So the results are in and Ed has pipped his big brother to the Labour leadership by 51% to 49%. Not that a small winning margin necessarily dilutes one’s margin. Deputy Prime Minister Clegg beat Chris Huhne by a tiny amount and he’s done alright for himself.
I suspect it is less the scoreline that will undermine Ed and more a cantankerous Balls as Shadow Chancellor, a man with an unswerving, unnerving belief in his own abilities who may struggle to shout his ego down and stop believing that he should really be in charge. Will those internal briefing reflexes kick in if it doesn’t work out with Ed in charge? We’ll have to wait and see.
Similarly, I can’t see David Miliband wanting to go through this ordeal only to remain as Shadow Foreign Minister for four long years. I wonder if big brother is considering the private sector.
On policy, the cheers from the Tory HQ will have been genuine but potentially misguided. Genuine because Ed’s assertion that Darling’s pre-election stance of halving the budget in 4 years is ‘just the beginning’ suggests a worryingly complacent return to increasing spending but misplaced because although the coalition-friendly media’s narrative is that Cameron has won the argument on cutting the deficit, we don’t have the detail of this year’s £9bn of cuts, let alone next year’s £41bn. If the public is thinking that Osborne isn’t so bad as Chancellor after all then they may be ignorant to the wave of pain that’s on its way.
What say the Greens? Well, I suspect that their already stifled voices will be even harder to hear now as Ed’s genuine green credentials are more than sufficient for a regrettably disinterested public.
Another aspect to this result is that strong union support for Ed suggests weak MP support. How quickly will Alan Johnson, Tom Harris, Jim Murphy etc slide their support for David as squarely behind Ed? I suspect Labour’s period of introspection will continue largely unabated.
The new Labour leader may have the unions on his side and the policies in his corner, but does he have his party at his back?
#1 by James on September 26, 2010 - 10:16 am
“Ed’s genuine green credentials”? Nah, I don’t see it.
Defending Heathrow’s third runway
Clean coal? No such thing
Backing nukes
Sticking to Trident
Etc..
#2 by Jeff on September 26, 2010 - 10:24 am
Fair enough James, you seem well prepared for this.
Do you accept that the win for Ed (rather than David or Ed Balls) leaves the Greens with less space on the political spectrum to work with?
#3 by James on September 26, 2010 - 7:20 pm
It’s pretty early to come to a conclusion on his impact, but my initial sense is that minor change will be easier now he’s in charge, with more substantial change now even harder to come by.
Also, it’s two questions, really: how will his leadership affect our chances of getting elected, and how will it affect inter-party relationships between electons?
#4 by James on September 26, 2010 - 7:22 pm
Which is the distinction Mike’s interesting post below draws too..
#5 by Mike Shaughnessy on September 26, 2010 - 7:18 pm
My thoughts on the result and what it may mean for the Greens here…
http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2010/09/ed-miliband-elected-leader-of-labour.html
#6 by Jeff on September 26, 2010 - 8:04 pm
Thanks Mike, good post. I agree that it’s probably overall a good result for the Greens because more cooperation is possible.
Not sure if I agree with James that “substantial change” is less likely. My impression is that Ed will go for it if he is convinced so as long as the evidence against status quo Capitalism and insipid attempts to fight Climate Change mount up, there is a fair chance Ed will take on radical policies on behalf of Labour.
But yes, far too early to say either way.
#7 by Douglas McLellan on September 27, 2010 - 1:33 am
“If the public is thinking that Osborne isn’t so bad as Chancellor after all then they may be ignorant to the wave of pain that’s on its way.”
I really don’t think that this is the case. At the election my dad and many like him said it didn’t matter who won the election as afterwards we are all buggered anyway. Labour (and every other opposition voice in Westminster and the devolved nations) has the problem in that they are not effectively communicating a credible alternative. Clegg offered savage cuts and even Darling said they would be worse than Thatcher.
As for green issues then I think that your line about a disinterested public is key. If the cuts are going to result in the outcry that many predict then green policies will need to focus on creating jobs and economic growth rather than taxes that put the cost of living up.