There is no doubt that the union vote put Ed Miliband into the winner’s spot – even if he didn’t start from pole position. Yet does that make the younger clone as much a creature of the left as both his detractors and supporters would have us believe?
As soon as it became clear that the pair were the two front runners, their campaign managers strove to come up with something to make each distinctive from the other. Strangely, both teams made the same inference, albeit out of different motives, that Ed was more left-wing than David. Yet to anyone who has read the Labour manifesto, which Ed authored, would recognise that such a comparison is akin to saying George Bush was more liberal in his thinking than Dick Cheney.
Yet it has an effect in surprising places. Lib Dems who last week were discounting the “old thinking” of political polarity have suddenly rediscovered the concept – and to the extent that Peter Black’s constituents were apparently voicing their fears to him at the weekend of how damaging a Labour lurch to the left would be for his party the country (?).
Even so, “socialist (lower case)” is a handy label badge for a Labour leader in opposition - and one which has proved far less of an electoral impediment than the pro-Dave camp had hoped. In practical terms, being regarded as Old Labour will allow the new incumbent enough freedom to steer the party into clear red water whilst giving the tiller an imperceptible but necessary nudge to the right from time to time. But that’s where the flexibility ends. In many respects, the key areas of focus for the opposition are as much preset as the government’s priorities, i.e. economy, economy, economy – and all the travail that it entails.
The dilemma for Labour under these circumstances is that putting a new face on things through a change of personality is not the same as re-establishing the party as a movement committed to reform, especially when there is already so much of it going on elsewhere. Whoever had won on Sunday, the unspoken consensus is that a first step in any comeback campaign is to put the New Labour brand back in the box for a while and look for something else.
It looks like they will have plenty of time. The ConDem coalition is showing a remarkable resilience and it presently appears that it would take a division of Red Sea proportions to bring things to a premature end. The IMF’s endorsement of government’s plans for tackling the public spending deficit is added boost. When it comes to alternatives, the unions who backed Ed might find their man is not entirely sold on the idea of going in an opposite direction. All in all, the only thing remotely socialist about Labour’s revival strategy could be that it will need to be a five-year plan – at least.
1 Comments:
The ConDem coalition is showing a remarkable resilience...
Early days, surely? Nothing much has actually happened since the election, we're still in a phoney war - unlike Ireland, Greece, Spain or France where actual cuts in real figures have been announced...
And the IMF endorsement? I know that plays well with the UK meejah but the IMF in a state of turmoil that could result in its own demise, they need all the friends they can get and they're lavishing praise to gain future friends all over the place. Who needs an IMF if a cash-rich, sovereign funded, alternative is the new pawnshop on the block? If the Washington Consensus is dead, who needs to kowtow to Washington if it's easier, and less painful, to kowtow to the people who coined the phrase in the first place?
Early days of, perhaps, a really big change that could sweep many previously held economic
"truths" aside (maybe).
But the question is, can Ed Mil cobble together, and keep together, a credible opposition for 5 long years of opposition? And still look "fresh" and "young" at election time?
Post a Comment