Where David Miliband went wrong
A new book examines the Labour leadership election, and the elder Miliband's mistakes
By Dan Hodges Published 18 September 2011 12:33Did Movement for Change cost David Miliband the leadership election? According to the soon to be published Tangled Up In Blue: Blue Labour and the Struggle for Labour's soul, it may well have done.
The book, written by Guardian columnist Rowenna Davis, and published by that perennial enfant terrible of the modernising left, Derek Draper, is set to chart the rise, fall, (and Lazarus like re-birth?), of Maurice Glasman and his controversial fourth way philosophy. Focusing on the influence Glasman and his community organizing ethos had on Labour's dramatic leadership contest, Davis is said to conclude the elder Miliband's decision to place the embryonic activist group at the heart of his organisational structure proved a fateful one.
"At the heart of Rowenna's narrative is an examination of the way Movement for Change shaped the leadership election", said a source familiar with the book. "The big question is, was MfC influential in costing David the contest? From what I've read I'd have to say I think it did".
The source added, "It's clear that Movement for Change provided a distraction, and led to David's team spending time and resources focusing on that aspect of their strategy, rather than organising and reaching out to the membership more directly".
Although David Miliband and his brother were both interviewed for the book, it is said to paint a less than flattering picture of the former Foreign Secretary's pet community-organising project. "The problem appears to have been that David and his team just assumed they would win", said a Labour source, "they thought they could afford to do something at the start of the campaign [the establishment of Movement for Change] that they could just as easily have done afterwards".
The focus on Movement for Change's role in the leadership contest comes at a sensitive time. Last week it was announced the organisation was set to become an official Labour affiliate as part of the Refounding Labour review, which has also recommending rewording of Clause 1 of the party's constitution to place greater emphasis on community organising.
Tangled Up In Blue, titled after the Bob Dylan song, will also shed light on the close relationship between Lord Glasman, described as the god-father of British community politics, and Labour leader Ed Miliband. In July the Labour peer caused outrage after calling for a ban on all immigration, a stance which lead to the disbanding of the loose Blue Labour coalition which included prominent centre-left thinkers such as Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford. Although Lord Glasman was forced to issue an apology via the New Statesman, sources who have read Ed Miliband's contribution to the book say he is standing by his controversial advisor; "Ed has plenty of opportunities in the book to distance himself from Maurice. He doesn't do it".
Despite this there are few signs that Glasman is preparing to tone down his outspoken style; "If you listen to Maurice you find yourself half agreeing with him and half thinking he's completely mad", said one Labour insider. A podcast interview Glasman conducted with Rowenna Davis to coincide with the book's upcoming Guardian serialisation is said to open with an outspoken assault on the public sector; "That's the thing about Maurice", said one Labour observer, "he transforms the discussion".
The involvement of Derek Draper in the book's publication has itself stirred comment from within Labour ranks, with some people speculating it presages a return to front-line politics for Peter Mandelson's notorious former advisor. His last foray into the Westminster beltway, as editor of Labour List, ended predictably enough in scandal after he was linked with Damien McBride's efforts to dish the dirt on senior Tories in what became known as "smeargate".
However friends of Draper are skeptical that his publishing venture represents another political comeback. "Derek thinks there's a vacuum in centre-left publishing that needs to be filled", said a friend, "but he doesn't see it as a comeback. He's still focused on his psychotherapy work, and helping Kate [Garroway, his wife] with Goodypass [a web site that provides celebrity discounts to the public]". A former colleague agrees; "He's only planning to sell a few thousand copies of the book, and any profits are being given to charity. He sees Ruskin [the name of Draper's new publishing house] as a project, not his ticket back to the big time".
Derek Draper. Maurice Glasman. Ed Miliband. David Miliband. Movement for Change. All Tangled up together in Blue. What could possibly go wrong?
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















23 comments
DM lost the leadership election because he was inextricably linked to the old Labour guard of the Blair era. He failed to move on and indeed was positively bullish about New Labour. Therein lies his downfall. The labour supporting public has moved on but not DM. Let us not forget too that the Labour party had thirteen eyars in government; took us into two illegal wars and had a questionable role in rendition. For all the hanging onto the coatails of the US, the Labour Party failed to win any significant concession on the Palestine question. DM has a lot to answer for. His peformance in defence of the Palestinians on QT reminds us that the labour party made the right choice in not choosing him as leader.
Indeed it is shocking and shameful that DM has not come out openly and supported the UN statehood bid.!!!!
This is all interesting stuff Dan, but I think the main reason David Miliband lost was the "helpful" interventions by Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair around the time of their respective book launches in summer 2010. And more specifically, David's failure to distance himself from these New Labour dinosaurs. It's hard to run a credible "movement for change" if you are in fact the continuity candidate.
But sure, the margin of defeat was so narrow that who's to say M4C wasn't a contributory factor to David's loss? Heck, doing any one of a hundred things differently could have won it for him.
A bit of a non story really. David Miliband lost the leadership election because there was a concerted effort by the union paymasters to see him lose. He clearly won the party membership and MP votes.
David lost because he didn't court the unions.
Hal: David's failure to distance himself from these New Labour dinosaurs. It's hard to run a credible "movement for change" if you are in fact the continuity candidate.
----
Spot on!
And Dan, on your call for sacking Balls. Apart from being mischief making - what fun - and impossible (lose two shadow chancellors in a year??), you are surely missing something.
I'm not a big fan of Balls and saw as many reasons for him not getting his present gig as for, but it was NewLabour that was the failure. It won three lections while the bubble was expanding, but it was a bubble.
NL not only thought it could embrace neoliberalism - and not try to contain it - but somehow ameliorate all its negative aspects by tax credits, and spending on schools.
No, it causes deep divisions, and the inequality it creates impacts on people's ability to afford what others can pay double for.
NewLabour was intellectually bankrupt. That included Balls by the way, and was the positive reason for Ed Miliband getting the leadership. Although I am not entirely sure where is going to; I'm really glad where he is certainly taking us from. The pity was there have not been bigger hitters around in the PLP to give him support.
Rowenna enlightens us to maurice glasman being a guru living a life of austerity.
0
An interesting take on the book Dan, but as the author I feel obliged to point out a couple of things:
1) The book does not state that Movement for Change cost David the leadership election.
And people were sick of Blair ... (or acolyte). The hope for many was that Ed was a member of the human species. A real person. For myself, I distrust "leaders" - I don't need them, and they are dangerous. But it this case, Ed seems less likely to be another egomaniac.
It presents evidence from both sides and allows the reader to judge.
2) The book is about a lot more than the leadership battle, which takes up one chapter of five. Personally I find the bits that have relevance for the future of the party more interesting.
That said, I welcome the debate, and in a shameless plug, I invite readers to visit www.TangledUpinBlue.co.uk to order a copy and judge for themselves.
Hal – a helpful contribution, thank you
Mizar – what was wrong with Purnell in your opinion?
Personally, I would have thought the most obvious example of 'where David Miliband went wrong' was to get his hands covered in the blood of the victims of extraordinary rendition.
@RowennaDavis - Purnell managed D Milliband's campaign. But many people in Labour hate Purnell's attacks on poor, vulnerable and especially ill people. His use of ATOS started a rot which is now spreading through the welfare system. This is well paid commercial company uses a highly flawed assessment system, deciding that thousands of ill people are capable of work. They mostly aren't. This is a appalling system.
DM was wrong to be involved with Purnell.
"If you listen to Maurice you find yourself half agreeing with him and half thinking he's completely mad". Great, another Alfred Sherman.
Dan, how can you write this piece without mentioning James Purnell, whose toxic effect surely had some influence on the campaign.
Firstly, it's rubbish to say Purnell hates the poor, he is just tough on the welfare state and he's a Blairite! Row is absolutely right.
The road to No 10 is paved with many many banana skins.
Yes, and you do have to ask yourself why anyone wants to get there.
After all, you will be hated by enemies and "friends", and you will likely lose as a failure.
Even if you leave without being forced out (Wilson, Blair), your reputation will be sadly tarnished.
Perhaps best to be one of those who would have been a great PM, but didn't get there. There is quite a list of those, to whom might be added: D Milliband.
RedMan, you are sadly uninformed. Purnell has attacked some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Get off your bottom and find out what is actually happening to those people. You are so lazy, it makes me sick.