Ed Miliband’s strength has exposed Labour’s stress points. How do we stop these turning into damaging cracks? Those advising Miliband feel a sense of frustration with the sudden emergence of discontent last month about Labour’s position. The economy is sputtering, Labour has a consistent lead in the polls, the government stumbles from economic failure to internal division. The party did reasonably in the council elections, gaining seats across the country. Meanwhile, Miliband himself won plaudits from across the political spectrum for his adroit, mature and heartfelt response to the death of Margaret Thatcher (The last point matters a lot, and not just because Miliband’s speech showed he can ‘do’ prime ministerial, and do it rather well. It took some nimble politics to navigate the death of the Iron Lady as leader of a party that loathed Thatcher’s ideology but never found a way to beat her).
Real progress, say Miliband’s people. Concrete achievements. Why the focus on our small flaws, not the government’s terrible errors?
They have a point. So why has more attention increasingly focused on Labour’s weaknesses, not the government’s? Oddly, it is the departure of David Miliband, who perhaps represented some sort of imaginary alternative (or threat), that has allowed Labour types to express thoughts that would previously have been loyally repressed. One such was the commentary of a former leader. Tony Blair’s analysis was pointed, and was equally pointedly dismissed. It was a sign of some confidence from the leader’s team to hit Blair just as hard as they had been hit. Miliband’s reply demonstrated that Blair’s critique was an irritant but little more.
If Blair cannot touch him, his brother has gone, and Ed Balls is happy as shadow chancellor, surely nothing threatens Miliband?
There is no threat. No internal power struggle. So precisely because Miliband is politically secure, it seems more reasonable and less threatening to ask ‘Now what?’
It is the answer to that question that is giving Labour’s team a little difficulty. Miliband might have told the parliamentary Labour party that Labour was not ‘a party of commentators’ but Labour can sometimes sound more like Polly Toynbee than an alternative government, offering justified outrage, but few clear answers. That leads to backbench nervousness when things go less than perfectly.
It is not just ‘old predictables’ on the right expressing such concerns about the details. Those who seek a bolder, braver Labour, from the Fabians to Compass, are also wondering when they are going to hear more about what it contains.
The policy development process is in a warm cocoon of reviews, commissions and seminars. The butterfly that will emerge might well be truly awe-inspiring, but it is a lot to take on faith. It is hard for MPs to see the bones of the emerging governing project, let alone the pretty colours that will enthral voters. That leads to nervousness.
How will Team Miliband handle this? Contra Maggie, there are two alternatives.
One proceeds from strength, the other weakness. Under the first, it is understood and accepted that there is no personal disloyalty here, just concerned well-wishing. People worried about detail can be co-opted, with good people and ideas welcomed and put to work.
The other route is to assume that behind any critique lies a plan to destabilise and destroy. Think like this, and any criticism must be resisted, while total loyalty becomes the only requirement for progression. This is a temptation easily yielded to, especially when almost everyone involved, on all sides, has been up to their neck in divisions before.
If the last month or so has demonstrated anything, it is that Miliband is untouchable. If his team use that strength with confidence, they can bend the party around his leadership. If, instead, they decide to ignore Labour’s vulnerabilities, and seek only to protect their position from any critique, however well intentioned, they will end up exposing Labour’s soft spots.
There are some encouraging signs. The recent appointment of Tristram Hunt to Labour’s front bench is one such, with the historian being given the job of bringing Labour’s vocational agenda to life. The next move might be to use the policy review’s need for specifics to co-opt some of the ideas coming out of various thinktanks and policy groups.
Storm over Europe
One selection process that seems to have been entirely untouched by Arnie Graf’s quiet revolution was that for European candidates.
Labour’s Euro selections have never exactly been pure, but this time has been rather special. From the opening of applications to the sudden appearances of selectors on shortlists, the process has been as transparent as Dick Cheney’s selection as vice-president.
Professionally, your insider applauds this managed democracy. It is amazing to think that in so many parts of Britain there are exactly as many qualified Labour candidates as there are places available and that they generate such approval among key stakeholders.
So if it was a stitch-up and one side won, why should those who stiffed over Ken Livingstone and Rhodri Morgan be whinging?
Well, because those decisions were huge mistakes. There is not much your insider and some of the old Campaign for Labour Party Democracy types agree on, but one of those things is that Labour party members choose the best candidates they can. We should proceed from putting our trust in party members, and when we do not, we usually mess up.
So why have party members once again been given such little choice when it comes to choosing our MEP candidates? Answers on a postcard to the NEC, please.
Congratulations, Len
It would be rude of your insider not to send comradely congratulations to Len McCluskey on his re-election as general secretary of Unite. This humble correspondent will only note that McCluskey was cruelly accused by his defeated rival of having won the election by seeking the support of the union’s ‘rightwing’ voters and of engaging in ‘red baiting’. Surely not!
Marathon Man be up for another long hard slog, showing up the skipping Bullingdon boy once again?
—————————————————————————————
Cartoon: Adrian Teal