In politics as in life things are not always as they seem; indeed in politics they are seldom what they seem. Moreover it’s important to bear in mind that a statement of seemingly obvious intent may actually be multi-faceted, with different messages being communicated to distinct groups. Additionally, and crucially, it should be considered that such complex messaging is likely to manifest itself in times of uncertainty; such as when a party leader’s position is looking tenuous.
With that in mind let’s take a moment to consider today’s statement by David Miliband that:
"We know what’s fatal - if we fail to defend the leader, if we lose sight of our core convictions, or we don’t follow through on what we have started."
On it’s surface it seems utterly noble, a reminder to the Labour rank-and-file that now is the time for unity, a time to rally behind the leader etc. Miliband is simply acting as a loyal minister should, championing his master and defending the party… or is he?
Defend the Leader
Interestingly Miliband chose to avoid the traditional overt call for party unity in favour of a much more specific call for the leader to be defended. It’s interesting of course because by choosing the more specific call to defend Brown Miliband has delivered an implicit statement that Brown is in need of defence, and more importantly therefore that Brown is weak. A wider call for party unity would have drawn attention to the general problem of disunity without attributing it to one thing, Miliband’s statement however specifically attributes the disunity to Brown’s weak leadership.
Lose Sight of Our Core Convictions
Ordinarily such a statement would seem utterly mundane, a statement of the obvious, albeit one that would resonate with the party faithful. One can almost imagine it in a conference speech - "we must never lose sight of our core convictions!" But context is everything, as anyone who’s made an inappropriate joke in the wrong context will know.
Labour have always seen themselves as the party of the poor, championing the little guy, defender (although I would say defiler) of the working class. That’s why the abolition of the 10p rate caused such massive uproar within the party, ultimately leading to a showdown between Frank Field MP and Gordon Brown; with the latter fully aware that had Field’s amendment been put to the vote the likelihood was that Field would have won; leading of course to a vote of no confidence, and possibly the end of Brown’s premiership after less than a year in office. The result of that showdown played out last week, with Brown engaging in an embarrassing u-turn to ensure that the core convictions of the party faithful were satisfied.
Given the timing and the context it would seem odd if Miliband’s words were not a reminder of Brown’s failure to adhere to Labour’s core convictions and, crucially, an implicit statement that a leader who share’s the party’s convictions is needed.
Don’t Follow Through On What We Have Started
Miliband is an arch Blairite, not a Brownite; which in Brown’s world makes him an enemy. More importantly though it ties him to the leader with whom Labour’s time in government did start. That leader of course being Blair, not Brown. On the one hand this statement could be considered nothing more than a call, Bush-like, for Labour to stay the course, but juxtaposed against the preceding two statements there is also the distinct possibility that this statement acts as a signal that Brown’s premiership is in fact a departure from what was started, and that Labour needs to return to that proven path; and ultimately needs to return power to someone in the Blair mould…
The Upshot
So is there something to be read between the lines of what Miliband had to say earlier today? Maybe, maybe not. He could just have been making a completely frank, straightforward statement, without any kind of gloss or spin… you know, the kind of straight-shooting statements we expect from New Labour ministers.
But then again maybe Miliband senses a change in the wind. Let’s not forget that a leadership challenge from Miliband was not out of the question in the spring of last year when Brown’s strength was beyond question; now that Brown is in a position of great weakness why wouldn’t Miliband revisit the prospect of leadership?
Posted by Northern Tory on April 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm:
Don’t neglect the shortest word in his statement - “or” - which connects the final phrase to the first two. The Blairite position is singled-out as an alternative to the other two.