Why David Miliband is rattled

A late surge of support for Ed Miliband has spooked his leadership rivals and the right-wing press.

Poor David Miliband. To be the favourite and the front-runner in an election campaign can be a poisoned chalice. Victory is far from guaranteed. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who lost out in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination to a junior senator from Illinois in 2008. Or Michael Portillo, defeated in 2001.

So far, in Labour's first leadership election in 16 years, the shadow foreign secretary has attracted more high-profile endorsements - and raised far more money - than any of his four rivals. Yet he has failed, over the course of this protracted, summer-long campaign, to "seal the deal" with the Labour Party's electorate.

“Shock Labour Party leadership poll gives lead to Ed Miliband," declared the headline on the front page of the Sunday Times on 12 September, just 48 hours after David's campaign had received an endorsement from the veteran left-winger Dennis Skinner. The You­Gov survey - of 1,011 party members and 718 members of Labour-affiliated trade unions - put Ed on 51 per cent and David on 49 per cent, once second-preference votes from the third-placed Andy Burnham, the fourth-placed Ed Balls and the fifth-placed Diane Abbott were redistributed. (Mili-D was 4 points ahead of Mili-E - 36 to 32 - on the basis of first-preference votes only.)

The D Miliband camp has been in a state of semi-panic since that Sunday. "It's going to be tight," concedes a spokeswoman. David himself described the YouGov poll as a "wake up call" on a BBC programme on which he and I appeared that weekend.

Pole position

So what should he do? Is it too late for a "game-changing" moment? "David has been running a classic 'inevitability' strategy," says an Ed Miliband aide. "The attitude seems to have been: 'You'd better vote for me because I'm going to win. Get on board.'"

That strategy now lies in tatters and, in recent days, the E Miliband camp has been using the poll findings to try to persuade uncommitted Labour MPs to throw their support behind Ed, not David. "The race is neck and neck," wrote YouGov's Anthony Wells on 13 September, before concluding: "but Ed Miliband is now in pole position".

My hunch has always been that Ed will win, if only by the narrowest of margins - and, in fact, much of the empirical evidence suggests that he is performing even better than the headline figures from YouGov suggest.

First, consider the issue of turnout. Of the 1,729 respondents to the YouGov survey, about four in ten had already cast their ballots and, as the polling expert Mike Smithson has noted: "Of these, in both sections [party members and affiliated trade unionists], Ed Miliband was doing far better than among the samples as a whole." YouGov may have treated "have voted", "definitely will vote" and "will probably vote" as of equal value, but when the crucial "have voted" category is examined on its own, Ed leads his brother in first preferences, too, and not just second preferences.

Second, consider the role of the MPs and, in particular, their second preferences. In Labour's tripartite electoral college system of party members, affiliated trade unions and MPs and MEPs, it is the last section that wields the most influence: the vote of one MP is worth the votes of approximately 600 party members or 13,000 affiliated members.

YouGov used research conducted by the website Left Foot Forward to establish MPs' preferences but, as Wells acknowledges: "One big caveat is MPs' second preferences - there is little good information on how MPs will cast their second preferences." He says that the organisation "made the crude assumption that the second preferences of MPs who back Abbott, Balls and Burnham will divide evenly between David and Ed Miliband". This skews the result. Is it credible, for instance, to believe that Diane Abbott's left-wing supporters will split evenly between Ed and David?

“It is too simplistic to assume a 50:50 split in MPs' second preferences between David and Ed," a close ally of the younger Miliband tells me. "The real reason why we are now so confident and optimistic about victory is that our support among MPs, in terms of second preferences, is disproportionately high."

This late "surge" from Ed Miliband has spooked both his leadership rivals and the right-wing press. The Daily Mail and the Sun have already dubbed him "Red Ed", while supporters of David Miliband were overheard last week comparing his younger brother to Forrest Gump, the rather slow and gormless movie character played by Tom Hanks in 1994. Other allies of Mili-D have dismissed Mili-E as "Labour's Iain Duncan Smith".

Nothing but the truth

If that was not enough, the younger Miliband's honesty has also been called into question by his rivals - especially over the issue of the Iraq invasion, which the shadow energy secretary has described as a "profound mistake" and claimed to have opposed in private. But his brother, David, has stated: "Diane Abbott is the only candidate that can say she was against the war at the time." Ed Balls, too, has said it is "ridiculous" for Ed Miliband to claim he was privately anti-war in 2003. "He says he didn't support the war but I'm not sure I believe him," says a well-connected Labour source, who has decided to back David over Ed.

However, a close friend and former colleague of Ed Miliband tells me that he has no doubt whatsoever that the shadow energy secretary opposed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "I know for a fact that he was against the war because it was he who persuaded me of the merits of the anti-war case," says the friend. "I remember flying out to Cambridge [Massachusetts], where he was on a sabbatical lecturing at Harvard, and he argued very strongly that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to finish their work."

I have learned that Miliband Jr rang Gordon Brown from the United States to persuade the then chancellor of the exchequer to resist the drumbeat for war coming from inside No 10.

A former Downing Street aide says that Brown "took Ed's phone call very seriously but, ultimately, other views prevailed".

Ed M's position on Iraq has helped broaden his appeal across the party and has given him much-needed momentum. But what's this? The moment he becomes the "front-runner", a new ComRes poll emerges suggesting Labour voters prefer his brother by a two-to-one margin. The next week will be fraught.

51 comments

mcquade's picture

@Hova
If DM has ideas that appeal across the poltical board, then perhaps you'd like to decipher this.
"I am for a moral economy in which there is responsibility from top to bottom".
How would you translate this into concrete policy specifics, since the man who penned this gem of high technocratese either cannot or will not. He has proved himself constitutionally incapable of committing to policy specifics. So how on earth he can ask for my vote without telling me how he will translate his beliefs into action, simply beats me.

Nic's picture

This caricature of Ed as a 'leftie' by the right wing media is absurd. Just shows how right of centre the British political paradigm is when a politician with some slightly different views about taxation is branded 'red' and 'taking Labour back to the 1980's'.

A.C Gibbon's picture

Ed Miliband is unelectable. To my mind, seems like a reasonable claim. But then, the standard David Miliband line goes, David is the only one who can take the fight to the Tories and win, who can defeat David Cameron and reclaim the lost aspirational voters in the South.....

Have you all completely lost the plot? This isn't an either/or. One of them is unlectable, therefore the other one is. I'm afraid it's a neither/nor.

Elect Ed M and you get Tories for 10 years. Elect DM and you get Tories for 10 years with the added bonus of a leader that large parts of the membership still hate.

Sod it. I'm going to vote for Andy Burnham because as well as being completely useless, he is at least nice.

Zole's picture

As Sam says, Labour have lost 4-5 million votes since 1997 and only 1 million have gone to the Tories.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that this swing of 3-4 million votes to the Lib-Dems, minor parties and (above all) non-voting occurred because New Labour was too Left-wing ?!!!

Time to move decisively away from New Labour Thatcherism.

Clem the Gem's picture

Ed M is the candidate who can unite the various strands within the Party, and help make us fit to govern again. He is hardly some far-left ranter.
It is clear that David M, for all his qualities, is being talked up by those who do not support Labour for their own purposes.
As a first preference, I vote Dianne - on the basis that a wider selection of views needs to be heard within the party. All the candidates have made valid points uyring their campaigns, and have conducted themselves well. I hope to see them ALL playing a role in our fight to win power back from this sorry shower.

jane1's picture

And so the party looks inward. If they select Ed Miliband this is what they will have done. He has moved positions to appeal to the core vote and the unions. Yes it may well win him the leadership but it will not win him the role of PM. I would never vote for him - I loathe people who switch positions to appeal to their audience and present as being in touch with all depending on the audience..

David Miliband is the only person who would appeal to those who abandoned the party at the last election - people like me. Unlike some, I think the leadership should be about appealing to the country and I know that many who are entitled to vote (I no longer can) have acknowledged this.

some bloke's picture

So erm, why is Ed great?
Like hell I want to see a leader from a narrow win, that is how this government came about :/
This article told me nothing.

Jane's picture

Sorry to rant, but it's hard not to feel utter despair at prospect of an Ed M win. I really hope I'm wrong, but to paraphrase Kinnock ; I warn you not to be young, ill, old etc. because we won't see the back of the coalition for a decade. The Tories will be delighted and the right wing press will shred him.

As brilliant as he is, Ed doesn't have the leadership qualities David has, I think this is very clear to many party members and a wider public. EdM has said a lot of things to win the hearts and votes of the unions but in the topsy turvy world we live in that makes minus points. That's not how it 'should' be, it's how it is. So an Ed M victory is a further blow to working people. I don't know any Labour sympathisers (who face real financial hardship) who place their faith in Ed. I can only assume he's appealing to those who either don't remember what Tories are like or can afford them for ten more years. They feel it's better to let the devil (and Nick Clegg) take the hindmost rather than give the top job to the man who can win, but once worked for 'Bliar'.

If Ed M wins it shows we've returned to the traditional Labour circular firing squad. Diane Abbott can say that the wider world is made up of people affected by cuts and therefore sympathetic to unions? Pardon? I may be wrong but having voted Labour since 1978 I can't think of a time when the wider electorate was so enamoured of the unions that they did their bidding. She would be funny if she was not betraying working class voter with this sixth form twaddle. We need strong unions but they don't tell us how to vote. If they did we would have had Kinnock as PM and been out of power by 1997 for another 10 years of Tory misrule.

Ed can't get Labour back in power, it will be a disaster for the party, maybe split it, a lot of Labour people do want to win office again, rather than reenact the 80's with Ed. I think Labour party membership increased dramatically after the election because people were shocked at the outcome. They didn't want Tory rule and wanted Labour back in the game without Brown and Blair.

The Question Time debate made it clear to me that everyone but David M and Ed B looked like amateurs, it was a reminder of the days, which Kinnock himself abhorred, when the party thought more about itself than the country. The squabbling was pathetic, no doubt cheering the Tories up no end. It seemed to me that David M and Ed Balls were authoritative and could rein all that passion and talent in and focus it on the whole reason the Labour Party was created ie to champion the rights of working people by representing them in government. He was controlled, confident and above all else realistic. David M really is not Tony Blair. Tony Blair chose Labour as his host. David M is a principled, decent, attractive individual who understands the Labour movement. He is also the only candidate seemingly aware of how hard its going to be to get back into government.

Pat's picture

Weren't these same right-wing papers saying Dave Comeron was unelectable a few years ago?

Why should Labour party members listen to those who want the party to LOSE (like the Mail etc.)? The more we are told 'only David Miliband can win', the more it puts our backs up - it is, after all, the members choice, not Paul Dacre's or Rupert Murdoch's.

Assuming the coalition holds together, whoever wins will have 4 years to appeal to the general voters, and I can see "Red Ed" smears backfiring if he is seen to be offering reasonable policies.

Jane's picture

I posted as 'Jane' just now and have just noticed there was another 'Jane' earlier on, many apologies, it's late. I just noticed someone saying the Milibands are unelectable because of the way they look. I gotta say that view isn't shared by women I know, even if they're not Labour voters in fact the whole Labour line up has caused no small interest in the playground!

With the best will in the world, the Cleggeron may have looked good to some with Gordon on the 3rd podium but the game's moved on!

Latest tweets