The kindness of others; Ghost of Labour past; No compromise with the electorate
It was Nick Robinson calling the election in his favour that proved the kiss of death for David Miliband. Sure, the teenage facial hair adorning his top lip can't have been good for karma, but when Robbo plumps for you you know you're done for. To be fair to the BBC's political editor, the facial expressions of the brothers had suggested the senior had been victorious, David sitting relaxed, grinning like a Cheshire cat, Ed ashen faced, like his cat had just been drowned. But as the rounds progressed, and the also-rans were eliminated, the affiliates shifted their weight decisively behind Mili-junior, giving him a final victory margin of just 1.3%. The brothers embraced, providing the papers with the photo they wanted, but more significantly, a genuinely poignant moment. Then Ed Miliband took to the stage to deliver his first speech as leader of the Labour Party.
On 24 May nominations opened for Gordon Brown's successor. 33 MPs (12.5% of the commons members of the Parliamentary Labour Party) was the threshold, what seems to me like a perfectly reasonable number. You would hope that the person who is going to be the face of your party going into the future is a face preferred by at least an eighth of your MPs, but this being the Labour Party, there were quickly calls that the number was unfair and discriminatory towards the less popular candidates (which is kind of the point of the threshold in the first place).
Both Miliband's secured the requisite amount, and more, with ease, whilst Andy Burnham and Ed Balls rounded up the numbers to secure their place on the ballot with 33 nominations each. This left just John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, both candidates of the left, scuffling to make it. Both had called for all candidates to be let on the ballot but the party had stood firm. If the left was to be represented, some kind of deal was to be done. Abbott held not one, but two trump cards, in that she was a woman and she was black, so McDonnell withdrew and threw his provisional support by Abbott. Yet still Andrew Neil's 'chocolate hobnob' was short of the required number, and it fell upon David Miliband to patronisingly nominate her himself. It was like an inept high jumper asking for the bar to removed, and when told this would defeat the point of the sport, simply asking the world record holder for a leg-up. Hustings season was embarked upon with five contenders in the running.
Even the most ardent Labour supported would have to agree that the summer's leadership campaign failed to spark the nation's interest. The media were quick to point how all the candidates were Oxbridge educated, which is no bad thing, and how Ed Balls and both the Milibands had studied PPE, which again, doesn't seem unreasonable for politicians. However, even throughout the fifty-plus husting events that the candidates attended there seemed little significant friction between each candidates platform- this excludes Diane Abbott who from henceforth shall be widely ignored- and the campaign remained tucked firmly on the inner pages of the newspapers.
Whilst the candidates broadly acknowledged the successes of New Labour whilst arguing it was time to move on, it took two of its architects to make Labour politics front-page news. At the start of July Peter Mandelson published The Third Man, a book released and written as you would expect from someone with an ego as large, as the ads for it were creepy. The memoirs were quickly condemned for both timing and content and the world moved on.
Then in September Tony Blair, know to some as the former Prime Minister, to others as an international war criminal, released his memoirs, A Journey. It is strange how someone who led Labour to power, and kept them in it for 13 years (for the Brown years were won by Blair in 2005), can now prove so divisive. But all five candidates were quick to declare, like kids on the playground, that they don't like him now, and never liked him that much in the first place. Blair himself made little secret of his preference for David Miliband, but the front page stories were all of tales of Labour's past, not of any vision for the future.
The only definitive view of Labour's future was that it would be in the hands of a Miliband. Diane Abbott never had a realistic chance, Andy Burnham was quite dull (the most interesting thing about his campaign being that Jamie Carragher had donated £10,000) to it, and Ed Balls, though slowly growing in stature, wasn't the right for for leader. Whilst their were similarities between the brothers platforms their was a key distinguishing feature. David was painted by many as the New Labour continuity candidate, much as he himself tried to shrug the the tag. He was clear though, that he believed Labour needed to reach out to the centre, and reconnect with the middle-class voters who were with them in 1997, but got lost in the following thirteen years. This appealed to the more centrist parts of the media and seemed like a logical analysis of Labour's recent failures. Ed, on the other hand, felt that Labour needed to reconnect with their tradition support, those that had been taken for granted by New Labour. Whilst this may also have been true, comparisons were quickly drawn, from those on the centre and the right, with Labour's folly that led them down an electoral cul-de-sac in the 1980s. Yet it would appeal to those on the left, those that in the end were the ones that needed to be wooed. It was upon these premises that the dividing lines were drawn.
Voting opened at the start of September and David Miliband was quickly installed as the bookies favourite. But as the result neared, opinion polls suggested that Ed would win it, including one for the Sunday Times that raised some interesting issues. Polling 1,011 Labour members, and using the same electoral system Labour uses, Ed Miliband came out winner in the final round by 52% to David's 48%. Yet of those same 1,011 members, 55% thought David most likely to lead Labour to victory in the next election, compared to 25% for Ed, and 45% thought David would make the best Prime Minister, compared to 28% for Ed. Whilst not exactly the same as the polling data misunderstanding illustrated in The West Wing clip, it was still puzzling. As John Rentoul put it: 'Vote Ed Miliband. No compromise with the electorate.'
And so it was. The MPs went for David in greater numbers than expected, but the second preferences turned things round for Ed, and the more junior brother in age, experience and reputation was declared the winner. Whilst David may be more likely to win a general election, Ed campaigned for the Labour Party electorate and reaped its rewards. His acceptance speech was warm and gracious in its acknowledgement of the other candidates and hinted that becoming leader would not lead to a change of tune towards a centrist approach as some had perhaps expected. It's early days, but much as I like Ed Miliband, and though I probably sit ideologically closer to him, I'd have felt a lot more confident in Labour's chances in the next election with David as leader. Like it or not, elections are fought on the centre ground, and though Ed may 'tickle Labour's tummy' and provide 'the warm feeling that all those deep Labour instincts were right all along', today could be a fateful day for the party. Here's hoping my early pessimism's unfounded.