So Miliband has gone, you can imagine his distress as he departs into the sunset muttering, “So this is what happens? Ed gets the title shot outdoors on the ballpark and what do I get? A one-way ticket to backbencher-ville.. No one understands, least Ed. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, I coulda been leader, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it. It was you, Ed.”
I don’t particularly give a damn that Miliband has bid au revoir to ‘front line politics’.. Apologists attempting portray Miliband as a man with integrity, the man apparently was ‘privately’ concerned about neocon politics of Bush. What is it about these ‘private doubts’ about important issues (Mister Ed had opposed the Iraq war in private….). To be honest, I have a plenty of private thoughts but there are times those private thoughts become public especially about something so grave, so fundamental like going to war. Why so private? And why bring these private doubts public now at a critical time during a leadership contest? Cynical manoeuvres? Opportunism? So why now? That Ed and David had misgivings etc. Funny how these private misgivings are in the public domain now, why not in 2005 for Mister Ed when he was trying to become an MP and why not in 2003, a crucial time for David Miliband to vocally raise these concerns in the public domain…
But no… both wait to air these “misgivings”, “doubts” and “opposition” when an election is taking place, at a safe distance of 7 years. And it stinks, because you know, deep down the bros were unhappy with the way things were going but didn’t feel able to admit these concerns. It’s not if they woulda been in isolation as there was overwhelmingly public opposition to the war.
So how can you believe what these two say? That they are too gutless to speak their minds? That they are bound and gagged by
Cabinet collective responsibility. That’s true for DM but not so for Mister Ed as in 2003 he had ample opportunity to join the anti-war movement in the States.
But what has dominated this contest is the Miliband hoopla. One thinking the crown was his for the taking but to see it snatched by ickle bro at the final furlong. Off Miliband senior went to sulk and stamp his foot as he considered oh so dramatically with painful reflection on his future while every muscle twitch was scrutinised by the media as little bro made his maiden speech (and got very irritated when Harriet Harman clapped at Mister Ed’s comments about Iraq and we know Miliband senior gets very defensive and annoyed when people dredge up Iraq).
But what does this all illustrate, a tale of two ambitious brothers vying for the same prize? For me it says a lot about the political state we are in. Miliband senior didn’t show any professionalism, it was all personal and subjective nothing about the public good. It completely smacks of narcissism, ego and vanity with it so concentrated on senior Miliband expecting that top prize, eyeing up the rostrum imaging himself making the speech as leader, seeing it all as his own personal fiefdom, the prize that was surely his….but no cruelly snatched by his ickle bro. While Miliband senior agonised about his future, well, at least he has a future while countless people in the real world (not Miliband bubble land) will be agonising about their jobs, benefits, housing and so on once the fallout has settled after the ConDems have ideologically blasted the public sector to bits come the Comprehensive Spending Review published next month. The utter conceit of Miliband is contemptible. Taking sibling rivalry to a higher level.
Both brothers have the same identical degree (PPE) at Oxford, similar political paths, cabinet positions. Never came up into politics with aptitudes for real campaigning, activism or trade unionism. They are part of a Party that was developed and evolved through the trade union movement, through struggle and fight, yet have either of the brothers ever visited a picket line? Don’t be daft, Miliband senior certainly doesn’t like strike action and Mister Ed just cynically played for the union vote. He won’t be there anytime joining workers on a picket line.
As in the words of the Terminator, David Miliband will surely be back. Unfortunately….
If Cameron knocks Mr Ed about at PMQs and if the polls are bad I fully expect the Blairite Tendency to do an IDS on Ed. They’ll be as loyal to him as they were to Gordon Brown.
Yep. Ed will lose the next general election by a whisker and the his elder brother David will return to lead the Labour Party to victory in the election after that. But by then will anybody notice the changeover in government? Their political and economic agendas are so similar now that, surely, by 2015 they will have converged more of less completely. All I would bet on for sure is that in ten years time there will be more poverty, homelessness, misery and exploitation than there is today with no political party having any intention to intervene to do anything about it reliant as they are to “market solutions” to any and every problem economic, social and otherwise.
It really is tragic beyond words.
Yep.
We should be contemptuous of pols rediscovering their principles when they are no longer in a position to do anything. Are there any Cabinet Members left who haven’t done this
Will the Coalition be different?
There’s also this business of ‘undiscovering’ your principles when entering Office. The Lib-Dems are a good example. Political chameleons are one of the biggest bars to progress.
Here’s the question, then: can you flourish in the current Parliamentary system without losing your principles? Do bad people corrupt it or is it so corrupt it’s only suited to bad people?
bensix, in answer there are good leftie principled MPs; John McD, Jeremy Corbyn, Katy Clark, Kelvin Hopkins…. It does exist. They haven’t capitulated.
Don’t think it’s about bad people, kinda think it’s about principles, or more to the point having none. New Labour was some slick enterprise, encouraging people into politics by-passing the traditional labour movement to become researchers, analyts, policy officers, lobbyists so on. You create a breed of career orientated politicos who know nothing about political struggle, activism or campaigning, they are remote and live in a bubble world. They only talk the talk when it comes to being elected. Plus you have a remote system, which NL emphasised, people not feeling part of the democratic process, a system that has ‘collective cabinet responsibility’…. surely if ministers had some wit and intelligence they coulda organised with other ministers if they disagreed vehemently against policy, shown some backbone but it’s all this ‘privately disagreed, publicly agreed’ idiocy which annoys me because what can you believe in these politicians. It’s about having the principles to speak out.
[...] In defence of David Miliband’s actions by Chris Dillow October 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm David Miliband’s decision to leave the shadow cabinet to gain some much-needed inexperience has led some people to bid a cheery farewell to the torture-hiding careerist. [...]