Rupert Darwall: The End of the 'Blair Aberration'
[Mr. Darwall's book, "Global Warming: A Short History," is being published by Quartet Books next year.]
"David, what have I done to David?" Ed Miliband asked his campaign manager after he had learned that he had just beaten his brother to win the Labour Party leadership election on Saturday. Profuse expressions of fraternal love from both brothers followed.
Then in his main speech on Tuesday, the new Labour leader gave his real answer by denouncing the Iraq war. It was an easy position for the younger Miliband to take as he only entered parliament in 2005, so hadn't been put in the awkward position of having to vote for it before he was against it. The elder brother's face froze. Not only had David voted for it, whatever private qualms he might have had about the original decision, as foreign secretary for three and a half years, it was his job to defend it. Having beaten David to the leadership of their party, younger brother Ed was now driving him out of front-line politics altogether.
But now that he's won the leadership, Ed Miliband faces a handicap. He declared himself the candidate of change—he made the point six times in his short acceptance speech on Saturday—but won as the candidate of continuity, appealing to Labour members who saw the Blair years as some kind of aberration.
Whereas David Cameron and Tony Blair defined their leadership bids as challenges to their parties' settled beliefs, Mr. Miliband used the route previously taken by Harold Wilson in the 1960s and Neil Kinnock in the 1980s, of appealing to the Left to become Labour leader. With his brother having the support of leading Blairites, he had little choice if he was serious about winning. His victory was not, the press was told, a lurch to the Left. But pictures of Neil Kinnock unable to contain his joy and the quiet satisfaction of the trade union dinosaurs who had given Mr. Miliband his margin of victory told a different story...
Read entire article at WSJ
"David, what have I done to David?" Ed Miliband asked his campaign manager after he had learned that he had just beaten his brother to win the Labour Party leadership election on Saturday. Profuse expressions of fraternal love from both brothers followed.
Then in his main speech on Tuesday, the new Labour leader gave his real answer by denouncing the Iraq war. It was an easy position for the younger Miliband to take as he only entered parliament in 2005, so hadn't been put in the awkward position of having to vote for it before he was against it. The elder brother's face froze. Not only had David voted for it, whatever private qualms he might have had about the original decision, as foreign secretary for three and a half years, it was his job to defend it. Having beaten David to the leadership of their party, younger brother Ed was now driving him out of front-line politics altogether.
But now that he's won the leadership, Ed Miliband faces a handicap. He declared himself the candidate of change—he made the point six times in his short acceptance speech on Saturday—but won as the candidate of continuity, appealing to Labour members who saw the Blair years as some kind of aberration.
Whereas David Cameron and Tony Blair defined their leadership bids as challenges to their parties' settled beliefs, Mr. Miliband used the route previously taken by Harold Wilson in the 1960s and Neil Kinnock in the 1980s, of appealing to the Left to become Labour leader. With his brother having the support of leading Blairites, he had little choice if he was serious about winning. His victory was not, the press was told, a lurch to the Left. But pictures of Neil Kinnock unable to contain his joy and the quiet satisfaction of the trade union dinosaurs who had given Mr. Miliband his margin of victory told a different story...