet, and is only around one tenth of the overall budget given to science and technology projects and companies by the government.

In all, there will be forever arguments raging about where taxpayer’s money should go, but often the money spent on the more controversial ones is peanuts compared to what the government raises through taxation annually. So should we be funding mass scientific research? Well, without science progressing, you can almost guarantee technology and society wont advance much further either.

The Labour Leadership Apathy

ANALYSIS by Patrick English

So, the first blog of The Comment! Exciting times! The first blog will focus on the leadership election which is taking everyone by storm!… or not as the case is, inside the Labour Party.
Just why is there so much apathy towards the election? Should we be paying more attention to it and be more concerned with the result?

The Conservative Leadership Elections in 2005 stole headlines, full page spreads, and newspaper pull outs right up until David Cameron beat David Davis in the final round. So why has the Labour contest not had the same effect?

Firstly, an obvious finger pointing could be thrown the way of the mass desertion of voters from Labour in the recent elections, and the tumble down both approval and opinion polls that proceeded it. The public could be said to have fallen out with the party and subsequently lost interest in the leadership race, looking at the election results. However, recent polls have shown Labour rising back up to the mid 30 mark and pushing 40 in some, and the public’s personal spat with Gordon Brown no longer plagues the ranks of the party.
“Same old, same old” is often thrown about with politics, the background of the front runners in the race does nothing to resent that. But with a new leader comes new ideas, which is exactly what the public want according to this article and its sources:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/03/ed-miliband-new-labour-leadership

So surely the public should be crawling all over news of the possibility of New Labour finally being swept away and a new ideology being born into the political mainstream circuit, away from the “Same old”?

But in reality, the contest simply isn’t attracting the attention is perhaps warrants. Perhaps we can point to the cloud of inevitability that surrounds the election. The sense from the start when names were being ‘thrown into the ring’, was that one of the Miliband brothers, most likely David, was going to win the election. Indeed, the latest polls show that the speculation from the outset may be coming good. From YouGov, the poll shows David in the lead with Ed close behind. Following the brothers is Diane Abbott, shrowd of taxi expenses and ‘my son will NOT attend a state school’ and all, with Andy Burnham, old Labour reborn, sitting in 4th. Ed Balls, fresh from the court of Gordon Brown, somewhat surprisingly brings up the rear:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Pol-Sun-LabSummaryUPDATED-290710.pd

Maybe indeed the lack of connection between the front runners, who let’s not forget were very much part of the government that was so heavily defeated in the recent General Election, and the general public has caused the high levels of disengagement from the race for the leadership and toward the final result, due September 25th.

On the other hand, Ed Miliband offered a different view when quizzed on the BBC:

Ed Miliband on the apathy toward the contest (skip to 2:40)

“We are in opposition”, certainly offers a good explanation as to why the issue isn’t as burning as I am sure it is to most Labour Party members to the general public. However, as fore mentioned, the Tory contest of 2005 did have a fair few of us tuned in intensely. So what is so different between the two elections?
Well, aside from perhaps the lack of real competition and the state of the party in opposition, perhaps another dampening factor is the context in which it is running. In 2005, there was nothing else but the re-election of Blair for the press to be running elongated, full page, full blooded opinion stories on. In contrast, the Labour Leadership election has more, and stiffer, competition for headlines than Michael Johnson has for a first team place at Man City. With the World Cup, the Coalition and its first Budget, and the first Liberal presence in government for about 100 years, there has been no shortage of stories for the press to run front page. As well all know, with a lack of press interest, comes a lack of public interest.

General apathy may meet the race amongst the electorate, but if I may opinionate, perhaps we do need to pay more attention to what is going on in the Labour Party. After all even polling 29% ensured that they were the second largest party in Westminster, and they will undoubtedly come in strong for a charge on power in 2015 with a new leader.
So, I advise you, head over to the BBC for some impartial… or not as it turns out, profiles and explanations on the candidates and the contest. It’s important!