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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment