David Miliband on Ed: "He's going to lead the party in the way he sees fit. He's going to lead it with conviction and purpose."Indeed! That is all good. But, can he win? Because according to Dan Hodges in The New Statesman this is tantamount to political suicide. I can understand and respect Labour re-appraising its roots, especially after Tony Blair and his entourage made sure through his mediated discourse to alienate just about everyone with his "New" Labour political discourse, but I also want Labour to win. If Miliband, instead of engaging a precarious balance that would rally the diverse coalition of forces that support this Party, is appealing to just his base, I fear that we're going to see conservatives and liberal democrats peddling their dysfunctional policy for the long term.
Opposition politics as process and practice is in itself complicated. If handled poorly it can result in bitter, unproductive sentiments for a former party-of-government. Well-handled, it means engaging in a constructive critique of government policy, offering suggestions in the name of the public interest and good governance, and denouncing the incumbents when they opt to ignore or side-step the opposition. All of this has to be done while projecting an image of government-in-waiting. Don't misunderstand me, I think Ed Miliband has what it takes. he seems a reasonable, well-centered, politician. It's the phrase 'rip up the rule book' that worries me. I agree with Hodges when he says that, from opposition, it is an unwise strategy, especially if you need to reach beyond your political base to get elected. Talking about 'changing the consensus' without any reflective approach to it could mean disaster for Labour, especially in this juncture. If the political-economy consensus is what made Great Britain the polity that is today, then a smarter approach needs to be considered. Smarter means not uncritical, if the dynamics of the market brought us to this, then the fault is not only with them but with the regulatory state. Miliband does have his political heart in the right place,
"It's about everything from inequality to the vested interests who think they're immune from democracy, to employers who don't exercise responsibility, to the triumph of finance over industry . . . It's about an ethic of take-what-you-can, something-for-nothing, the short term, the fast buck."Again, this should not mean a break, nor an aggressive approach, but an assertive one. The labour leader couldn't have put it better: "It's about... responsibility and solidarity". What Labour and Miliband and the living, progressive political forces that support them should push for is a better, effective, unobtrusive, and assertive Regulatory State, one that opens up a democratic space were everyone, even private enterprise, is subject to public scrutiny. For this they need the press, and not just the ones sympathetic to Labour. One thing is to break with the Murdochs, another altogether is to redefine their relationship with them. Labour in opposition and, hopefully, in government needs not be subservient to them (like Tony Blair), but procure a working relationship (with other media outlets too) in the public interest, which is what, Labour should remind them, they serve.
Democratic accountability is the key phrase here. Labour soon-in-government should shape policy along assertive lines, to govern for the common good and the Crown, to instill progressive values of governance in British society, not solely project them from Parliament. The rules can be bent and adapted...from government. A break for the sake of radical change without regards for the political centre can be catastrophic, a repeat of the 'longest suicide note'.
The next election is Miliband's and Labour's to lose.
Tell me what you think...
