So David Miliband has resigned from politics to run the International Rescue Committee charity in New York. He has described the job as his “dream job” and many have begun to eulogize a political career that was relatively brief at only 12 years, ending at the relatively meagre age of 47. This is itself reflects the increasingly youthful nature of politics with Cameron and Clegg both in their mid-40s and looking set to end their frontline political careers in their early 50s at the latest – a time when politicians used to begin their careers.
Written By William Barns-Graham
The reality is that since Ed Miliband’s victory in the leadership contest of 2010, this moment has been kind of inevitable. The loss was a near fatal blow to David’s chances of Labour leadership at any stage and in this sense, Miliband had already passed his peak in power – his role as Foreign Secretary, a role many believe he fulfilled relatively well. He had been touted as a future Labour leader because of his success in the position and was even rumored to be considering a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown in the more lugubrious moments of Labour’s last stint in power – a hinted at leadership challenge that undermined both the party and his chances in the actual leadership contest following Labour’s defeat, such was its difficult timing.
The general feel from many who are not permanently aligned with the Labour party is that in choosing Ed over David, the party may have lost out on the more Prime Ministerial leader. David has always seemed to exude a greater charisma and eloquence in his political career, exhibiting a thoughtfulness and insight that would have truly benefitted the party’s leadership. Although no political saint, he seemed far less prone to the inane politicizing that Ed Miliband has approached the leadership with, making every speech a matter of rebuttal rather than a case for proactive leadership. While we’ll never know how David would have lead the party differently, there always seemed to be a more intelligent and proactive feel to his demeanor rather than the more cynical and less assertive demeanor of his brother.
Ed’s appeal was directed towards the traditional Labour party supporter as he pledged to realign the party with the unions and with the anti-Tory vote, snubbing the New Labour centralism that David was perhaps more shaped by. Of course, many had simply had enough of New Labour and David was seen by many as a ‘new Tony’, too much spin and too little genuine substance. Having now left politics, arguments over David Miliband’s success and likability as a politician can now be looked back with the ennui of ‘what if’ rather than the scorn that will follow his incumbent brother, and this will of course favour him in the annals of modern history. But for the many non-union affiliated left-central leaning liberal (in the genuine sense) thinkers, a Labour lead by David would have had a greater attraction than the more antagonistic Ed-led version of the party.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Labour would almost certainly win the election if they had a leader who gripped the minds of swinging voters just a little, but his lack of charisma and the absence of clarity in his ideas and arguments makes him far more difficult to support than someone like David, who appeared to exude greater sincerity. Without wanting to make this seem like a eulogy of praise for the befallen Miliband, it should be noted that losing that leadership contest has of course helped to preserve his reputation from the damage that actual leadership entails; but you can’t help feeling that David is a lot more Prime Ministerial than Ed will ever be. He leaves politics in an almost graceful way going on to a charitable venture that vindicates his good intentions as a politician and at the same time removing his dragging presence on his incumbent brother.
Where does this lead Labour? Well they were always going to have to persevere with Ed Miliband going into the next election and the possibility of Ed as PM is strong – he could find out, as Cameron and Clegg have, how much easier being an opposition leader is compared to being the leader in power. But what Labour have definitely lost is a figure with experience and a hint of popularity among the generally scornful population. Take the current foreign security William Hague. He is someone who lost out as Tory leader in an election that came way too soon for him as a politician, but his experience and retained favour with much of the right in the country has allowed him to be a reassuring and relatively popular character in the Tory cabinet. With politicians becoming younger by the day, experience of being cabinet from previous tenures is invaluable, alas Labour’s desire to keep hold of previous cabinet members like Jack Straw and Alisdair Darling, who have had the benefit of being able to look back on previous failures and mistakes with a sense of wizened experience. The mix of this retrospect and the forward-going dynamism of youth is invaluable to any working team, let alone the cabinet.
Labour as a whole has lost an already dimming star but it has also lost one of its evidently more intelligent and thoughtful politicians. Considering the comparative zealousness and negative antagonism of others in the Labour leadership, such thoughtful charisma would have been very useful for a party who may have to be running the country much sooner than anyone had previously thought.
Daily Sun Breaking News: Get the technology advantage you need to stay ahead of the competition. New payment processing services help you migrate your pos system to the cloud. Works with Visa Mastercard and Discover Processors.
