David versus Ed Miliband in social media

I wanted to see if David Miliband's New Statesman article and widespread news coverage of it had led to much social media commentary.

It clearly has, shown in the chart below detailing the number of mentions for each of the Miliband brothers over the last month:

This shows how mainstream news agenda is still driving social media and political commentary. Obviously. I'll keep an eye on how long the David bubble continues to fly.

David, Ed and the media

David Miliband's New Statesman article has garnered a great deal of media attention today. Everyone is either looking for, finding or creating signs of disagreement and tension between the elder Miliband and his brother, Ed, who beat him to the Labour leadership.

David's article is thoughtful and written with an academic style. The sentiment of this morning's media splashes has been wildly different. They have predictably focused on the fireworks rather than the proactive suggestions he makes because it makes for a much better story.

Is David really calling for a total re-think of his brother's stewardship of Labour? Does it matter? What does this tell us about Labour at the moment and the media's response to it?

David actually says what a host of Labour people said in the Purple Book recently, that the party needs to be state reformers and look beyond a big state as the answer to problems. He also stresses the need to balance internationalism, growth, investment and equal opportunities to help create an improving and thriving economy. It is hard to argue with any of this.

The perception gap with his brother isn't there in his words.

The perception gap between David and Ed's vision is in the words of the journalists who have reported on this. I don't see a great deal of difference between what the two brothers are either saying or putting into Labour policy. His key statement isn't all that different from what the Eds have been trying to get across to a sceptical media and voters:

"Our attacks on the Tories will not work if we are not clear about what we did. We should say loud and clear where we made mistakes, but we should also insist that the list of gains far outstripped the mistakes. After all, even David Cameron said on coming to office that Britain was better in 2010 than 1997."

He goes on:

"Principle without power is the stuff of a debating society, not a political party. "

The problem is that many commentators long ago decided that Ed's solutions are of the former, not the latter and haven't bothered to look at the detail because it gets in the way of a good story. David's ideas should be a hand up not a slap in the face for his brother. I think most within the Labour Party will see it that way, but that won't make a good story. 

A loss to politics

Like many I am disappointed that David Miliband has relegated himself to the backbenches. I mentioned before his decision was announced that many politicians before him have been defeated in leadership contest then gone on to serve under their conqueror.

In the 1980s Denis Healy lost the Labour leadership election to Michael Foot but became his deputy. Kenneth Clarke lost the Tory contest three times, yet didn't shy away from the front line. In today's Telegraph Peter Oborne argues that there is more vanity in politics today than back in the day. He is partially right. I think the party and cause matters more than anything else.

Perhaps the family dimension makes this case different. I hoped that a commitment to the Labour cause would have won through. The media might get tired of the soap opera allowing MiliD a path back in the future under his brother - also for former leading light James Purnell.

Labour: a family party. Part two (of many?)

As David Miliband prepares to tell the world what he plans to do after losing out to his brother, Ed, in the Labour leadership contest there are a plethora of views about the benefits to the party of him staying or not. 


What is clear after David yesterday rebuked Harriet Harman for applauding Ed's denouncement of the Iraq war (she voted for the war remember) is that were he to hang around he would likely be a focus for the media, keen to spot any division and dissent. Blair versus Brown becomes The Miliband Brothers. The Times ran a poll yesterday suggesting that more people in the country feel that David has leadership qualities than Ed. This reminded me of the poll before the 1992 election that showed voters preferred John Smith to Neil Kinnock. We could do without these distractions. 

The key question is whether Labour can do without its (arguably) biggest hitter on the front bench? I'd argue not as does Mary Riddell, among others; though David himself and many others disagree. If he did stay there would need to be some convincing rubbishing of any split between the Milibands. How to do that? Ed can show that he wants to lead a strong team and to give his brother the profile and portfolio he deserves. The media might continue to show up the differences between the two but Ed can counter that by being a strong leader. This wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time that a heavy hitter has been beaten to a party leadership but has carried on in a significant post. That is what politics is all about. 


And so to Ed. What should he do? He would do well to heed Alistair Darling's advice on tackling the deficit. Darling as Chancellor took the deficit seriously, he wanted to go further than Brown to tackle it, but in order to protect the fragile recovery, understands that the Tories are going too far, too fast. Ed Miliband says he wants to move on from New Labour but he should heed to key lesson of the Blair/Brown years: that to win an election Labour must occupy the centre ground. 

Ed's first leader's speech yesterday shows that he can forge his own agenda. Having overcome the formidable barrier of his brother and the party he now needs to start talking language that will appeal to the country. The early signs are encouraging. His brother is feared by the Tories because he most closely resembled David Cameron but would have faced a divided party from his proximity to Blair. Ed will be more likely to take Labour to the centre ground precisely because of his distance from Blair/Brown which will mean he will lead a united party.

It will be all about the second preferences

The race to be the next Labour leader will be decided by the second preferences votes of candidates falling out of the contest. Milliband and Milliband will have to fight over the second preferences of Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Diane Abbott.

Gordon Brown apparently thinks Ed Milliband will win. The Sun's YouGov poll suggests that David will nudge him out slightly. The strong union support for Ed puts him in the chair to win. To win any candidate doesn't need the majority support of the membership but needs to win the electoral college. There are several unanswered questions as Peter Kellner points out.

MPs have the most individual power in the college as they make up their own third and the second preferences of those nominating Abbott, Balls and Burnham are unclear. My hunch is that the most of the votes will go to David as he is the more publicly credible candidate and MPs will want a leader that is most likely to deliver power. MPs would be foolish not to pick the most popular candidate.

Again I'm reminded that Labour loses out significantly by Alan Johnson's absence from the contest. He was rated as Labour's biggest vote winner. He is such an asset whoever wins needs to keep Johnson close. It saddens me that he has held himself back from both this and the London mayoral candidacy race. It doesn't matter who his second preference is - he is backing David Milliband.

UPDATE: I've just spotted Luke Akehurst's analysis of the MP/MEP part of the electoral college. That puts David in the lead.

Five Live Labour leadership hustings

This morning I listened intently to Five Live's Labour leadership debate. I've not yet been to any hustings so this was my first opportunity to see all the candidates together. Otherwise I've had emails from the candidates, David Milliband leaflets in the post and various friends trying to encourage me to support David Milliband but mostly Ed Milliband.

All through I heard a great deal from Ed Balls and Andy Burnham and not much from David and Ed Milliband or Diane Abbott.

I was surprised and impressed by Balls. He was bullish about Labour's record in government, where many of the other candidates wanted to mention where Labour had gone wrong. He came across well from a Labour Party perspective though I'm not sure that his style would appeal to floating voters. I think he should be given a central role in the shadow cabinet but perhaps wouldn't give Labour the widest appeal as leader.

Andy Burnham spoke well about wanting the Labour Party to trust its members and suggested that the cost of membership, at £39 per year, was too much. He pointed out when asked about the public deficit that under Labour public spending grew less than economic growth. I was pleased when he dubbed the ConDem cuts "public sector vandalism." He also stated when asked that he thought he had more chance of becoming Labour leader than Everton of winning the championship. I doubt either will happen but I really like his personable style and his frankness.

David Milliband talked about wanting to ensure Labour was embedding in communities - something we do in Islington. He was one of several candidates to jibe Abbott, stating: "why trash (Labour's) record?". He admitted he (like many others) was wrong about there being WMDs in Iraq though he thought Iraq not to be an issue in 2010. Sounds most like a leader though we heard little of him for a frontrunner.

Diane Abbott isn't worth much of a mention. Her interjections were rare and predictable. She speaks for a section of the Labour Party and has a rightful role to play in that, just not my section of the party. The country has just voted for more Tories than Labour so I don't agree that moving to the left will help at all.

Ed Milliband disagreed with David. He was right to suggest that Labour kept losing voters over the noughties, through issues like tuition fees and Iraq.However, I heard so little of him that I remain thoroughly unconvinced that he is leadership material.

I suspect that the election will produce a Milliband versus Milliband run-off. If that were the case I'd opt for David. However on today's showing I'm going for Andy Burnham then Ed Balls.

Move to the left?

I don't often agree with right wing columnists from the Evening Standard but was struck by the potency of Anne McElvoy's column yesterday on the way home from work. She spoke of the dangers for Labour of turning left just at the time when the country has elected, if only just, a right wing government.

In the 1980s Labour made the mistake of reinforcing its left wing credentials at a time when the country wasn't interested. One of the problems of holding a leadership election is that it is all too easy for the candidates to woo the party to win that contest only to face the prospect of having to offer a very different proposition to the country.

The Labour leadership candidates need to be honest with party members about this. It is only right that the offer to the party and the country is the same thing. It is only right and honest that the offer to the party takes into account what the country will accept even if it is what the party might not want to hear. It would be incredibly brave of the contenders to do so, but right.

As the front-runner I'm looking to David Milliband to do this though I'm also interested to see how Andy Burnham behaves in the lead up to the vote. He is unlikely to win the contest but looks to be positioning himself for a high profile position once a new leader is elected. He has warned the party not to be self indulgent in defeat.

At the moment I'm erring on the side of David, though I'm still to be convinced that he can offer a decisive and distinctly Labour alternative to the Con-Dem government and most importantly, one that is attractive to voters. A self satisfied but unelected Labour Party is the worst of all worlds because it delivers nothing.

Labour's future

Does it matter whether Labour's next leader is put in place through coronation or contested election? A contested election between feasible candidates, not John McDonnell or Michael Meacher from the left of the Party.

Yesterday's 2020 Vision "announcement" from Milburn and Clarke adds a further to the debate. The main problem is not whether or how Gordon Brown should take over the leadership. The problem is that Blair rather stupidly stated that he was going to stand down at a point in the future.

I've always been a far stauncher Blair supporter than most, but when he said that he was going to stand down it would have been better for the Party if he did so sooner. Dragging the whole process on for months has left Labour with an "empty chair" crisis.

That aside, we have a leader to elect. In 1992 John Smith was always going to win the leadership election (beating Brian Gould) and in 1994 Tony Blair was always going to beat John Prescott. I don't recall there being any problem with that. If there is one candidate clearly stronger than anyone else what is the problem with that?

Perhaps much of the discussion has been caused by scepticism of Brown. Those who don't want him as leader say there is a need to debate. By debating you can then propose someone else. Those who support Brown don't see a need for a debate when in their minds the choice of next leader is already obvious. David Milliband has been suggested and I'm keen for himn to be a future Labour leader but I think we should leave it there. In a few years his profile will be higher and the time will be right then.

One thing is for certain, I'm not going to be voting for McDonnell or Meacher.