A horse is a horse of course, of course
The Left of the Labour party breathed a huge sigh of relief and wonder at the result. Relief because of the fear that the party would not have the courage to send a message that it has grown beyond the New Labour experiment. Wonder that “their” candidate actually won and by such a slim margin over the more charismatic boy David.
What? have we moved beyond personality politics at last? Well, don’t get too excited just yet. There is a long way to go before any forlorn, card-carrying socialist can be sure that Labour has at long last grown up and provided an alternative to the right-of-centre hegemony that Thatcher introduced.
The slim margin of victory and the fact that it was the unions what won it for Mr Ed will be jumped upon by Cameron’s cronies to be sure, but was the fraternal sitcom that the contest became really a battle for the soul of the party? How many ex-Oxbridge WMCM’s do we need to see leading our political orthodoxies before the proles come to suspect that their best interests may not be getting addressed?
This observer has tweeted it before, but it’s worth remembering, how medieval noblemen would ensure their bloodline’s continuation by encouraging the elder son to fight on one side in a battle and sending the younger son to fight on the other. When the spoils are divided among the victors and the defeated are hung drawn and quartered, at least the family will be richer than before.
Ok, this might be a cynical over-egging of the politicking of this situation, you might even say it is beyond comprehension and demonstrates extreme naivete to suggest that such conspiracies could take place in secret. You may be right. There is however a lingering suspicion of some plot beyond the exoteric politics of candidates and free votes and Westminster seats and the whole cosy rigmarole of parliamentary democracy that we all now know to be a farce anyway. I don’t just mean the Miliband machinations. This spurious suspicion of shenanigans would have to extend over decades and parties and various puppet prime ministers. It is unbelievable. Mad. Insane. And yet, I cannot shake it off.
What is it that distinguishes the brothers? Obviously their support of Tony and Gordon means that politically they are pulling in different directions…(sic). David, the arch-Blairite, the Iraq war supporter, the orator, the bottler. Ed, the Brownian, the Iraq war decryer (now it won’t be political suicide), the union man, the friend of Tony Benn. All of this has been alleged and pored over by various commentators, but it’s the similarities that get me.
Look at the Milibands and compare them. Aren’t they really very similar to the coalition partners?
This is where the conspiracy theory just niggles and niggles. We’ve been here before. The choice for Labour was between two career politicians that are in the media-friendly Oxford mould that Cameron and Clegg – and Blair before them – so smoothly filled. Brown rather squeezed into it, but the general tone of policy was the same – conservative.
Since the general election the Labour party has wrung its hands and gnashed its teeth as it frantically sought a spin that could now distinguish it from the Lib Dems. Just as Lib Dems gnashed their teeth and worried their agnostic equivalent of prayer beads as they found themselves promoting tory policies in diametric opposition to the (oh-gosh!) exciting alternatives they had offered during the campaign. But neither acknowledged the real problem. Liberalism, like socialism before it, had become passe among the chattering classes. Policies didn’t really matter, it’s all about how the media reflect the candidates, who are caught in the self-deluding mirror of ambition: who is the most electable of them all?
Ed Miliband realised at some point that there was an unrecognised silent but significant sway among the Labour members and unions that was starting to gain confidence where it had previously been derided and dismissed. Their message became increasingly heard: Labour didn’t win elections by becoming the mini-conservatives called New Labour; nor did they lose in 2010 because they were left of the Tories. They clearly weren’t that anymore. They won and lost by appearing to be different. By promising that things would only get better.
In 2010, the electorate wanted an alternative to New Labour conservatism and in their confusion the voters split the vote three ways, with many ex-Labour voters believing the Lib Dems were the New Left. So Ed became the Left’s great white hope. It’s no surprise this happened. Just as thoroughbred David had been raised to lean right, thoroughbred Ed had been bred to lean ever so slightly lefter. In all likliehood neither understood the forces that have shaped their candidacies. But they both understand their roles in the great play.
Getting elected is the only good. That’s modern politics. After that the battle is over and the spoils are divided. The manifestos and legislation and ministries and change programmes are mere flotsam. Even the players are mere cannon fodder. There is a bloodline that goes on – an undercurrent continues to draw the country in one direction and the new ruling class will take the sensible decisions to protect the bloodline, as is their wont.
So will Ed revive the Left? Will he prove to be the antithesis to Blair? There is no right and left anymore. There is a new aristocracy and Ed Miliband is no revolutionary.
Would that I am wrong.
Did you like this? Share it:
