To stand or not to stand? That is the question for David Miliband. The answer
is almost certainly no, but he has yet to say unequivocally that he will not
challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership of the Labour party.
The doubts about Brown grow daily. The budget was a flop. With its mirage tax
cuts he was tricky just when he needed to be straightforward. The gale of
criticism over his decision 10 years ago to take more tax from pension funds
abated last week, but only because Des Browne, his key political ally, was
caught in a hurricane of contempt after allowing the Royal Navy hostages to
sell their stories. The attack on Brown’s style by Lord Turnbull, the former
cabinet secretary, continues to resonate at Westminster with embellishments
from at least some of those who have dealt with the chancellor at close
quarters.
The critical unknown for Miliband is the election result in Scotland. That
makes him hold off saying in precise terms that wild horses would not drag
him into the contest.
Even professional politicians can never know in advance how bad a result needs
to be to provoke political mayhem. For example, when John Major offered
himself for reelection as Tory leader in 1995, nobody could say for sure
exactly what figures would mean death for his premiership. His survival was
settled in the minutes after the result was known. His supporters “spun”
that he had done well enough and the world agreed.
The chancellor’s men must be planning a similar operation to explain how in
the Holyrood elections a rout of Labour by the Scottish National party
somehow implies a national hunger to be governed by Brown. Will the
chancellor’s opponents be bold enough to argue, as the dismal results flow
in, that Labour must look elsewhere for leadership?
The timing of the elections north of the border is delicious. Brown worries
Labour because he represents a Scottish seat. English resentment is rising
against Scottish representatives at Westminster who decide, for instance,
what fees English students must pay at university while their own
constituents are educated for nothing.
To counter that, Brown’s supporters contend that at least he commands the vast
Labour regiment of Scottish MPs who are vital for victory at Westminster.
But defeat in the Scottish elections will suggest that Brown is unpopular
with Scottish voters as well as English.
So it is just possible that in the cold light of dawn on Friday May 4 the
Labour party, steered by some skilful spinning, could hit the panic button
and decide that to elect Brown is to choose opposition. Unless that happens,
it is hard to see how Miliband can muster enough MPs’ votes even to be
nominated.
He just has to wait and see. That is not as comfortable as it sounds. He has
to deal with the intense media interest in him and not appear to enjoy it
too much. That is not easy when you are just 41. As I know from experience,
much though you tell yourself that flattery should not go to your head, it
does. The chancellor may not be the only one seething every time Miliband’s
grinning features adorn the evening news.
Miliband will remind himself that the focus has shifted to him not because of
his political virtues and charisma. The media are desperate for a
challenger. Brown is an old story, painfully familiar to us all.
Many people yearn for a contest and because David Blunkett, Charles Clarke,
Alan Milburn and John Reid have all fallen along the way, Miliband is the
only alternative left standing. Maybe he occupies that position only because
we know almost nothing about him and he has done so little of note in his
brief parliamentary career.
If Miliband were a candidate in a Tory leadership election he would be a
certain winner. Major, William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron
were chosen mainly because they were unknown. The rule does not apply within
the Labour party, but still Miliband’s relative obscurity remains his
strongest card. It is, by definition, a diminishing asset.
For the moment Miliband’s greatest danger is that ambiguity is unattractive.
When Major resigned and stood again for leader I did not want to oppose him,
but neither did I want to close the possibility of entering a second ballot
if it came to that.
Even if Miliband does not commit the error (as I did) of installing
precautionary telephone lines in a putative campaign headquarters, his
refusal to rule himself out must attract Brown’s ire. By contrast, Jack
Straw never sat on the fence. He is Brown’s campaign manager and is assured
of preferment if his horse wins.
To be “willing to wound and yet afraid to strike” is dishonourable and
undignified. Miliband must take care because his conduct during these next
weeks could do him lasting damage. At any moment the chancellor’s men might
switch from trying to woo him to blackening his name. It would not be hard
to do.
What are the risks of standing? He would place himself for all time on Brown’s
hate list, but maybe Miliband has already offended the chancellor enough to
join that throng.
The problem is not being hated bya powerful man, but being hated and being
weak. If the young pretender pushes forward and achieves only a humiliating
level of support he will be finished.
Margaret Thatcher always had a tetchy relationship with Jim Prior, the old
guard Tory MP. When he left the room after a meeting with her she would
often chortle behind his back “Nineteen votes!” — a sneering reference to
his derisory score in the 1975 leadership contest, which she had won with
146.
It is important for Miliband to distrust all advice. An electorate made up of
MPs and trade union leaders is canny to the point of being devious. The task
of assessing the voters’ real intentions is not to be entrusted to amateurs.
The campaign team needs all the warm-hearted qualities of the Stasi to get
near the truth. It is a real challenge to do that while denying the
existence of any campaign.
Those who want Miliband to run will happily assert on flimsy evidence that he
has adequate support. He would be foolish to believe them. When I stood for
the Tory leadership in 2001 my team assured me that the campaign would be
tantamount to a coronation. I came third.
A prospective candidate must grasp that those who support him are not
necessarily on his side. They are pursuing their own interests and, quite
simply, a Miliband candidacy suits them for the moment. If Clarke, Reid,
Milburn or Peter Mandelson backs him that does not mean that his welfare is
uppermost among their concerns. They want to give Brown a beating and
Miliband is merely the nearest stick to hand.
There are clearly more reasons for Miliband to hold back than to go forward.
If he wants to capitalise on a decision not to challenge Brown he had better
make that clear soon. If he waits for the Scottish results and then shies
away, Brown will conclude that he had hostile intent and only weakness made
him stand aside.
On the other hand, the premiership of the United Kingdom is almost within
Miliband’s grasp, as it was for me in 1995. Unlike Cameron, Miliband could
be prime minister without winning a general election, without even having to
wait. He could be in No 10 by the end of June.
If he does not grab it now, the opportunity may never recur. Brown will become
leader, might lose the general election and condemn Labour to a decade in
opposition. By which time Miliband will be a has-been, his best years spent
fruitlessly harassing the Cameron government, for ever marked by his failure
to seize the day, consigned to history as a vacillator. I can tell Miliband
that this does not feel good.
Go on, David, give it a try. You know you can trust my disinterested advice.
