« | Home | »

At least it wasn’t David


There is at least one reason to welcome Ed Miliband’s victory: his brother didn’t win. David may be both intelligent and rather nice – I remember having fish and chips with him during a Brighton conference pre-97 – but he is by training a follower. He has been cherished, favoured, advanced and made grateful. He is a professional protégé, the candidate of a leader and of the leader’s faction. Gratitude would have paralysed him in the future as it did when he voted for the Iraq war, recited its sad rationalisations and, at the FO, followed the Bush line as Blair followed it. He is a man in a conga, a good trooper, not the man to challenge the unrelenting coalition mantra that Labour and Brown are the chief begetters of the deficit, as they are not. Blair deferred to City assumptions. David Miliband deferred to Blair. Since in politics deference is death, one applauds the victory of Not-David.


  1. A.J.P. Crown says:

    “His brother doesn’t have any leadership qualities” isn’t much of a reason to vote Labour.

  2. alex says:

    He is a man in a conger? How did that happen? But maybe you mean ‘conga’.

  3. pinhut says:

    I find it deeply worrying that a man over whom credible allegations of being complicit in the torture of UK citizens hang, was even able to take part in this leadership race, nevermind run it so close.

    David Miliband performed some shameful manouevres to suggest that disclosure of documents would imperil intelligence-sharing with the US. It later emerged that the Foreign Office itself may have been behind the US request to suggest such a consequence, and all for what? To deny British citizens the right to have their torture disclosed.

    But, somehow, in a parallel universe, none of this matters, it’s time to ‘move on’, and instead David Miliband pursues the leadership of the Labour Party and nobody thinks to ask him at every turn, about a rather serious matter.

    And now we’re on to the ‘new beginning’ thing, though sensibly, nobody dares to use the H-word, and the party that presided over 13 years of implementing (largely) Tory policies, along with joining in two disastrous military campaigns (with no practicable end in sight) marches on, somehow now needing to ‘reconnect’ with voters, to deliver the good news of their message! In a media landscape where ‘courting the left’ to become Labour leader is being denounced as if we’re witnessing the Second Coming of Mao Zhedong. (Brings to mind the glorious Onion story about an African president courting the black vote.)

    On we go to the personality-plane of PMQs, while the unwelcome psychodrama of The Brothers will be newspaper fodder also, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

    • Hear hear. “You’ve punished us enough about Iraq” was David Milliband’s attitude – despite the fact that the principals all have their liberty, when they should be behind bars for the rest of their lives – they hadn’t even lost an election (at the time of the quote).

  4. Geoff Roberts says:

    Like the ‘credible allegations’, Pinhut, especially as they ‘hang’ over him. Nice touch. Isn’t this all a Lunchtime o’Booze story? Judging from a quick survey of your readers (those who responded to the last J. Diski post at least) would any of that gang of five actually have the approval of your readers? Would anybody own up to being (a) a member of the labour Party and (b) voting for one of them?

    • pinhut says:

      Personally, I do not vote for those who practise war.

      “How are we to assert the existence of a single world, the indivisible world of all living people, when it is asserted, often by violence, that such a world does not exist?” – Alain Badiou

      • pinhut says:

        Miliband’s subterfuges were denounced by the High Court. Believe me, I am being generous to him.

        • Geoff Roberts says:

          I’ve just had a look at the Guardian report and a couple of clips from our leader in a talk show. He seems to be a more oily version of Cameron. Or am I being unfair?

    • Joe Morison says:

      Phillippe Sands puts the case against David M in the Guardian.

    • A.J.P. Crown says:

      No, I wouldn’t have voted for any of them. During the period that I’ve been old enough to care about such things, the leaders of the Labour party before Ed Miliband were:
      Hugh Gaitskell
      Harold Wilson
      Jim Callaghan
      Michael Foot
      Neil Kinnock
      John Smith
      Tony Blair
      Gordon Brown

      Apart from Smith, Foot & Kinnock, none of whom was PM, they’re a depressing bunch. The first three were all against nuclear disarmament, which was a cornerstone of the party. The worst of them was Callaghan, who said words to the effect that if he had got through his time as PM without doing anything, without rocking the boat, then he was happy. If anything, having a shitty, shifty leader is a Labour tradition; remember Ramsey MacDonald. It’s the rest of the party that’s good, not the leadership.

  5. Geoff Roberts says:

    Reading about Milliband makes me glad that I don’t live in England – having to choose between Cameron and Milliband! Nightmare. I’d like to start a diatribe about the decline of Socialist Democracy in Europe (nobody since Willy Brandt, Olaf Palme … you know the rest) but it would only upset your readers, so I won’t.

    • A.J.P. Crown says:

      Don’t you understand the beauty of the English system? You choose Brown and you get Cameron & Clegg. It’s democracy in action.

      • Geoff Roberts says:

        be thankful that you don’t live under the German system, where coalitions are always elected. Now we have the daughter from the North German manse in cahoots with the liberals. The voters have since found out what an awful mistake this was, but that won’t do them any good. Merkel is worse than Cameron, and Westerwelle is a lot worse than what’s his name.

        • A.J.P. Crown says:

          I live under a coalition in Norway and it works fine, it depends obviously who’s in it.

          When I worked in Germany, in the 90s, in Hamburg, the country was run by Helmut Kohl, but the city was run by the SDP, the social democrats. The latter were all completely bent, so I really don’t know who was worse. In a situation like that, no, it doesn’t matter who governs, and yes, I am thankful I don’t live in Germany.

      • Joe Morison says:

        The problem isn’t so much the system, it’s that politics is national and capital international.

  6. Well, everyone has had a nice time abusing each other – very like the web site for my football team. All I was trying to say is that any annointed leaderm left,right or centre, someone whom a previous leader has pushed, promoted and lit-up as the desired.only thinkable successor will be a bad choice. This is because you get such esteeem (and commonly over-rating) by submmission and following.Forget David’s opinions or Edward’s. I’m just arging against getting Kim-il Blair or Kim -il anybody.

    • A.J.P. Crown says:

      Well, the only people I can think of who didn’t kiss up to the previous leader are Winston Churchill & Mrs Thatcher, so is that the kind of person you think Labour ought to have chosen?

    • pinhut says:

      Abuse! I see only discussion.

      “All I was trying to say is that any annointed leaderm left,right or centre,”

      There is no left, right or centre here, so narrow is the spectrum of UK mainstream party politics. The only movement is of this spectrum, and for the last 30 years it has zoomed rightwards.

      “The structure ofthe illusion and its future. The illusion is not to see that it is the state that constructs the fallacious appearance of a political choice on the basis ofthe malleable material formed by public disorientation. Voting is just the operation of this appearance, which today only configures affects of fear. In short, voting is the fictitious figure of a choice, imposed on an essential disorientation.” – Alain Badiou, The Meaning of Sarkozy

      • Geoff Roberts says:

        “You get the politicians you deserve.” (Who said that?) There are some very clear differences between the Conservatives with their liberal lobby fodder and the left (if I may use that term). The left all over Europe is trying to ‘win back’ the voters by offering post-neo-liberalist ideas instead of real left alternatives. Milliband is a prisoner of his own spin merchants, just as, in my view, Blair was. (Campbell, please step forward.) In other words, the leader is an amalgam of what politicians ‘think’ will work and the projection of this on to the person who best fits the cliche.

  7. Geoff Roberts says:

    If we put Milliband in a room with the other shining lights of the social democratic parties around the world and told them to come up with some good ideas for a more humane, social Europe what would be the outcome? I’d leave Zapatero to run Spain as he seems to be making an effort, but the rest?
    The huge neo-liberal bluff – only capitalism works and bring everybody freedom – has yet to be called.

    • Joe Morison says:

      Capitalism, once tamed, could be a great force for good; but it won’t be tamed until there are democratically accountable world wide bodies with real teeth. Yes, it’s that ultimate bogey man of the swivel eyed right: a world government.

      • pinhut says:

        “Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
        Arise, ye prisoners of want.
        For reason in revolt now thunders,
        and at last ends the age of cant!
        Away with all your superstitions,
        Servile masses, arise, arise!
        We’ll change henceforth the old tradition,
        And spurn the dust to win the prize!
        So comrades, come rally,
        And the last fight let us face.
        The Internationale,
        Unites the human race.
        So comrades, come rally,
        And the last fight let us face.
        The Internationale,
        Unites the human race.”

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • semitone on ‘I promise that I will do my best’: I read this post, after a long absence from reading the lrb blog, in my car while my two sons (eight and ten) played strenuous, interesting, complicat...
    • Eli Zaretsky on The Mass Psychology of Trumpism: The Freudian concept of identification is helpful here. Identification is unconscious and is something quite different from imitation. "Willed ignoran...
    • Jeremy Harding on Who killed Maurice Audin?: Who killed Mehdi Ben Barka in 1965? Good question. One of the best answers came from Stephen Smith, in Le Monde in 2001. Smith is an LRB contributor. ...
    • Eli Zaretsky on The Mass Psychology of Trumpism: yes, excellent point, however, there are different ways to constitute a "volk." Trump's followers constitute a volk, and its basis is not the US "volk...
    • heinz suenker on The Mass Psychology of Trumpism: thanks for the idea to bring adorno in - showing his contemporary relevance. I think what has to be added is his idea about the 'volksgemeinschaft' - ...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive