tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/david-miliband-11573/articlesDavid Miliband – The Conversation2016-05-09T16:34:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/591122016-05-09T16:34:26Z2016-05-09T16:34:26ZCameron was not predicting war – and he is right to raise Brexit security fear<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-uks-strength-and-security-in-the-eu-9-may-2016">David Cameron attempted</a> to inject some passion into his mission for the UK to remain a member of the EU by making a “big, bold patriotic case” for membership.</p>
<p>His speech is being read as a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-36244436">warning</a> that Brexit poses a security risk to the rest of Europe – which assumes that there is an ever-present risk of it descending into war and genocide.</p>
<p>It would be arrogant to suggest that the UK alone prevents Europe-wide chaos but the real risk, it seems, is that the exit of the UK could lead to the exit of other member states. The risk being alluded to is of an unstable Europe which is not bound together by the same ties that bind the EU.</p>
<p>Cameron played down the risk of other states, particularly in central and eastern Europe, wanting to leave. But given some of the populist and extreme politics emerging in some of the member states, it is a risk that should not be dismissed.</p>
<p>There has long been debate about the role the EU plays in maintaining peace on the continent. It was awarded the <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2012/eu-facts.html">Nobel Peace Prize in 2012</a> and the pooling of resources and sovereignty in some areas means that the EU has done what other international organisations or alliances, such as NATO, cannot. </p>
<p>The UK’s decision to join the EU in 1973 was nevertheless seen as being based more on economic pragmatism than a desire to forge a common European destiny. But the extent to which the legal and economic systems have now been intertwined in the long history of the EU mean that Cameron has missed a trick in linking the single market to the achievement of peace. The whole purpose of economic interdependency was to make war not just improbable, but unthinkable between European states.</p>
<p>Cameron did not say that Brexit would lead to war. He spoke of “maintaining common purpose” within Europe and questioned whether we can be so sure that “peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt”. This again is a pragmatic argument designed to point the electorate in the direction of what we know works, rather than what it does not know. The risk is instability in its many forms – not only military conflict.</p>
<p>Cameron also used the opportunity to confront claims that the EU is preventing the UK from having a foreign policy of its own. EU membership has not stopped British cooperation with other states in the Commonwealth or beyond or activities within NATO.</p>
<h2>A cautious approach</h2>
<p>EU <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT&from=EN">foreign policy</a> is a curious animal. It is an area (along with social welfare, education and aspects of healthcare) in which member states have been reluctant to pursue integration to the same extent as others. Foreign policy is rather different to the law of the single market, for example, which is both detailed, wide-ranging and generally subject to majority voting in the EU Council.</p>
<p>Member states must vote unanimously on foreign policy decisions and the European Court of Justice does not have the power to overrule national foreign policy. This has led to European foreign policy being characterised as “intergovernmental”, since the national governments remain largely in charge.</p>
<p>The foreign policy provisions were amended in the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm">Lisbon Treaty</a>. Upon signing, David Miliband, then foreign minister (and the man chosen to introduce Cameron’s speech), said the treaty <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080220/debtext/80220-0008.htm">ring-fenced</a> foreign policy away from other areas of European integration. He argued that the sovereignty of the member states was being protected. </p>
<p>While the EU has the institutional machinery in place to be a more effective international actor, it is clear from the treaty that this cannot happen unless all the member states make definite (and unanimous) choices about the direction they want it to take.</p>
<p>Of course the UK would by no means be able to influence the remaining EU member states or institutions from the outside. While we often think about foreign policy in terms of military action, sanctions, or even trade, Cameron used the interesting example of combatting Ebola as an issue that requires a joint response. This is very much a practical, response-driven scenario which deserves to be considered alongside more traditional aspects of foreign policy.</p>
<p>He is also correct to point to the very complex legal arrangements which underpin the relationship between the EU and non-EU states. In the case of Brexit, if the UK does want to be involved in confronting common challenges alongside the rest of the planet, then the bureaucracy involved in putting in place agreements would be far more onerous than is the case at present and would prevent getting to the heart of the matters which affect us all.</p>
<p>All told, Cameron’s pitch for the UK was not quite a “big, bold” vision for either the UK or the EU in the future. Rather, his view of the UK as being better off sitting at the European table while the decisions are made is firmly calculated to speak to the “obstinately practical” British public, who are wary of grand schemes.</p>
<p>Despite the headlines, his warning about peace in Europe is less about the prospect of war in Europe or scaremongering and more about the external factors causing instability in Europe and across the globe. In reading the public in this way, he is counting on the electorate preferring what they know to what they do not know.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul James Cardwell is Treasurer of the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES). He has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council as part of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils.</span></em></p>The prime minister’s security speech has been labelled fear mongering.Paul James Cardwell, Reader in EU External Relations Law, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/430792015-06-10T13:57:54Z2015-06-10T13:57:54ZLabour should forget ‘Saint’ David Miliband – he fluffed his chance<p>One of the many problems faced by Harold Wilson after he became Labour leader in 1963 was heading a team dominated by supporters of his immediate predecessor. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_3376000/3376971.stm">Hugh Gaitskell</a> had died suddenly, leaving his political friends understandably bereft.</p>
<p>Wilson was one of Gaitskell’s most prominent opponents and, as things went from bad to worse during his 1964-70 government, arch-Gaitskellites spent their evenings wishing Saint Hugh, the Man of Principle, was alive to save Labour from disaster. It was hard for Wilson to compete with a man whose qualities became ever more superhuman after his passing.</p>
<p>In the same way, Ed Miliband’s leadership of the Labour party was dogged by the reputation of his brother David from the start. David was the candidate supported by most of the shadow cabinet when the two took each other on in the 2010 leadership race.</p>
<p>Some accused Ed of political fratricide and many more declared that Labour had chosen the wrong brother. Many predicted disaster, one apparently confirmed by the result of the 2015 election. Journalism’s most erudite Blairite John Rentoul declared that 2015 was <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/election-2015-david-miliband-could-have-won-it-for-labour-10234473.html">“an election that Labour could have won, and David Miliband could have won it”</a>. Reinforcing that view, David has recently suggested that under Ed the party took the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/10/david-miliband-labour-has-turned-the-page-backwards">wrong course</a>. </p>
<p>Such calculations are based on two assumptions. The first is that if the party had fully embraced austerity and recanted for overspending in office, Labour’s poor economic reputation would have improved. The other is that David would have been a more credible leader than Ed. </p>
<p>As I argue in <a href="http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198748953.do">Britain Votes 2015</a>, a forthcoming book on the campaign, the two basic reasons for Labour’s defeat were its grim reputation for economic management and Ed Miliband’s terrible ratings as a potential prime minister. </p>
<p>So entrenched is public prejudice on the subject of the economy, it is unlikely anything said by any Labour leader would have helped the party dent the myth that it was responsible for the deficit.</p>
<h2>Chances missed, chances passed</h2>
<p>But would David have been a more credible potential prime minister? The first thing we should consider is David’s inability to take tough decisions. When Tony Blair resigned as leader, David, despite much encouragement, bottled his chance to stand against Gordon Brown. He probably would have lost but at least Labour might have had the chance to debate the issues while Miliband would have shown his mettle.</p>
<p>Having fluffed that chance, Miliband dithered in 2008 and 2009 while Brown’s premiership crumbled. In the end he refused to oust Brown – and Labour went down to a greater defeat in 2010 than might otherwise have been the case.</p>
<p>One reason Gaitskell aroused such hero worship was his willingness to make hard choices: he called for the revision of Clause Four in 1959 and faced-down the 1960 Labour conference’s support for unilateralism. By contrast, David Miliband tended to avoid the difficult decisions. </p>
<p>When Brown stood down as leader, David Miliband regarded the top job as his by right – and his leadership campaign assumed the character of a victory lap. But once Ed started to mount a credible challenge, David’s team descended into threats and vituperation. At some hustings David seemed one slight away from a hissy fit. Yet, had he not been so arrogant and gone out of his way to talk to more MPs, he might actually have won.</p>
<p>David’s narrow defeat to Ed understandably hurt. But what followed has only confirmed the impression of a precious and entitled politician. Realising bridges needed to be rebuilt in a divided party, Ed immediately offered David the job of shadow chancellor – but he spurned the chance.</p>
<p>When Alan Johnson resigned as shadow chancellor a few months later, David was again offered the post but declined it once more. Yet, had he accepted, David could have significantly influenced the party’s direction – a direction he now claims was wrong. Instead he resigned as an MP in 2013 to lead the <a href="http://www.rescue.org/david-miliband">International Rescue Committee</a> in New York. There he remains, a Blairite “Prince over the Water”, issuing damning judgments about a party for which he abdicated responsibility.</p>
<h2>Closing the book</h2>
<p>It is of course possible that David – a highly intelligent and talented man – could have overcome his shortcomings and become an effective leader. But would he have survived one of the most sustained campaigns of character assassination in modern British politics – the one that turned his brother Ed into a comic character?</p>
<p>As the <a href="http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2015/05/labour-must-behead-its-failed-aristocracy/">former MP Eric Joyce has written</a>, David “just isn’t very good at talking to people or expressing himself plausibly one-to-one without using silly black-box, wonk-type language”. Ed’s 2010 campaign team exploited this flaw by claiming it was their man who “speaks human”. </p>
<p>Just imagine: a less “human” Ed Miliband. For make no mistake the right-wing press would have done to David what they did to Ed, and with equally devastating results for his public image. Long before Ed had his <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/06/sun-ed-miliband-labour-mail-telegraph-election">bacon sandwich</a>, David had his banana: and they both share the same father, the one <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html">the Daily Mail claimed “hated Britain”</a>. </p>
<p>I don’t know if David would have made a worse leader than his brother but nor do those who perpetuate the David Myth have any idea if he would have made a better one. And as Labour decides on its future direction – and leadership candidates continue to put the boot into Ed – it’s worth questioning whether it should take the unsolicited advice of Saint David or make its own decisions about the next five years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43079/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Fielding is a member of the Labour party.</span></em></p>Why do people continue to think the former Foreign Secretary would have made a better leader than his brother, Ed?Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/419912015-05-19T05:11:17Z2015-05-19T05:11:17ZUnite’s break with Labour: bluff, bluster and empty threats<p>Many on the Labour left are keen to point out that the party owes its existence to the trade union movement. Likewise, the unions do their best to make sure Labour doesn’t forget its heritage. Traditionally, the unions have had a great deal of say in the election of the party leader. But the current contest has ignited debate about the unions’ role in Labour’s future, after Unite union leader <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32777771">Len McCluskey said</a> that his organisation would “rethink” its relationship with the party, unless it could represent “the voice of organised labour”. </p>
<p>The curious thing about Ed Miliband’s leadership was his redefinition of Labour’s relationship with the unions. The left-leaning Miliband was propelled into office with their help, after Unite orchestrated his election over his Blairite brother, David. Miliband went on to shift Labour further to the left than it had been for years, almost as a sop to the unions. Unfortunately, the May 7 election proved that “Project Miliband” – which rejected Blairism and the centre ground – has put Labour back years. </p>
<p>Now that <a href="https://theconversation.com/milibandism-crushed-at-the-polls-but-ed-doomed-from-the-start-41525">Miliband has resigned</a>, the main imperative for the Labour party is to elect a new leader. McCluskey told the BBC’s John Pienaar that “it is essential that the correct leader emerges”. The unions would prefer a short, sharp leadership contest as that would favour Andy Burnham, their preferred candidate. But acting Labour leader Harriet Harman has scuppered that dream with a longer contest, culminating with the party conference in September. </p>
<p>It’s true that there would be little point in electing a new leader until the party has done some soul-searching and re-established itself. The leader needs something tangible to lead. But when McCluskey called for a debate about the direction in which labour needs to go, there was no doubt that he meant a shift to the left. Even so, much of McCluskey’s tirade can be seen as bluff, bluster, and empty threats. Indeed, he has already made <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/len-mccluskey-backtracks-on-unite-labour-comments-1-3776085">an attempt to backtrack</a> on his comments, saying that the union has “no plans to disaffiliate from Labour”.</p>
<p>Whether they like it or not, the unions – while having an important role – have become detached from reality. David Miliband was right <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/11/david-miliband-criticises-brother-ed-labour-blairite">when he said</a> that Labour lost the election because they failed to be the party of aspiration and inclusiveness. Yet the unions still cling to yesterday’s working class rhetoric, despite having less power in the workplace, because of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313768/bis-14-p77-trade-union-membership-statistical-bulletin-2013.pdf">stagnant membership</a>. Likewise, they have less influence over government, because they speak yesterday’s language.</p>
<h2>One member, one vote</h2>
<p>Last year, Miliband also attempted to mitigate the unions’ influence, by changing the leadership election rules. He introduced the one member, one vote (OMOV) system, under which every member – whether an affiliate or full member – gets an equal vote. The argument was that, in the wake of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25279685">Falkirk by-election scandal</a>, OMOV would remove the block vote, giving the unions back to their members.</p>
<p>As a result of these changes, the unions have seen their collective power swept away. But if they are able to mobilise their members, they could be back in business. The problem for the unions is that they were caught napping. So confident were they that Labour would oust the Tories from government that, with the exception of Unison, they failed to encourage individual union members to join the party. </p>
<p>If they are successful in getting union members to sign up, it could give them more influence over who leads the party than they have ever had. There are around 4m members of Labour-affiliated unions and <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4438615.ece">roughly 221,000 other party members</a>. If the unions can get just 20% to affiliate and vote for their preferred leader, they will be calling the shots. </p>
<p>The unions may be optimistic but there will be a number of worried people in the Labour ranks. They know that a significant shift to the left could go against Labour at the polls in 2020. This is something the unions seem to be ignoring. There is no point in foisting a leader on the party who cannot win the next election. The main concern for Labour must be the prospect of losing the £11m donated by the unions last year. Without that they would find it difficult to operate, unless they can attract funding from business – and that wouldn’t go down well with the unions. </p>
<p>It could be that Miliband was right all along. The new rules could well ensure that the Labour leader is the choice of the membership, rather than that of the union leadership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alf Crossman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Len McCluskey needs to snap back to reality, if he wants to see Labour in government.Alf Crossman, Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations and HRM, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/415702015-05-10T08:35:07Z2015-05-10T08:35:07ZIs back to the future what is best for Labour after Ed Miliband?<p>If victors get to define the reasons for their victory, then losers just get told why they’ve lost. Within hours – minutes even – of the announcement of the shock BBC exit poll at 10pm on May 7, Ed Miliband was being informed in no uncertain terms why he had done so badly by an army of observers, critics and supposed party comrades.</p>
<p>It is ridiculous to imagine that in such a short space of time anyone can properly explain why Labour’s performance was so disappointing. We still don’t know <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-polls-got-it-so-wrong-in-the-british-election-41530">why all the opinion polls</a> were so out of alignment with the final result. Did they consistently over-estimate Labour support in the campaign or was there a late defection to the Conservatives? These things matter.</p>
<p>But political debate rarely stops for the lack of adequate data. As a consequence, in the wake of this and every other Labour disaster at the polls, prejudice often masquerades as analysis. Most infamously, Labour’s third defeat in a row in 1959 saw party leader <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AtYj5rI0MvUC&pg=PA67&dq=steven+fielding+gaitskell+clause+four+1959&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bMFNVdy7EMHq7Aa11IHwAw&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=steven%20fielding%20gaitskell%20clause%20four%201959&f=false">Hugh Gaitskell and his revisionist cohorts</a> in academia and the media blame its association with nationalisation. But they had long been critical of nationalisation and blatantly sought to use defeat to ditch Labour’s constitutional commitment to public ownership. It was arguable, however, that Gaitskell’s own campaign blunders had harmed his party more. But he still plunged Labour into years of bitter and harmful division.</p>
<h2>Blairites seize their chance</h2>
<p>In the same way, Miliband’s many Blairite critics have formed an orderly queue to tell us why he lost. The columnist John Rentoul <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/election-2015-david-miliband-could-have-won-it-for-labour-10234473.html">has already written</a> that 2015 “was an election that Labour could have won, and David Miliband could have won it”. </p>
<p>After beating his brother for the leadership in 2010, Rentoul and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11591320/Why-did-Labour-lose-this-election-It-never-tried-to-win-it.html">the Blairite blogger Dan Hodges</a>, insist Miliband should have admitted that Labour had spent too much money in office and signed up to much of the Cameron government’s austerity programme rather than opposing it.</p>
<p>Theirs is the prevailing view among many leading Labour parliamentarians, most of whom wanted David Miliband for leader. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/08/guardian-view-labour-defeat-failure-storytelling-strategy?CMP=share_btn_tw">According to</a> Pat McFadden, the shadow Europe minister, and a figure close to Blair, defeat flowed from Ed Miliband “turning the page on New Labour” and his failure to appeal to “the aspirational family that wants to do well”. “We need”, McFadden continued, “to speak about wealth creation and not just wealth distribution.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"596941398936522752"}"></div></p>
<p>Labour’s appalling performance in Scotland and its inability to win more than a few marginal constituencies in England certainly needs explanation. But is the answer, in effect, going back to 1997 and what <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/election-2015-david-miliband-could-have-won-it-for-labour-10234473.html">Rentoul semi-ironically calls</a> “the eternal verities of the Blairite truth”?</p>
<h2>Not yet over New Labour</h2>
<p>Ed Miliband won the Labour leadership because New Labour had failed. Uncritically accepting the economics of neo-liberalism, Blair said Labour could still make Britain a fairer society. Between 1997 and 2010 there were many, if modest, gains as a result. The minimum wage, tax credits, investment in public services among other measures certainly improved the lives of some: <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738">relative poverty fell</a>.</p>
<p>But New Labour’s faith in the market meant it contributed to the deregulation that led to the 2008 banking crisis, one which even the former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king">admits was the real reason for the huge deficit</a> inherited by the Conservative-led coalition. The party was also in trouble electorally, even before the fiscal crisis. It crawled to a majority in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote – and only then after Blair promised he wouldn’t seek another term as prime minister. The seeds of the SNP surge were laid before 2010, while the alienation of many former Labour voters had long been obvious. Even <a href="http://labourlist.org/2010/07/david-milibands-keir-hardie-lecture-full-speech/">David Miliband conceded</a> that more of the same was not an option, that the party needed to renew itself.</p>
<p>It is clear that the course taken by Ed Miliband did not work. But we do not yet know for sure why. Was his attempt to move on in a leftward direction from New Labour flawed from the outset? Or did the fault lie in the uncertain means by which his strategy was communicated? Was any Labour leader fated to fail in 2015, given the flawed record of New Labour in power, one that remains fresh in the minds of many voters?</p>
<p>By the time we know the answers to these questions, a new Labour leader will have been elected and will already be taking the party in a direction likely to have been influenced by those nostalgic for Blairism. But going back to the future is not necessarily the best way to move forward.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41570/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Fielding is a member of the Labour party</span></em></p>Ed Miliband’s many Blairite critics have formed an orderly queue to tell us why he lost.Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/415662015-05-09T15:08:23Z2015-05-09T15:08:23ZAfter the deluge, contenders line up for party leadership contests<p>In the wake of the election result comes the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-political-parties-choose-their-leaders-41534">inevitable bloodletting</a> in the parties who fared badly at the hands of the electorate. By lunchtime on Friday the leaders of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and UKIP had all fallen on their swords. </p>
<p>The annihilation of the Liberal Democrats came as no surprise. Their demise started with the broken pledge over tuition fees. They were seen as a fairly unprincipled, power-hungry bunch who didn’t care whose 30 pieces of silver they took to get a share of government. The Liberal Democrats <a href="http://www.crosenstiel.webspace.virginmedia.com/ldelections/">traditionally used to do well in by-elections</a>, yet their candidates lost their deposits in almost every seat they contested since 2010. The writing was well and truly on the wall. </p>
<p>The party now faces at least a decade in the political wilderness. The SNP could learn a lesson from this. With only 35% of the Scottish vote, they too could lose seats in five years time if they fail to deliver anything of substance for Scotland.</p>
<p>The problem for the Liberal Democrats now is who can lead them back from the brink. All the likely leadership contenders were ousted on Thursday night. Gone are David Laws, Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, and Ed Davey. There is a choice between two experienced politicians; Tim Farron, former party president, and Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg’s former parliamentary private secretary.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81086/original/image-20150509-22785-1wl8bi4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is Tim Farron the man to rebuild the Lib Dems?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/libdems/15473191821/in/photolist-pzyrRL-pi5bB6-pzymVy-pi6gQ1-pzj9Rk-pi6mzb-pi6kR7-pi74j4-pzyp8j-pi6y6q-pi6Sh4-pxxQFb-pi71xH-defRbu-defQST-8DqnJS-kQkemq-kQk7TK-aqdf8s-aqdi7w-aqaDj6-aqdh89-aqdgcS-piAwPD-aqaCdx-aK5xS2-8DnhDe-8Dnh5e-rgbVt4-749xbH-74dtJu-6jrVkD-bpTa5J-5nxxsg-6jhiJA-66EXHR-5nxyoZ-9WcEZX-qZrw29-defPdx-8DnjVK-7KpgKo-7KpfZ9-7Kkkha-aqdekL-8LN6eT-4Nkawc-nZJzu-7KPtE8-5ntMgu">Liberal Democrats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For UKIP the only credible contender is Douglas Carswell, the single candidate winning a seat at Westminster. All the support gained in by-elections and in the European elections fell away in terms of seats, despite taking almost 13% of the national vote. Fate dealt them a cruel hand and it’s not surprising Nigel Farage is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11593312/nigel-farage-attacks-electoral-system-after-election.html">calling for a change</a> to the voting system. </p>
<h2>Who’ll keep the red flag flying?</h2>
<p>The biggest leadership problem rests with Labour. For the last three years they have tried to court business and, at the same time, stay loyal to working people and the unions. Under Ed Miliband the “New Labour” values of Tony Blair were cast aside as the party shifted to the left of centre. Despite clear signs, Labour failed acknowledge they were not getting their message across to the electorate. The time has now come to decide what they stand for and whom they want to represent. Going forward Labour needs to find a clear sense of direction. Without that they cannot hope to rebuild a credible party</p>
<p>The writing was on the wall two years ago when Ed Miliband’s leadership was questioned. Instead of electing a more credible candidate to lead them into the election, the party insisted on continuing to back Ed. That was a disastrous decision and one they will regret for many years to come. At the end of the day no one would admit the party elected the wrong brother. There is something deep in the Labour psyche that puts loyalty above common sense. Ed Miliband’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/ed-stone-could-be-a-millstone-in-coalition-negotiations-41209">limestone manifesto</a> monument for Number 10, which later turned into a tombstone, was viewed by many as hubristic.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81085/original/image-20150509-22733-1dms0jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Should we be watching big brother?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/35952250@N02/4382454550/in/photolist-7Fge4d-by2YBA-bjTf5E-cJva7j-HyckF-dTtzzo-dn23LS-pk3ztm-gHNPMR-boWhXi-brqNin-e97c5X-gHPRep-e9cSY9-cJvhd5-8CRbtm-7FceJi-7zSQEn-cSjPph-dnR7Bf-6z9atm-6z9avs-6z54cn-6z98V1-6z98WC-6z54hv-6z54oM-6z54gt-6z549r-6z54dp-6z548t-6z98QA-6z54fv-br6UDP-qEzdt6-4w4omz-6rbeFj-6r74W4-6rbexQ-pvzn4i-onyH3f-m7wxgK-njVBBW-dZFrJy-oE4DNv-rQabQd-rwuyXQ-6z54bp-6z54kt-7ESFSa">Policy Network</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The party has a choice of potential candidates, but many are tainted by their unswerving pre-election allegiance to Ed Miliband. Chukka Umunna must be a prime candidate. He’s <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/blairite-group-progress-plotting-back-chuka-umunna-leadership-bid">seen as a bit of a Blairite</a> and it is questionable whether the party could make that U-turn. Yvette Cooper is ambitious – and must be a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/yvette-cooper-interview-labours-quiet-contender">serious contender</a>, if not the outright favourite. She is a seasoned politician who refused to be drawn on her aspirations on election night. </p>
<p>The shadow education secretary, Tristram Hunt – another Blairite – has a reputation for <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630549/Public-schoolboys-immoral-people-Ive-met-says-Labours-Tristram-Hunt.html">waging a class war on public schools</a>. As the son of a peer, Baron Hunt of Chesterton, the trade unions would no doubt find him a difficult candidate to support. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/andy-burnham-favourite-to-become-labour-leader-if-ed-miliband-goes">Andy Burnham is the pundits’ – and the bookies’ – favourite</a> to succeed Miliband. He was a contender in the 2010 leadership election and held a number of cabinet posts in Gordon Brown’s government. </p>
<p>Former minister, David Lammy, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/alan-johnson-labour-aspirational-voters-tony-blair">has also expressed an interest in the leadership</a>, while Alan Johnson – who served in several ministerial posts in the Blair and Brown administrations, has ruled himself out.</p>
<p>There are two outsiders. Ex-special forces soldier <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11363724/Meet-the-man-who-should-lead-Labour-after-Ed-Miliband.html">Dan Jarvis</a>, a relative newcomer, to politics is known to harbour leadership ambitions. The question is whether his New Labour tendencies would be held against him. A long-odds contender would be Liz Kendall. Her support for <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922627/Ed-Miliband-challenged-NHS-privatisation-Liz-Kendall-shadow-health-minister-says-matters-works-using-private-sector-services.html">private providers in the health sector</a> might go against her with the unions, but their control over who leads Labour is much diminished. Last, but not least, let’s not discount the possibility that David Miliband could return to save the party. That would require a lot of Labour soul-searching.</p>
<p>The next few weeks will be as entertaining as those in the lead-up to the election. We will see infighting and machinations in all the parties, none more so than Labour. For the past five years it has had both a leadership crisis and an identity crisis. The latter must be resolved before the former can be addressed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41566/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alf Crossman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three parties must now choose new leaders. Labour has a number of candidates jockeying for position.Alf Crossman, Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations and HRM, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/294402014-07-21T09:49:40Z2014-07-21T09:49:40Z20 years on: what if Tony Blair had never led the Labour Party?<p><em>It is 20 years since Tony Blair took over as leader of the Labour Party. There has been much comment about his legacy, a great deal of it uncomplimentary. But it could have been so different…</em></p>
<p>It’s the morning of July 21 1994 and after three months of speculation about whether John Smith will be fit to continue as Labour Party leader after his heart attack in May, he announces he will indeed resume as opposition leader and take his party into the next election. </p>
<p>Smith continues to consolidate Labour’s poll lead. He is a very different type of leader from his <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3965853.stm">predecessor Neil Kinnock</a>, who was probably a tad too brash for the British electorate; Smith is the friendly bank manager in the High Street (before, that is, bank managers became a toxic brand) and he leads a united Labour opposition.</p>
<p>So, after clinging on for a full five years Major goes to the polls, Smith wins with ease, presiding over a Labour majority of 150, an even bigger margin of victory than that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge45.shtml">achieved by Clement Attlee after World War II</a>.</p>
<p>Smith has a strong team around him, although few members with ministerial experience, it having been 18 years since the last Labour Government. Among his impressive array of younger talent, who have proved themselves in opposition, are Gordon Brown who becomes chancellor of the exchequer, and Tony Blair, who becomes home secretary.</p>
<p>The Labour government of 1997 to 2001 was Smith’s great achievement. It repealed much of the social legislation passed during the years of Thatcher and Major and renationalised the rail and water industries – moves that secured enormous popular support.</p>
<h2>Robin Cook takes over</h2>
<p>Come the 2001 election Smith wins but is exhausted and he steps down from the leadership shortly after the poll victory. The leadership election that follows is a close-fought battle between four political heavyweights – Brown, Blair, Margaret Beckett and the foreign secretary Robin Cook. </p>
<p>Blair wins most votes from the MPs but the trade unions and party members vote for Cook in large numbers and he takes over as party leader and prime minister.</p>
<p>Cook’s first big test is whether to support the Bush administration in its plans to oust Sadam Hussein in Iraq. Cook is firm in his belief that such a measure can only be justified by a vote in the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2859431.stm">UN Security Council</a>. No such majority is achieved and, despite extreme pressure from Washington, Cook stands firm and, with the overwhelming backing of his party in parliament, refuses to support the American action in Iraq.</p>
<p>The main advocate of support is the new foreign secretary Tony Blair, but he is isolated and takes defeat badly. He resigns not just from the cabinet but from the Labour whip in the House of Commons declaring: “Robin Cook has just made the worst decision in the history of British foreign policy.”</p>
<p>But the move is popular in the country and Cook’s position is secure. His government continues the work of Smith by introducing major reforms including closing down all the existing grammar schools, depriving private schools of their charitable status and introducing a tax on property worth over £1m.</p>
<p>The Cook government’s programme is popular and with the Tories in disarray – still changing their leader on an annual basis – Labour wins the 2005 election. But Cook follows Smith’s example and, having led his party to victory, steps down.</p>
<h2>Enter David Miliband</h2>
<p>The leadership battle that follows Cook’s resignation is essentially a two-horse race between the long-serving chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the man who Cook has surprisingly promoted to foreign secretary, David Miliband. Labour, having had two successive Scottish leaders and, perhaps seeing Brown not just as Scottish but also as tired, elect the dashing young foreign secretary to lead the party.</p>
<p>The leader of the defeated Tory Party, Michael Howard, steps down and in another surprise development, Tony Blair, who is no longer in the Labour Party, but has been returned to Parliament as an independent, is elected leader of the Conservative opposition.</p>
<p>The Labour unity that typified the Smith and Cook leadership, begins to disintegrate under Miliband. He is bright, very bright, but appears not to have neither the strategic vision, nor the political nous, to keep the good ship Labour, prone to instability, on an even keel. Backbench rebellions dog Miliband’s time as leader, while at the same time the Conservatives, now led by the canny Blair, are looking like real challengers.</p>
<p>The Miliband government seems to lack the vision of his predecessors and becomes mired in the economic storms unleashed by the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2007 and the subsequent economic crash in 2008. To no one’s surprise the Blair-led Tories defeat Labour in 2010 but, without an absolute majority are forced to form a coalition government with the support of the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>Miliband cannot survive the turmoil in the Labour Party, and stands down. In the leadership battle that follows, much to many observers’ surprise, his brother Ed is elected to take over. He unites the party, gives it a new sense of direction and offers the country a clear alternative to the coalition government. </p>
<p>He secures an outright majority in the 2015 election and the Miliband mark II government, with an overall majority in parliament, comes to power. It becomes, as is now well known, one of the most surprising governments in modern British history, but that story (with all its dramatic twists and turns) is, as they say, now history, as is Blair’s own equally surprising journey after having stepped down from the Tory leadership after his 2015 defeat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29440/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivor Gaber is a member of the Labour Party - but holds no formal position.</span></em></p>It is 20 years since Tony Blair took over as leader of the Labour Party. There has been much comment about his legacy, a great deal of it uncomplimentary. But it could have been so different… It’s the…Ivor Gaber, Professor of Political Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.