The weekend saw, what many have called the ‘most boring leadership contest ever’, draw to a close with the younger Miliband brother, Ed, made leader of the Labour Party. Ed trailed behind his brother in the first few rounds of voting, but as Ed Ball’s votes were redistributed the former eventually won with 50.65% of the vote to David’s 49.35%. But will his appointment be the much-needed change of direction the Labour party needs and will it once again be a party that is trusted by the electorate to govern Great Britain?
But instead of spending this blog discussing what Ed’s appointment means for Labour’s future, I would rather argue why David was in fact the right choice and the choice that I believe would have strengthened the Labour party more and thus provided the coalition government with a greater challenge as opposition.
David has, like Ed, had an extremely successful career in politics and he particularly flourished under Blair, to whom he was Head of Policy from 1994-2002 when he became a member of parliament, holding various cabinet roles. He was born to lead it seems, winning a place at Oxford University not on academic achievement but possessing the all-important ‘gift of the gab’. One of his tutors commented, ‘the state-school boy impressed at interview’. But why else should the coalition government be relieved that their opposing leader isn’t the elder of the two Milibands?
As a Conservative supporter at the last election, I was sick and tired of Labour and particularly Gordon Brown. Countless mistakes were made in their final few years, whether it was their poor handling of the economy or the expenses scandal, I wanted change and could only ever see myself warming round to the Labour vision if their next leader could account for the sham that was their general election campaign 2010, and for the new leader to distance themselves from the ignorant policy adopted by the party. David for me was this man, or as close to it as the party could offer. He was quick to describe the election campaign as ‘a car crash’, which it was when we remember the confused proposals by Brown and Darling over plans for the deficit (which they could barely acknowledge let alone take responsibility for), or the numerous blunders by our then PM Gordon Brown on the televised debates or meeting potential voters. But more importantly, David’s stance put himself in a more central position than his rivals in the leadership contest. And it was this, it seems, that cost him his place at the head of the party. His brother Ed secured the votes of the Trade Unions and affiliated societies and this tipped the result marginally in his favour. But at what cost to the party? He is adamant that he is ‘nobodies man’ but Trade Unions are demanding and I can see him struggling to keep this as the case. He will do well to remember that when the Labour party had its most support, in their first term following the 1997 landslide victory, Tony Blair maintained the ‘no nonsense’ approach towards the Trade Unions that the Conservatives had. Their interfering nature, creating endless market failure through inefficiencies will do no favours to the Labour party in times when cutting costs and their deficit is crucial. The electorate is waiting for the Labour party to finally talk some sense economically, and I wonder whether the Ed and his strong-left leanings is the way to go.
But Ed could still be the man to unite the party, and lead them to some form of credibility that they have lost in the last few years. Something that reassured me of his competence was his admission that he ‘would not oppose every cut’. The nation needs stability at a time when essential cuts are to be made. Taking the easy road, by taking cheap shots at vital cuts, will be a quick way to gain votes but not a way to regain essential trust and reliable policy. As a conservative supporter, and after a summer without an active Labour Party, I look forward to the challenge Ed and his party will pose to the government… although im not concerned.
1 comment:
It now looks like the labour party is gonig through what the Tories went through during the Blair era. That is being without credibility to the whole electorate capable of deposing a popular opposition leader, thus having to solidify the party first. Ed is a return to more left leaning labour ideals, he will not win an election. I guarantee you that. He simply lacks the sheen that is sadly now required of a PM, regardless of talent. The perfect example of this sheen over quality was William Hauge, despite his horrid 'Tory boy' past, and as much as a liberal centrist it pains me to say, would have been the best leader of this country offered by a party over the past 15 years-inc Blair, but due to lacking the sheen and slickness of Blair or Cameron never made it to number ten, Ed Milliband also lacks this quality. David did not.
David's issue was he simply seems too much like a Blairite and, in my opinion is trapped between a rock (being the son of a radical Marxist thinker-hardly a winner with many swing voters) and a hard place (being a state school boy who has lived it up with the political classes since university and can come across as smarmy or a sellout, out for his own interests)
But he would have been the man to win over left leaning lib dems who, I feel, would have migrate en mass to the labour party were he in charge. A union affiliated left of labour Ed isn't going to win the swing voters.
So, predictions. Ed will stabalise the party, gather a little momentum then loose the next election after Cameron goes on the charm offensive to apprehensive swing voters who fear a return to mass labour interference in the economy under Ed, which they wouldn't have with David.
Sorry about the formatting, I'm on t' iphone
LC
Post a Comment