In a triumph for Socialism over Social Democracy, for Unite Union over a united party and for comfort zones over marking zones ( David is a massive football fan), ‘Red Ed’ was declared new labour leader on Saturday after victory over his brother. That, at least, is what David Cameron and the nation’s Tory press will have you believe.
Manchester, the venue for Labour’s Party conference, is a city that knows only too well the symbolism of colour as a division. Dragging out the football talk a little too far; combining the terms ‘Red’ and ‘united’ in a sentence are sure to have at least half of the city listening, so perhaps the press are actually helping Miliband get his message across with their risible caricatures. Whether the smug declarations of satisfaction at the result, or the claims that the new Labour leader will be dancing to ‘The Internationale’ as Bob Crow pulls his strings are the genuine opinions of those at the top of the ‘Con-Dem’ coalition or a ploy to undermine his credibility, they should be genuinely scrutinized.
Yes, indeed, it was the votes of the Union members that secured Ed Miliband a victory as narrow as the UK’s current political spectrum, and yes, he did employ populist left-wing rhetoric in his campaign, but does this really make him a weak leader? In fact, the truth is the opposite. Displaying the ruthlessness and political nous that his, admittedly talented, brother lacked and Cameron should fear, Miliband made a decisive call on how to win the leadership race. With his brother secure as favourite, and inevitably the victor on first preference and MP votes, Ed had only one way to win. He had to appeal to the unions and ensure they endorsed him, and had to appeal to voters on the left of the party to at least ensure the second preferences of Diane Abbott and Ed Balls supporters. He did this with campaign pledges for a ‘living wage’ and high pay commissions, but the majority of his policies remained in the centre ground with his brother. In essence; he appealed to Labour’s base with rhetoric that was neither empty nor fully-fledged, leaving his ideology and chances of post-election credibility intact with detailed policies that barely distinguish him as to the left of his brother, let alone the modern equivalent of Michael Foot.
This was a full-blown display of political chutzpah, and one that paid off. Ed Miliband is well-known for his geeky charm and oddly appealing comfort as a speaker, but here he showed a whole new side to himself. If they insist upon characterising him as ‘Red Ed’, complacently dismissing him as a Union hack; lacking the experience and the back bone to define himself as a leader in his own terms, then the electorate may well be urged to take a closer look for themselves. This, combined with the ruthless drive to succeed that Miliband has shown in his leadership campaign may just leave the Tories feeling blue come 2015.
