David Miliband sealed his fate in 2009

If he'd have had more courage, David Miliband could have been Prime Minister today. On 4th June 2009 when his close political ally James Purnell resigned as Culture Secretary Miliband senior could and should have gone over the top too. I know for a fact that Purnell and his advisers were expecting him to and were baffled when he did not. Had he done so and then gone to the country in the Autumn on the back of a bounce he could have had 5 years as PM. The fact that Cameron could not even scrape a majority against Brown makes it clear a new leader could have turned things around.

He didn't want to be seen as the Michael Heseltine of his generation fearing that he who wields the knife seldom wins the crown. But Brown was a busted flush. It was clear a year out from the general election that he could not win. Purnell's resignation along with in the preceding and succeeding days the resignations of some other senior (but just not quite senior enough) figures such as Hazel Blears and Caroline Flint was enough to wound Brown but not enough to kill.

That inaction made him more like another Tory Michael of an earlier generation. Michael Portillo. OK so he didn't put phone lines in but his various manouvers such as his article in The Guardian in July 2008 which tried to set out a vision for Labour and conspicuously did not even mention the then PM was a more subtle form of the same thing.

The indecision at a time when Labour really needed someone to step up and save the party from itself marked him down for me as an also-ran. Despite the fact that he started the 2010 leadership election as clear favourite I did not expect him to win. Indeed I actually expected his brother Ed to outshine him and ultimately take the crown as happened.

He was too cautious during the campaign too. He played it defensively and seemed genuinely irritated that his younger brother had had the temerity to run against him. Why on Earth he expected to have the field to himself in this way is baffling to me. Future PMs need to take on all comers.

So now David is standing down from parliament to take on an international charity role. I think we can interpret this as the end of his domestic political ambitions. There may be a role in Europe for him at some point in the future but stepping down as an MP is usually a clear signal that politicians are finished with the daily grind and the greasy pole.

David Miliband now stands as a warning to future politicians in the opposite way to Heseltine. When vying for the leadership and/or premiership of course they need to take into account the actions of Tarzan in 1990 and not be too bold. But they also need to not be too cautious. Otherwise the prize they most desire could just as easily slip from their grasp.

Why would either Miliband want Balls on their coattails?

There have been all sorts of rumours flying around in the last few days that Ed Balls was about to pull out of the Labour leadership contest and throw his weight behind one of the two front runners (one of the Miliband brothers). He has denied this and insisted that he is fighting on.

He has the support of fewer unions and CLPs than his two main rivals and it certainly looks like he cannot now win. There have even been suggestions that when it comes to the vote in September that he could end up being eliminated first. This would be an utter humiliation for Balls. So you can understand why the stories about him planning to drop out and swing behind one of the front runners had a ring of plausibility. It would be real damage limitation for Balls and would likely secure him a senior shadow cabinet role if the one he chose was to win. Perhaps even his long coveted chancellorship portfolio (albeit in opposition).

But what would be in it for whichever Miliband he swung behind? OK, so it would give them a few more first preferences although of course not all those who would have voted for Balls will slavishly vote for whoever he decides to grease up to. And because this election is AV, and given that Balls is likely to be eliminated then many of these votes will ultimately transfer that way anyway.

I do concede than in an extremely tightly fought race between the top two, Balls' support could, in extremis make the difference. However look at the price the winner would be paying. They would have Balls in a very senior position and essentially unsackable. Gordon Brown's protege, the man above all others he was politically closest to would probably end up with the treasury role with the leader beholden to them and also perhaps with a simmering resentment from Balls that he did not win himself. Does any of this sound familiar?

Some of the more sensible comments from the candidates during the campaign so far have been to acknowledge that the psychodramas of the past and the nonsense that went with the TB-GBs (that is now being confirmed by very senior members of the former administration such as Peter Mandelson) was very damaging for the party and that they need to move on from that way of operating. The last thing the winning candidate needs to do is set the party up for another decade of dysfunctional internecine fighting at the very top. Far better for whoever does win to do so on their own with their own mandate for leading the party away from its discredited past.

So it would be very wise for both Milibands to resist any overtures from Balls. It would take real courage to reject what could seem on the surface like a way of boosting their chances but they should resist nonetheless.

In fact were they to do this, I would expect Balls to deny that he had ever entertained the notion and to claim that he was going to fight on.

Perhaps the Milibands are made of sterner stuff than it may initially appear....

Those plunging the knife into Brown now lack credibility

Both Peter Mandelson and David Miliband have made comments recently which are clearly critical of Gordon Brown. In Mandy's case it is in order to help shift copies of his new book. In Mili_D's case it is part of his positioning for the Labour leadership contest.

Miliband's comments are particularly strident. He accuses him of lacking "moral seriousness". That will particularly hurt Brown given all his talk about his moral compass. He also claimed that spin and high-handedness intensified. There are other criticisms about failure to renew the party in office.

Well in response to this all I can say is no shit Sherlock.

It was blindingly obvious to political watchers from Autumn 2007 onwards that Brown was a busted flush. Miliband and Mandelson had several opportunities to do something about his leadership and force his hand. The three most obvious ones were summer 2008 when Miliband clearly went on manoeuvres but then the incident with the banana occurred and he felt compelled to back off. Then there was the resignation of James Purnell in June 2009. I am certain that Purnell expected Miliband to follow him over the top. If he had have done he could have been Prime Minister but he bottled it. Mandelson was probably the only other person in the cabinet who could have forced Brown's hand in that situation. Instead he actually did the opposite and rang around ministers persuading them to stay their hands. Then finally there was the "Snow plot" in January this year where Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt tried to leverage Brown out of office. This fizzled out almost immediately but if either of the two heavyweights who now insist Brown was such a disaster had moved it could have been much more serious and again have led to a different outcome.

And if Labour had had a different leader they may well still be in office. They would only have needed another twenty or thirty seats (and the Tories to not have gained as many) before they could have been in serious contention in a hung parliament with a legitimate claim to remain in office. With a new leader, the "Brown" problem would not have been there in the negotiations. I think many within Labour know this as well. As I stated many times on this blog before the election, Brown was staying in power for his own personal reasons to the detriment of his party.

So both Mandelson and Miliband are utterly complicit in Brown remaining in office right up until the election. They are about the only figures who could have done something about it. If they thought Brown was such a disaster, why did they not do something about it when they had their chance?

I am afraid it seems pretty obvious that both of them chose not to for their own political positioning reasons. That means they completely lack credibility on this question now.

Bizarre comments from David Miliband on AV referendum

Alex Smith has an interview with David Miliband up on LabourList at the moment. He asks some good questions (particularly one about the banana which seems to annoy him!) but his response towards the end about the AV referendum is frankly bizarre:

"...we’ve got to be a party that sees democracy as our ally, both internally and in the country at large. The Tories are going to give political reform a bad name with this AV referendum. As it happens, I support AV, but that’s beside the point. They’re going to give it a bad name because people will say: ‘there’s all this arguing, but how much do things really change?’ We need to sort out parliament, I’ve always said that – but that means the Commons and the Lords together."

I don't understand in what way allowing a referendum on something that Miliband himself seems to support can give reform a bad name. I fully agree that we need to sort out the Lords too but that is on the coalition's to do list as well. From page 27 of the coalition agreement:

"We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers."

The answer to Mr Miliband's question about "How much things really change" will be answered when people vote in the referendum next year. I very much hope he throws his weight behind a "yes" vote. The Tories always opposed any change and are bound to largely campaign against it but the Lib Dems have managed to get them to agree to have a referendum.

And the coalition is doing exactly what he suggests. I really don't understand what his problem is. It is almost as if whilst fundamentally agreeing with the government on something he feels duty bound to find some way, however specious in which to criticise it.

I was hopeful that whoever won the Labour leadership contest we would see an end to this opposition for opposition's sake. These comments do not bode well for that should Mili_D win in September.

What will David do if Ed wins?

I have been wondering for a while what David Miliband would do if his younger brother Ed Miliband were to win the Labour leadership. Michael Crick has a post today where he speculates that he would leave politics altogether.

I'm not so convinced. Whilst I am sure it would be difficult for David to serve under his younger brother (I write as the eldest of three brothers) I think it would be seen as extremely churlish and indeed childish if he were to strop off if Ed gets the prize. All his talk about wanting to serve the party and his country would be exposed as hollow. Any career outside politics would surely trade on his reputation from his former career. He would surely not want to leave under such circumstances?

If I were a Labour member I would expect all the candidates to fall in behind whoever wins and put themselves forward for election to the shadow cabinet. Their party is in a fair old mess at the moment and they will need all hands on deck.

If David swans off there will be no way back for him later. He needs to think very carefully before deciding what to do next should this scenario occur.

How David Miliband could be magnanimous and statesmanlike

It is starting to look like neither of the two left-wing candidates for the Labour leadership (Diane Abbott and John McDonnell) are going to get the 33 nominations needed to secure a place in the ballot. McDonnell currently has 7 declared for him and Abbott has just 5.

There has been much debate about whether the rules should be changed in order to allow a left wing challenger who may struggle to get through this initial electoral college hurdle for the party at large to be able to judge them and what they have to offer. I think it is fair to say that if someone like Abbott managed to get on the ballot and hence be involved in the debates and contest proper then the dynamics of it could be quite different. It is still extremely unlikely that she could win but her candid style unbound by recent office herself (unlike all the front-runners) could help electrify the contest. However it is looking pretty unlikely that the rules will be changed now.

There is an opportunity here though for David Miliband to do something extremely magnanimous. He already has 62 declared nominations. He could suggest to some of his supporters (28 of them) to support Diane Abbott's candidature. That would give her 33 nominations and still leave himself with 34 (with likely more to come). That would ensure she made it onto the ballot and hence would be involved in the next stage of the contest.

If Labour end up with a bunch of white middle-aged men all of whom are pretty close politically and all of whom were until recently cabinet ministers as the only contenders in the leadership contest then I suspect many in the party and wider public will be disappointed. It will actually help the party if the arguments are had out in the open now rather than have that wing of the party excluded.

David Miliband has much to gain from this approach too. It would make him look brave and like a risk-taker, attributes he has often been accused of lacking in the past. He would also look statesmanlike willing to give an opponent a fair crack of the whip confident that he can win the argument.

I suspect the low politics of the situation militate against this happening. But if Miliband has the courage to do this it may pay dividends in a contest that has largely failed to inspire so far.

Could David Miliband be the new Neil Kinnock?

Mike Smithson makes the point this morning that it is exactly a year ago today that David Miliband made the biggest decision of his political career when he decided not to follow James Purnell over the top and to instead stand by Gordon Brown.

Mike goes on:

... looking back there was never a better chance for a rebellion against Mr. Brown to succeed but, not for the first time, Miliband held back and the rest, as they say, is history.

Given Labour’s polling performance since Brown’s departure then there’s a good argument for saying that the general election outcome could have been different if he had stepped aside a year ago.

It didn’t happen. Labour lost and now Mili-D is hot favourite for the leadership. Could, I wonder, his decision to back Brown a year ago become a leadership election issue? It certainly says a lot about the man because you wonder whether he’s got the killer instinct.

It probably should become a leadership election issue (it is certainly true that he has demonstrated time and again he does not have that killer instinct) but it won't for a number of reasons:

• The question of "killer instinct" is not generally something that is openly debated. It is sometimes referred to obliquely in code (disguised as "decisiveness", "ability to take difficult decisions" etc.).
• It is very unlikely that the narrative of the campaign will descend into "You should have stabbed our former leader in the back when you had the chance.". None of the other candidates are likely to pursue that line, not least because...
• The two primary challengers to Miliband D are Ed Balls and Miliband E both of whom were very close to Gordon Brown. It would be bizarre to find either of them attacking David on these grounds, not least because they would likely have been in the bunker defending Brown even if David had have resigned!
• Even though an honest appraisal of Brown's dreadful record would be to the long term advantage of the party they are just not ready for it yet. Observer the platitudes about "listening and learning" (were they not listening before the election!?) and how difficult it is for the main candidates to repudiate the record of a government that they were at the heart of until a few weeks ago.

So perhaps the decision that David Miliband took a year ago today to keep his powder dry will turn out to have been the correct one, for his own career at any rate. He has previously been heard talking about not wishing to be the Michael Heseltine of his political generation. It looks like he may well have avoided that fate.

The wider question is whether now is the right time to take the reins with the huge challenge the party faces to renew itself. Because whilst he may avoid the fate of Michael Heseltine, even if he wins the leadership he may instead find that he is this political generation's Neil Kinnock.

Some MPs are more equal than others

One of the main arguments that opponents of electoral reform to a proportional system use is that some forms of PR create two classes of MP. Now firstly, this is not true for Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies, the system that the Lib Dems and most electoral reformers favour. However it is true for systems like Alternative Vote Plus or Additional Member System. Those systems have a "top-up element" to allow proportionality but that does generally mean that some MPs have constituencies and others don't. In other words some MPs have constituents to answer to and others from the list only have their party to answer to.

Just to reiterate, I (and many like me) do not support these top-up systems but the fact that they exist and in the case of AMS have been used in the past gives supporters of the status quo an opportunity to blur the issue and making this claim of two classes of MP against all variants of PR.

But it is worth just taking a few steps back here and looking at our existing electoral system, First Past the Post. I was struck by the following passage in Chris Mullin's excellent Westminster diaries "A View from the Foothills" when I read it recently:

Friday 11th May (2001)

Much speculation about which members of the New Labour elite will be parachuted into the safe seats vacated by MPs retiring at the last moment. Ed Balls and David Miliband are among the names being mentioned. Not for them the cutting of teeth in hopeless seats or the long, wearying slog around the selection circuit. A few high-level phone calls, a quiet word in the right ears and ... Bob's your uncle ... a safe seat for life. And who knows, within two or three years a foot on the ministerial ladder, first steps on the inevitable rise to the Cabinet.

As we now know, both Balls and Miliband were indeed selected for very safe seats. Miliband in 2001 (he was in the government by 2005 and the cabinet by 2006), Balls in 2005 (he was in the government by 2006 and the cabinet in 2007 as soon as Brown became leader). There are plenty of examples over the years of favoured candidates who are parachuted into safe seats like this and hence their political career is put on the fast track. Because they are gifted a seat where there is virtually no chance of them losing it they don't have to worry too much about what their constituents think. They will not have to have spent years slogging away at getting to know the constituency and their constituents before election and they will have to pay little attention to them after election too. Whereas MPs in less safe or marginal seats will have to pay much more attention to their electors and indeed spend much more time on them.

So we already have MPs who on a sliding scale have to take less and less notice of their constituents as we go up the list of safe seats. That sounds to me very much like a two (or even more than two) classes of MP that we have already.

Under Single Transferable Vote this would not happen. The seat of every single MP would be at risk in every election and they would have to earn re-election. There would be no safe seats. But of course if we had this, how would Blair have been able to secure an easy passage for Miliband and Brown likewise for Balls into the Commons and ultimately the cabinet?

Also, the seats of even the most senior politicians would need to be tended to properly and the electors engaged with.

This is why the decision on how they are elected cannot be left up to the MPs themselves. They have already proved that they cannot be trusted with their own remuneration. Why should they be any different when it comes to the terms of their own employment?

Is this an off the record briefing from David Miliband?

Paul Waugh has highlighted something interesting. Apparently there has been an off the record briefing by "allies of the Foreign Secretary" in The Independent which rubbish Ed Balls in relation to his comments about the Iraq inquiry.

Now I am not saying that Ed Balls does not deserve this, he is a big boy and can doubtless take it as he so often dishes it out, but the comments contrast sharply with David Miliband's calls last week for the media to:

abandon unattributable briefings, saying all politicians’ spokesmen should be named, or not quoted by media outlets. "The gotcha culture of politics is not in anyone’s interests"

So presumably Mr Miliband is not happy with this latest development and will insist that the person involved be named. And if the Indy will not name them, Mr Miliband should name them himself in order to strike a blow against the spin and counter spin culture he clearly wants to change.

Oh, and if it turns out to have been Mr Miliband himself then surely his commitment to what he said last week is shot to ribbons?

Alan Johnson could deny Tories a majority

According to a poll commissioned for today's Independent, Alan Johnson the Home Secretary could deny the Tories outright victory at a General Election.

The main figures from the poll (which also tests other potential candidates) are:

Alan Johnson, Home Secretary

Man most likely to succeed Gordon Brown if he is toppled before general election.

Election result with him as leader:

Con 36% Labour 26% Lib Dems 19% (Con six seats short of majority.)

Support among Labour identifiers: 76%

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister

Hoping to see off plotters as Cabinet did not join revolt

Election result with him as leader:

Con 38% Labour 22% Lib Dems 20% (Con majority: 74)

Support among Labour identifiers: 71 per cent

So The Tories would only have a 10 point lead with Johnson vs a 16 point lead with Brown.

Although this is interesting to note, I don't think it is going to be enough to make a difference now that a cabinet and then a PLP rebellion now seems to have been quashed. It is also interesting to note that the First Past the Post electoral system that the Conservatives are oh so keen to cling onto allows Labour to deny them a majority on just over a quarter of the vote!

Just as interesting however for me are the ones who also come close to Mr Johnson:

Jack Straw, Justice Secretary

His withdrawal of support could finish Brown.

Election result with him as leader:

Con 36% Labour 25% Lib Dems 19% (Con majority of 10)

Support among Labour identifiers: 71 per cent

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary

Raised profile last summer but campaign faltered

Election result with him as leader:

Con 37% Labour 25% Lib Dems 19% (Con majority: 30)

Support among Labour identifiers: 73%

It shows that for all the hype, Johnson is not the only one in the frame by any means. I thought David Miliband's chance had been done in by a banana but apparently not!

I am keen to see how these sorts of figures hold up over the next few months.

Gordon Brown is delusional

I have just heard Gordon Brown's press conference on the radio on the way home from work.

The man is completely delusional. He just seemed to spend most of the time talking absolute nonsense. He just kept banging on about how he was the right man with the right team and he was "not arrogant". The fact that the government is falling apart around his ears seemed to not even register.

After all that has happened it is now clear that this man will not go voluntarily. So, if Johnson, Miliband or anyone else who fancies the top job thinks it will just fall into their lap they have now been shown what they need to do. A senior cabinet minister needs to resign and openly challenge Brown for the leadership. They need to do this swiftly before the media narrative moves on in the next few days.

If they don't then they are all complicit in this and they deserve all that they get.

Perhaps Charlotte's tenner is safe for now after all....

Further to my bets with Charlotte and Kalvis, I thought the events of last night and today would precipitate Gordon Brown's fall.

However at just after midday I am now not as confident as I was. The momentum that Purnell started last night seems to be petering out as the cabinet ministers who could force the issue (Miliband, and Johnson) row in behind Brown. If they flunk this chance, the will only have themselves to blame at the next general election as half of them lose their seats and they are all consigned to political oblivion.

That's not to say Brown is out of the woods by any means. The early local election results indications are shockingly bad for Labour and we still have the European results on Sunday.

We are still in a crirical period and there is still a lot that could happen in the next 72 hours.

For now though, I agree that Charlotte's tenner is indeed safe.

Gordon Brown - This charade must end

Well this has been a whirlwind 10 hours since James Purnell announced his resignation and called on the Prime Minister to go. I doubt Mr Brown got much if any sleep and apparently the reshuffle has been brought forward to today although there are few details as of yet.

There are also little vignettes coming out like Barry Sheerman on Radio 4 just now saying that Number 10 and Yvette Cooper spent time yesterday ringing around his local party colleagues trying to get them to pure pressure on him.

My unsurprising view is what is the point? Gordon Brown will be out in a matter of days. A senior cabinet minister and bright young prospect for the future of the party has resigned and openly called for the Prime Minister to go along with several other ministers in the last few days who have been more coded (but also clearly want him to go). It looks like the local and European election results will be worse than they have ever been for a government. Gordon Brown said 18 months ago that he needed time to show us his vision for the country but the cupboard is bare. He is like the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

We are now into the territory of how much damage does he want to inflict on his own party. If he goes now, he can help limit the damage. If he tries to stay on and fight he could leave the party in an even worse state than the Tories were after 1997.

However, there are people around Brown who can now move and make the decision for him. People like David Miliband, Jack Straw, Alistair Darling etc. are all politically experienced enough to know that the jig is up. They should go to him now and insist he steps down.

It is not encouraging to hear that Miliband has backed Brown. I guess he is worried that if he moves against him the prize will never be his but a banana last year put paid to this anyway. The cabinet needs to follow Purnell's lead and end this charade.

Brown needs to be put out of his misery and country can breathe a sigh of relief.