Milibland
In my most recent Word column, I rued the unappetising prospect of the next General Election, a battle royale between a 57-year old white Scot, a 42-year-old white Englishman and a 41-year-old white Englishman. Well, if the party machine lumbers into action as predicted, Brown is ousted and foreign secretary David Miliband really does become the new Prime Minster, that prospect can be updated to the even less appetitising: 43-year-old white Englishman, 42-year-old white Englishman and 41-year-old white Englishman. (All of a sudden, Miliband, who looks like a head boy, becomes the epitome of "age and experience", the John McCain of British politics.)How shall we tell them apart in the booth? The fact that they're all white and English is not the issue. It's their politics. All three parties are scuffling around in the same patch of centrist dirt, and aside from ID cards (Labour: dead keen; Tories and Liberals: not so, or so they say now), you'd be hard pushed to get a cigarette paper of policy between them. They're all ambitious youngish men, an Oxford-educated ex-researcher, an Oxford-educated ex-researcher and director of corporate affairs, and a Cambridge-educated ex-journalist and speechwriter. Really zings off the political palate, doesn' it? These three beige men are entirely indicative of the state that British politics is in, where mavericks and oddballs are pushed to the margins or neutered by promotion, and even being over 50 is seen as a disadvantage. (Seeya, Michael Howard! Seeya, Ming! Seeya, Gordon?)
Oh, and Miliband is definitely after the top job. You can tell. After his piece in yesterday's Guardian where he effectively announced his decision to stand against Gordon Brown, he's spent today going around assuring everybody that he's not standing against him. It's only a matter of time.
Batten down the hatches, fans of the Old Politics, it's going to be a smooth ride.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 2:39 PM
23 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
23 Comments:
He really is a dull-looking twat, Millibland.
The face and charisma of Sebastian Coe. The tiny pisshole eyes of Howard Moon, without the endearing love of beebop and the work of the great Charlie Mingles.
He makes Cameron look almost electable and brimming with gravitas.
But Gordon fucked it himself. People would have held onto Gordon Brown over the economic downturn, I think.
I think most people appreciate it's a complicatd global problem. But it was his dithering and attempts to please everyone that smacked of two-facedness, amongst other things.
I just wish they'd get on with it and get someone new in place. I don't think Broon can win the next general election, but I think someone with a bit of dynamism might just have a chance. People wanted a change after Blair but with Brown having been around since '97 they don't feel they've had it. Miliband, Purnell, etc. could shake things up a bit.
I used to vote lib dem but am seriously thinking labour this time, regardless of whether it's Brown in or not. The lib dems have disappointed me by scrapping the 50p tax plan and consistent opposition to nuclear power.
Seeing the spineless Baroness Williams on Question Time a few months ago claim that awarding Salman Rushdie a knighthood was "insensitive" was the deciding factor.
If Milliband does go for the top job now he is an idiot. Any change of leadership would have to be met with a snap election, which he would inevitably lose, thus effectively ending his career as leader. Why not wait for Gordan to lose the next election for him, and become the heir apparant?
British politics has become a little like watching a very glossy but quite dull gameshow where nothing of consequence is decided but everyone has very nice hair.
I don't think Brown's age is the problem, it's him going at the job arse first. Trying to wrongfoot the Tories over the 42 day legislation was tacky at best, and, despite technically winning the vote, he managed to come out of it looking weak and sneaky.
It's a shame, I liked him.
It's possible that a huge scrap this September resulting in a new leader could resolve things in time for an election in 2010 - there is no post-war precedent for a General Election on change of Prime Minister. In 18 months' time things might have calmed down a bit, and people will, maybe, have started to tire of Cameron's feint-politics.
Peter
It doesn't help that every time I hear him mentioned on the news, I immediately think of the Steve Miller Band. I wonder if he speaks of the pompatus of love?
Am I alone in thinking that a government is no longer elected in this country but lives or dies at the whim of the media? Fine when the talk of the coffee houses could bring down a whig or tory and all boroughs were pretty rotten but having been 'given' a vote it is pretty galling to realise it means nothing. It would be just another silly sideshow if it wasn't that the decisions that are made affect us all. Lollybaby
Not political, but I hear there are fans of Danny Baker here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/07_july/31/baker.shtml
This may also mean that we get a second consecutive PM that no-one voted for.
Ooh the Millimpede campaign was launched in the comment is free bloggy bit, not the 'proper' Grauniad. Which must mean that comment is free is the new Grauniad and the old Grauniad is too old labour, or something, which means that as they only let you write for comment is free, means you write for the best bit. Clearly. Where empires are raised and broken. Check you!
Anna
It's ridiculous to blame Brown for the government's current woes. It's down to Blair, Iraq and more generally 11 years of massive disappointment in the policies and actions of an allegedly "Labour" government.
John
Stuart Peel: "This may also mean that we get a second consecutive PM that no-one voted for."
We don't vote for PMs in this country. We vote for MPs. The party with the largest number of MPs get to govern. The leader of that party gets to be PM.
I've you want a presidential system then fine, I'm with you on that one. Just need to line the Windsors up against a wall first ;-)
Stuart Peel: This may also mean that we get a second consecutive PM that no-one voted for.
I'm pretty sure the UK has had more than 1 PM since the post was created. And most of the country didnt get to vote for any of them.
Milliband really needs to get a haircut that doesnt emphasise his schoolboy lugs. I think with him as PM, with a less lugular barnet, Labour would lose the next election by fewer MPs.
As for the 'they're all the same' argument - that's possibly the result of the FPTP system.
Labour and the Tories are still very different. I'm sure that half of the improvements that Labour has made since 1997 would not have been carried out under any other government.
i.e.
Minimum wage
Huge increase in people employed
Writing off third-world debt
Entitlement to paid paternity leave
Winter fuel payments
Scrapping Section 28
Banning fox hunting
Introducing free off-peak travel for over 60s
Free TV licences for over 75s
Free entry to most museums
I have to agree with Paul. Milliband is better waiting for Brown to lose and stepping in then. If he takes over now, and loses the next election that's his top-flight political career over.
There are far too many issues here to be covered in a simple blog response box.
If I started typing now I'd still be at it several hours and many thousand words later.
But, in essence: Andrew is right to identify the sameness of the (potnetial) three leaders at the next Election and also the similarity of policy.
The reason for this though is not some sudden desire for hegemony but because each party is desperate for a Tony Blair figure of their own.
They are all running campaigns based on the Blair '97 playbook : triangulation, the Big Tent, appearing non-threatening to all sectors of society (big business, the unions, the old, the middle class, the metrosexual - if you've got a vote we're your friend).
What all of them have failed to realise so far is that Blair 97 was the totem of a bigger structure. In the background working away were a team of ten or more very able and talented people, including Mandy, Alistair, Brown himself, even dear old Prezza - all dedicated to making the proposition of a young, fresh, almost hip party a desireable choice.
The current distillation though is of a presedential style campaign where the leader is the party.
Which is why each of them has such problems connecting with any sort of audience.
Cameron, for all his poll lead, is untried and untrusted. Nearly 50% of people who said they would vote for him in a recent survey also said they would vote Labour if they ditched Brown. Cameron's advantage in the polls is "soft" and could evaporate in a moment.
How may memebrs of the shadow cabinet can you name? Who is the Lib Dem spokesman on treasury matters or the NHS?
All of the power and all of the investment is in the image and the presentation skills of the leader. It could all be undone in moments because of the lack of substance behind it.
Another couple of points :
Howard wasn't forced out because he was old, he was given the shove because he was charged with denting the Blair majority and delivered a wretched and vile campaign that nearly led to the extinction of his party.
If Brown is unseated the new leader would do well to hold an Election as quickly as is possible thereafter (certainly within six months). If Brown had gone to the country in October last year he wouldn't be in his current situation.
Finally, Brown could still turn this around. But he needs to listen hard to what few friends he has still got, keep well out of sight during August and come back in September with three big ideas.
"We will do this, this and this - this is our focus and we will deliver on these promises"
Stop trying to micro-mage every detail, let the Cabinet do it's job and get back to doing what a PM should do : tackling the big issues.
Richard, do you work for the Labour Party? If not, they'd be proud of your list if you read it out on Question Time!
I'm afraid your list looks pretty paltry when written down. We are, after all, talking about a Labour government. Is that really the best they can offer after 11 years in power?
Minimum wage - this is the least I'd expect. (Plus it had loopholes that took years to close. Good luck being under 22 and going into work.)
Huge increase in people employed? Yes, by making single parents go back to work and also pay for childcare!
Writing off third-world debt? In what way? The "debt" that was "written off" was all tied in to African countries privatising their utitlies and opening themselves up to free trade (ie. in Western interests).
Entitlement to paid paternity leave - good, well done.
Winter fuel payments - yes, and how about if Labour had renationalised utilities and prevented energy prices from spiralling out of control to the point that those who are entitled to winter fuel payments are paying bills that have gone through the roof anyway?
Scrapping Section 28 - good bit of PR. Nobody used it.
Banning fox hunting - and look how long it took them! All those parliamentary hours taken up! (And more loopholes!)
Introducing free off-peak travel for over 60s/Free TV licences for over 75s/Free entry to most museums - no complaints about these but what about not joining America in an illegal war? Renationalising the railways? Saying no to private money going into schools and hospitals, thus dismantling the welfare state by stealth and turning this country into a private paradise? Putting a brake on road-building and airport expansion to protect the environment rather than buckling under pressure from the CBI?
It's not about little bits of well-meaning legislation - it's about bold Labour gestures, none of which have been forthcoming, have they?
I've just heard them talking on Five Live (as they will do) and suggesting that Alan Johnson would be the best person to take over, but he's probably just too nice a man to try. He would present a different option. According to wikipedia he is "open about being an atheist".
Well, I'm sure they'll know what style of shorts and suit to wear on holiday, and of course that's what 'matters', if this week's Richard and Emma (Bunton) is to be believed.
hmmm, that's odd. I think there must be a bug in the system as half of my post got cut. I doubt it was edited for controversy, given that the hint at executing the Royal Family stayed in!
Essentially I was saying that I'll probably vote labour next time, having always voted lib dem before for a few reasons:
1) Lib Dems ditched the 50p tax rate for the super-rich
2) Lib Dems consistently oppose nuclear power (do we want to reduce CO2 emmissions or not?)
3) Final nail in the coffin was Shirley Williams on Question Time claiming that giving Salman Rushdie a knighthood was "insensitive".
Don't want the Tories in, will no longer vote Lib Dem, would never vote green, swp or other far left parties and certainly never far right. Labour it is, Brown or no Brown.
Tristan: those points were - and still are - in your first post.
To anyone who cares: if Brown is replaced without a general election then the new leader will be the fourth out of the last six PMs to come to power in that way. Anything wrong with that? Nope.
Andrew: "Scrapping Section 28 - good bit of PR. Nobody used it." A little ungracious given how rabidly I suspect you opposed this measure. If you'd drawn up a list of terrible things the Tories did in the Eighties, you surely wouldn't have left this out just because no one used it. This Government has been fairly boldly and resolutely gay-friendly (all things being relative). I think the climate has changed quite a lot in that respect. That probably has more to do with, say, Big Brother than the Government, but, you know, credit where it's due. (Hey, look! I just cleverly compared the Government to Big Brother.)
As for renationalising the energy companies and the railways... Well, I suspect not many of the electorate would have supported that in 1997. Now that annual energy bills are matching the sort of one-off windfalls gained by most of those who bought into the sell-offs of the Thatcher years, I suspect rather more people would agree with you (and me). But New Labour scrapped Clause IV. You probably dismissed that as mostly symbolic and good PR. Sadly it wasn't; they meant it. It's amazing how many people who said, "I don't trust Blair, or believe in New Labour, but I'm voting for them anyway," in 1997 have subsequently claimed to have been disappointed by them. We can't say we weren't warned.
I wouldn't disagree that the last eleven years have been disappointing. But... However cynical and bollocksy it is (don't bother checking - it's a word) there's a weird sort of satisfaction to be had watching Dave Cameron. Please don't quote that out of context. If Labour have achieved nothing else then they deserve some sort of credit for a touchy-feely, hug-a-hoodie, it's-not-easy-being-green, actually-there's-always-been-a-reasonable-and-nice-element-to-our-music [privileged, Eton-educated] Tory leader.
Could the credit crunch have perhaps been engineered by Features Writers who've run out of ideas for articles?
Every magazine and newspaper I pick up these days appears to offer 'top tips for tightening your belt' and shit fashion ideas for making your own clothes.
This smacks of opportunism to me. If the folk who are struggling are really reading The Guardian style section to manage their income, then it's worse than I feared.
Credit Crunch? Credit Shmunch! Say I, rather cleverly.
PS: Read my Batman review. Go to my blog and choose OPTION 1.
Charlie
xxx
I agree with Michael Portillo writing in yesterday's Sunday Times who says it'll be ironic if the failure in a key scottish by-election triggers a leadership change from a PM with a scottish constituency to one in the home counties. In which case they'll potentially lose their core vote in Scotland and then the North completely.
Don't know who would fill the vaccuum, probably a mix of SNP, misty-eyed nostalgic socialist parties fighting amongst themselves and the lib dems.
He should have sacked Miliband though. Talk about Karma and sniping from the sidelines then getting the same when you take office, it's like an illness.
Thacher snipes at Heath, undermines and defeats him. Heath attempts to do same to Thatcher throughout her leadership. Thatcher attempts to undermine Major when he proves resistant to her puppeteering. Brown snipes at Blair and takes control when Blair is eventually defeated. Miliband then snipes at Brown as does Blair.
Loyalty, ethics, a code of discretion? Not in modern British politcs.
You're right, Dave, I dismissed Section 28 for cavalier effect. (I think you can guess my position on this issue.) I was over-excited in my attempted counter-attack on Richard Phelps' New Labour shopping list, having heard it so many times on Question Time. I was hoping for a comeback, but no. He must have returned to Portcullis House.
Post a Comment
<< Home