David miliband

Make no mistake: tomorrow's election is just so many beginnings. The beginning of a fiscal footslog for the next government. The beginning of the Lib Dems' struggle to maintain attention and support. The beginning, perhaps, of backroom negotiations to determine who gets to govern our country. But, of all these beginnings, there's one which threatens to be more violent and compulsive than all the rest: a Labour leadership contest. Over at Spectator Live, we polled CoffeeHousers on who will emerge victorious from the bloodbath, and the results are now in. David Miliband came out on top with 46 percent of the vote. Next came "other" on 16 percent (who did you have in mind? Jon Cruddas?). And then Alan Johnson (11 percent) and Peter Mandelson (9 percent).

Gordon Brown knows he is finished. My prediction is that he will not use his constitutional right to hang on if the Tories are the largest party in a hung parliament. OK, the Labour leader might try to stay in No 10 – for a second, maybe a minute, perhaps even an academic quarter, trying desperately to persuade a triumphant Nick Clegg that a Lib-Lab coalition is vital for Britain, and that the Tories are evil and must be resisted. But he will soon give up, throw down the phone in anger, shout at Stewart Wood, ask his colleagues to leave him alone and sit in the office alone for a minute, acknowledging his Greek fate.

The sole current political certainty is that Nick Clegg will not prop-up Gordon Brown. Clegg holds Brown personally responsible for 13 years of failure and not even political marriages can be built on enmity.  Labour’s choice is clear: remove Brown to accommodate Clegg. The Sunday Times reports plots are afoot to kill Gordon ‘with dignity’. But euthanasia is messy. Two options are being discussed. First, Brown would be given a year to make a final indelible mark on Britain before shipping himself off to Westminster’s version of Dignitas. I think we can all see the problem with that cunning scheme, and Nick Clegg certainly will.

Things have clearly moved on since I wrote this back in March.  From Rachel Sylvester's column today: "...those close to Mr Clegg have made it clear to senior Labour figures that it would be difficult for the Liberal Democrats to do a deal with a Labour Party led by Mr Brown. 'The whole notion of change is so important to Clegg and Gordon doesn’t represent change,' says one Labour strategist. 'It’s hard to see how they could prop up Brown in a hung Parliament.' With Cabinet ministers openly discussing the prospect of coalition, the question of the Labour leadership is back on the agenda.

Fourteen years on from "education, education, education," Labour seems to have hit upon three new priorities for government: "Ashcroft, Ashcroft, Ashcroft".  Sure, we all knew that they would push this story as hard and as fast as it could go.  But it still says a lot about how they will go about their election campaign, when two senior ministers are still going heavy on the Tory Lord this morning.   In interview with the Guardian, Peter Mandelson says that Ashcroft has got Cameron "by the balls".  And, in the Telegraph, David Miliband claims that William Hague "can’t be an effective Foreign Secretary," after his role in the affair.

To be honest, the leg-flashing that the Lib Dems are doing in front of the Tories and Labour just doesn't really grab my attention.  Their overtures and innuendo may, or may not, turn out to be significant in a few weeks time – but we need a general election before we can judge either way.  In the meantime, they'd be best off keeping their positioning to themselves, and getting on with an election campaign for which they actually have some fairly attractive policies. This story, though, is worth noting down.  Apparently, in the event of a hung Parliament, Nick Clegg just couldn't bring himself to work with Gordon Brown.  Labour, perhaps (as both Clegg and Vince Cable suggested on air earlier).  Brown, no.

What is it about the Blairite passion for abstract nouns? I ask, not out of facetiousness, but because I want to know what they mean by loose terms such as ‘empowerment’. David Miliband joins James Purnell among the progressive left’s thinkers who are reimagining the relationship between state and citizen, and he gave a concept heavy, substance light speech to Demos this afternoon. I’ve read it a couple of times and can’t get my head round it. Peering through the glass darkly, the central concept is attractive: Miliband wants to give more power to the people. Some valid policies season his argument. For instance, the 1 week cancer pledge would be a victory for the consumer over the bureaucrat, if only it could be afforded.

An idea that has received little media attention in Britain, but is giving Foreign Office diplomats sleepless nights, is David Miliband’s push for a "regional stabilisation council" involving Pakistan, India and Afghanistan, to be unveiled at the international conference scheduled for January 28. The idea is seen as an innovate way to bring the three countries together, while at the same time allowing the Foreign Secretary, who will formally host the conference, to show leadership and initiative. The pretender to the post-election Labour throne needs something to get rid of his “Banana Boy” epithet. So far, however, the idea is not meeting with local support.

The Labour leadership drama now looks like it will take place in opposition not government. This will have an effect on the kind of leader Labour elects. If one of the coups against Brown had been successful, Labour would have almost certainly selected someone who could be presented as a credible Prime Minister from day one: a David Miliband, an Alan Johnson or - if they had gone for the caretaker option - Jack Straw. But in opposition, the Labour's electorate is likely to feel that it can pick someone who will grow into being a credible PM in opposition. At the moment, there are two people who everyone assumes is running and are making the necessary preparations: Ed Balls and David Miliband.

There's that prism I mentioned: Ed Miliband writes an article for the Observer, which ostensibly backs Gordon Brown in the first paragraph, and it's written up as the first, tentative step on his own leadership campaign.  Thing is, that's probably also true.  The clue is in how far he steps off his ministerial beat*, to deliver an overall prospectus for the Labour Party: "Let's start, as our manifesto will, with what the country needs in the coming five years. It can't be about business as usual. We need to rebuild our economy in a different way from the past, with more jobs in real engineering not just financial engineering.

A cracking post from Paul Waugh on the prospect of shadow cabinet elections for Labour.  For those who can't remember the last time they took place (14 years ago), they're the annual elections which Labour MPs hold, when in Opposition, to help determine who gets to sit on the front bench.  The party leader and deputy are immune from the process, but everyone else is subject to the whims, fancies and dispositions of all those backbenchers. In which case, Paul's observation about David Miliband is worth noting down: "Word is that David Miliband and Douglas Alexander would do disastrously, given their reputation for aloofness and failure to gladhand in the Tea Room.

Whatever took place yesterday – and there was certainly more to this plot than met the eye – the immediate danger to Gordon Brown seems to have fizzled out this morning.  Here's what David Miliband has just told the cameras: "No member of the government was involved in the letter - we are all determined to win the election under Gordon's leadership." Which is a good deal less ambiguous than the message he put out yesterday.   Now, there are two ways of looking at all this.  First, that there's enough Cabinet disatisfaction with Brown that another coup attempt has to be on the cards; that the revelations we've heard since last night mean that the plot – and not just the story – has legs.

David Miliband has learned a lot since last June. Then, he was bounced by Peter Mandelson into declaring his support for Brown within an hour or so of James Purnell’s resignation. Today, he waited hours to release a statement and then when he did it could hardly have been less supportive. Tonight when challenged by TV crews outside his home, he said with a straight face that his position is ‘entirely clear’ when it is anything but. Until he comes out unequivocally for Brown this ain’t over. The other news of the night is Eric Joyce’s claim that two Cabinet ministers had told Hoon and Hewitt they would resign and back their call for a secret ballot of the PLP.