David miliband

I was expecting drama when the Labour leadership circus called at Newsnight yesterday. Alas, the show whimpered and wheezed to a halt. A contest to determine the party’s future continues to gaze into the past. Assessing failure is essential to renewal, but the candidates are yet to offer anything substantively new.   Ed Balls and David Miliband shared one telling exchange. Balls has presented himself as the traditional candidate, and he would have you believe he speaks the language of Mrs Duffy. Gordon Brown’s hideous solecism in Rochdale revealed that he and his government were out of touch on issues such as housing and immigration. David Miliband is the centrist candidate and he dissociates himself from Balls and Duffy-speak.

With ill-repressed horror, James Macintyre reports that the remnants of New Labour fear that Diane Abbott might win the Labour leadership, courtesy of the preferential vote. Mildly amusing I suppose. If Ed Balls would be a catastrophe of Footian proportions as leader what would Abbott be? There are no historical parallels.   I can’t see this latter day Rosa Luxemburg enticing Labour members. But if she does, then David Miliband, that auteur of absurdity, is to blame. Abbott’s weapon is communication. Unlike her four opponents, she doesn’t sound like an under-manager at Furniture Village. She is accessible, particularly on television – and the hopefuls will be up before Paxman tonight.

David Miliband's patronising ruse has worked. The rumours that have circulated for half an hour or so have now been confirmed by the BBC. I wonder what damage Abbott will now cause the other candidates? Also, what does it say for the case for diversity and Labour's internal policy debate if Abbott's election was a stitch-up?

I wonder if the Labour leadership contenders worry that the previous generation’s forthcoming memoirs have created more excitement than them? I would be. The insipid campaign has laid bare the paucity of talent on Labour’s benches, and the party’s ideological exhaustion. No serving Cabinet minister lost their seat at the election; Tony Blair aside, the Milibands and Ed Balls are the best Labour has. That’s a grim prospect if your colour’s red. Ed Balls has the panache of a Vauxhall Zafira; and the two Milibands are trapped in a Beckettian whirl of meaningless jargon, convinced that using abstract nouns is a mark of vital intelligence. It isn’t; it’s irritating, and voters spurn it.

Peter Mandelson’s Machiavellian streak runs deep. Like the wily Florentine, Mandelson wants to retire to the country to farm and be close to the earth; but first, there is the small matter of a book for political princes. In this morning’s Times, Mandelson has written an exhaustive plug for his forthcoming book, The Third Man: Life at the heart of New Labour.   In the course of writing his publisher’s press release, Mandelson makes two important points: one historical and one current.   He admits his greatest mistake was to broker Blair and Brown’s deal in 1994; the soap opera that followed, Mandelson argues, would never had occurred had they fought it out there and then.

There was a great sense of pathos after the election, when Jack Straw was the only Labour politician who could recall the shadow cabinet room’s location. It must have been surreal for those who knew only government. The loneliness of opposition would have struck at last week’s Queen’s Speech. The party must renew whilst avoiding the internecine struggle that condemned the Tories to 13 years in opposition. Fantasy politics won’t be sufficient. Introspection must yield a coherent and credible agenda, free from the undeliverable abstractions and the oscillation between arrogance and desperation that characterised the Brown government.

The stock response of many Coffee Housers will be ‘Who Cares?’ but surely Ed Balls will be nominated for the Labour leadership? Labour may recognise that a Balls leadership would likely end in Footian catastrophe but he will, in all certainty, proceed to the next round. Surely? Like Pete and Ben Brogan, I reckon Balls and David Miliband allowed their supporters to declare in a steady trickle, hoping to build momentum as the June 8 deadline neared. In which case it is telling that Miliband Major has changed his tactics in response to Miliband Minor’s sudden surge. David Miliband now has the backing of 48 MPs, a very significant advance on yesterday’s figure. By contrast, Ed Balls languishes on 15 nominations.

One of the mildly diverting features of the Labour leadership contest so far is this nominations counter on the party website.  Ed Miliband was the first to pass the crucial 33 nominations barrier yesterday, while David Miliband managed it earlier today.  Ed Balls is still lagging behind on 14, Andy Burnham has 8, and poor John McDonnell and Diane Abbott both have none.  Yep, the excitement is reaching fever pitch. There's one curious feature to it all, though, highlighted by Danny Finkelstein earlier.  Why have some of the candidates – or their nominators – been holding back on their nominations?  David Miliband, for instance, has considerably more than 37 backers, and could surely have crossed the 33 nominations mark days ago.

While we're on the subject of the Labour leadership, it's worth reading James Purnell's article in the Times today.  I know, I know – he's left Parliament now.  But Purnell is close to Team Miliband (the Elder), so I imagine some of his thinking might show up in the campaign.  In which case... One thing that jumped out at me was Purnell's attitude to the coalition government.  Sure, he attacks it as "only symbolically progressive," but he doesn't dismiss it out of hand.  Indeed, he even suggests that coalition might be a good thing: "Gently, too — we should give credit to Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg for the way they formed this coalition. I thought that they would find it hard to get anywhere beyond a grudging minority agreement.

With the Sun reporting that Ed Miliband is going to stand for the Labour leadership, it's probably a good time to dig out Anne McElvoy's profile of the Miliband brothers for the Sunday Times last month. To my mind, its opening neatly encapsulates the choice between the wonkish one and the slighty-less-wonkish one that Labour may have to make: "When David and Ed Miliband were teenagers, their north London household rang to the chatter of some of the most prominent left-wing names of the era: Tony Benn, Tariq Ali, the ANC leader Joe Slovo and the late Michael Foot. David, one regular guest recalls, would sit 'absorbing it all' and asking interested questions of the grandees.

Will Straw was on the news this afternoon, arguing that Labour had lost only a small "doughnut" of seats around London and in the south. As John Rentoul notes, some doughnut: Labour was annihilated in England. David Cameron’s swift reform of the Conservative party was built on recognising the scale of defeat. Few on the Labour side have yet done so, including David Miliband, who clings to the spurious consolation that it could have been worse. In a piece for the Guardian, John Denham is candid about a share of the vote that was markedly lower than John Major’s in 1997: ‘Most obvious is just how catastrophic our defeat was.

Surprise, surprise – David Miliband has just announced his candidacy for the Labour leadership, and there wasn't a banana in sight.  His address only lasted a few minutes, but it contained a number of hints about how, I suspect, he will look to run his campaign.  The emphasis was on newness, natch – "a new era, new dangers, new possibilities, new opportunities" – but also on unity.  He praised the leadership of Gordon Brown; claimed he was looking forward to a "warm, generous and comradely" contest; and said that he would go on a tour of non-Labour constituencies to "listen" to the public.  All of which was meant to reinforce one impression: that he would take Labour beyond the fierce tribalism of the Blair and Brown years.

One striking aspect to this evening's brouhaha is how senior Labour figures are going out of their way not to endorse anyone as Gordon Brown's successor.  Brown himself has said that he won't back an "individual candidate," and Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell have made similar noises in television interviews. There are, I imagine, two main reasons for this.  First, it's all too soon: Labour won't want to engage in full internecine combat while there's still the chance of a deal with the Lib Dems.  And, second, they will want to create the impression that – contrary to Gordon Brown's ascension to power in 2007 – the next Labour leader has been chosen in an open and clean contest.