For those of you that missed the ambiguously meaningful news Labour has evaded fiscal oblivion with the help of their backers, who have allowed them until 2015 to repay the cash.

This means that the prospect of “Labour Ltd.” is rightly banished, but by no means assures the continued existence of the party. Simply because they are wealthy enough to continue to operate by no means means that they will continue to enjoy the base which they have become dependent upon. The rumblings amongst the unions are also highly ominous, although perhaps not indicative of any actual motion in lieu of any viable alternative.

As far as I can determine the next seven years will be crucial for Labour’s continued existence in a way that perhaps even the past seven have not been. If Labour can refresh and reinvigorate themselves, then set about seizing the agenda then the shallow state the Tories remain in (despite desperate diggings towards depth) and the low profile of the Liberal Democrats will assure their continued existence. I remain of the view that with David Miliband at their head this could be achieved.

Alternatively their current dire state could be followed by all out internecine warfare and division, something which would at least give us a chance to see some Blairites getting thrashed; but would also lead to the Tories establishing themselves thoroughly in the absence of any unified opposition to their agenda. It is hard to imagine an outcome, either with Labour as challengers or the LibDems, that would come from this context yet not include the Conservative Party becoming, once again, the “Natural party of government”.

Certainly a descent from the seeming impossibility of Tory return to power that was in force a mere matter of years ago. At least Labour can focus upon popularity rather than cash, however. Whether this renewed devotion of attention allows them to regain the droves that have abandoned them remains to be seen.

I meant to post on the debate between Neal Lawson and Robert Philpot in the Guardian today; but Two Doctors says all I would do. Progress represent everything wrong with modern Labour. Doesn’t Philpot notice the corellation between Labour adopting their philosophy and votes falling away?

Compass, on the other hand, have many admirable policies:

“… we could start building council houses, mandate a living wage, create a national well being index, provide fee school meals for all primary kids, stop taxing people earning under £10,000, place a ban on advertising to children, introduce a fair voting system, drop ID cards, elect local health boards, introduce a graduate solidarity tax instead of fees and phase out our reliance on oil.”

- but can’t put them in place. The Parliamentary Labour Party is dead as a vehicle for socialism. The left-wing backbenches are virtually bereft of influence; when the government bargains with the DUP before its own MPs, they must realise that. Other, moderate MPs, meanwhile, buy fully into Progress’ baseless argument that voters will abandon Labour in droves should it dare to be nice to them (because, of course, voters aren’t abandoning Labour now.). So, they vote for the party right, and prevent any leftish challenge from reaching a contest across the party; as last year. Unless those MPs find their guts and start to make noise, Compass will need a revolution from the demoralised grassroots up to make the frontbenches.

Or, of course, they could find a new party. They wouldn’t be in government immediately - but at least those MPs they did elect could vote against measures like 42 Days, rather than cower beneath the Whips.

The Observer carried a strange piece today:

A powerful coalition of mainstream Labour MPs and leaders of Britain’s biggest unions is backing a right-left ‘dream ticket’ of Alan Johnson and Jon Cruddas to lead the party into the next general election, having given up on Gordon Brown’s premiership.

The plan to install Johnson, the centre-right Health Secretary, and Cruddas, a centre-left moderniser who came third in last year’s deputy leadership contest, is gaining support as the way to thwart the ambitions of David Miliband, the arch-Blairite Foreign Secretary.

The depth of union dismay at Brown and the New Labour agenda is revealed today in outspoken comments from Tony Woodley, the joint leader of Britain’s biggest union, Unite, which will have a crucial role in any leadership contest.

Those MPs who back the partnership miss something rather crucial; it’s the policies, not the people, which make a difference here. Union activists and discontent left-wing voters don’t necessarily care who leads Labour and whether they make a particularly attractive marriage of party factions. They care what those candidates actually want to do, and whether they’ll enact union policies. The left didn’t abandon Blair in disgust because of who he was - they abandoned him because he consistently failed to cater to their demands.

That may seem an obvious point to make; but it needs made. The article doesn’t explicitly mention a change in policy, merely a potential leadership duo. Perhaps it’s implied, as Cruddas is, in their words, “centre left,” and so different to New Labour. But even if that’s the case, this surely won’t bring every - or possibly not even most - anguished shop steward or voter on side. Johnson (there really, really need to be less people in politics with that name, by the way; BoJo, Darren Johnson, Alan Johnson…) remains fully signed up to Brown’s policy agenda for the moment; and so we can presume that, for every ounce of social democracy Cruddas brings, Johnson will bring a policy to please the party right. An unhappy compromise then, and possibly one that could jeopordise the duo’s unity before long. Hardly the dream ticket the Observer claims.

(Hat-tip, as I read some blogs before the paper today: Stroppyblog)

Labour need more campaigns like this. It takes a good policy, uses it to show a clear difference between the parties, and does so in a simple, quick fashion. If they can manage that for the next two years, without any movement from the Tories or an internal earthquake, they might just survive next election.

Assuming they can persuade the electorate that the party that introduced the minimum wage in 1998 didn’t double income tax on those who benefitted in 2008, that is.

(Hat-tip: New Direction)

Somewhere on the Cornish coast this Tuesday, I blearily opened the Guardian to find a comment piece by Miliband (D). I mostly ignored it; the first few lines looked to be mildly vacuous, the rest Mandelsonian Kremlinology in full-flow. Enough to spoil my tea, at any rate.

Somewhere on the Cornish coast this Wednesday, I glanced at the Guardian’s cover. And found minister after minister (and Bob Marshall-Andrews) calling for Miliband’s political testicles on a platter. All over that rather dull article? Imagine my confusion.

Milipede’s statement wasn’t news. He wants to attack the Tories - duh. He wants to talk up the government - duh. He wants to find a new direction - as he did several months ago. Where’s the attack in that? As James points out, Miliband makes more of a case for an offensive against Cameron rather than Brown. A classic storm in a teacup, were such a cliche physically possible.

And yet the storm came. We can assume much from that: the Brownites at least are jittery enough to turn an non-challenge into a challenge, and the newspapers haven’t found much else to savage. Balls&co. saw the article, and instantly assumed Miliband wanted to depose Brown, immediately. Given the politically neutered tone of the article - with all the punch of an undergraduate essay - that says something about the power of their collective imagination. They’re terrified a coup is on the way, and will brief furiously at the first sign of a possible challenge, however marginal it seems.

Miliband’s reaction provides a little more interest. He didn’t make a challenge, but the Brownites presented him with all he needed by briefing that one was imminent; and yet he held back. What does that say? He might be worried that he’ll follow in Heseltine’s footsteps, wielding the knife, but never holding power. He might simply suffer from extreme political cowardice - wasn’t a challenge due last year? And, of course, he might have no ambitions for leadership (hah)…

So - the Brownites are scared of a man who seems unable to justify that fear in the height of the media’s silly season. It’s as simple as that. Isn’t it?

As monotonous as this has become it seems that another post on Miliband is necessary. I had assumed that Ali’s original post on the matter effectively said all that there was to say but it seems that even he disagreed with me. Because we must now not only write on the article itself, but the drama surrounding it.

Curiously though, the two seem almost entirely disconnected. For all the furore the actual article in question is modest: heavy on the praise of New Labour achievements and vicious towards Cameron instead of Brown. This is no offensive, overt or otherwise.

So why have things reached the stage where Miliband is being called an “Immature, self-serving traitor”? Why has the once vaguely hazy and mildly distant prospect of a leadership contest become suddenly sharp, immediate? Why is Denis MacShane salivating?

So far as I can tell this is part the obvious: desire amongst the media for a story as we enter silly season, desire of marginal MPs to preserve their careers through whatever means necessary (desperate thrashings made especially pathetic by their obvious collective uncertainty as to what path, if any, will lead them towards salvation) and basic knives-out for Brown motion from his enemies and knives-out for Miliband from Brown’s allies.

But there is, perhaps, something more here: the shock to the system of somebody actually staging a decent counter attack against the Tories leaving a distracting but significant aftermath. For despite all the non sequiturious blather surrounding it his piece was in fact related to the Tories and how Labour could defeat them, rather than Brown and why he should be deposed. Miliband’s suggestions consisted of emphasising Cameron’s nature (personally I find him more mindless opportunist than instinctive conservative, but his case is convincing), emphasising Labour successes (such as they are) and finding a new platform to keep mutation of the Labour brand ahead of Tory antibodies.

Of these three methods only the final truly relates to the leadership at all. But together the three constitute a fine list of suggestions for destroying the Tories electorally. As the aforelinked MacShane suggests it could simply be a matter of contrast between the implicitly poor Brown and the masterfully executed rallying cries of Miliband (one wonders whether Denis has an eye on a new cabinet position, if so he has almost certainly calculated wisely) but I would suggest that Miliband’s tone is part of a distinctive and winning form of political dialogue: assertive leftism.

More shall be written on this point later but for now suffice it to say that Miliband has marshaled this technique in a fashion which the dreary present leader of the Labour Party and the harridan misandrist who is apparently going to become his challenger are streets behind on. It is just a pity that his skill has led to an ironic cloud of purely Labour related dust. The Tories should not grow complacent, though: they have escaped unscathed for now; but his attacks on them and refusal to accept their subtle agenda-setting are bound to draw eyes towards their grimy underbelly soon enough.

David Miliband is still hogging all of the airwaves.  In a constructive article, he essentially slapped Brown in the face and declared himself to be ready to lead a regicidal coup in the Labour party.  I wrote about my Miliband hypothesis this morning, but refained from further comment throughout the day because I was aware of the fast-changing nature of the narrative.  Things look slightly clearer in tomorrow’s papers, and I am of the opinion that Harriet Harman could well be feeling pretty happy with herself.

During the day, it became clear that David Miliband had hastily cancelled a trip to India in a few weeks’ time.  To begin with, it looked as if he was clearing his diary for a leadership race through Conference season.  Then we were told that he would be using that time for meetings with Cabinet colleagues.  Tomorrow’s Times has “David Miliband ordered to cancel trip as Gordon Brown seeks to restore authority“.  In other words, Mr Miliband will probably no longer be the Foreign Secretary by the end of the month.

At this point, it is worth suggesting that Brown’s salvage strategy might not be disastrous.  Our esteemed Chancellor is almost as dreadful as his next-door neighbour, and Miliband cannot be demoted.  We can probably expect Miliband to be given the poisoned chalice of Number 11, while the Foreign Office brief could perhaps be returned to Jack Straw to shut him up for a while.  Who can say?  One thing is certain: if the Labour party heads into the Conference with some fresh blood in its main arteries, some life could be pumped back into the party machine.  It is not entirely inconceivable that, if policy-heavy speeches from promoted ministers with fresh brief go down well, Brown could use his keynote speech to tell his party to prepare for an election.  Vitality and bravery, stemming the loss of seats.  The Tories are still not prepared for office, and they have not earned their place in the opinion polls.  Miliband would keep clean, and try for leadership once the dust of defeat had settled.  Brown’s (5th? 6th?) fightback attempt might just be the most sensible strategy for the moment.

This hypothesising is good fun, but otherwise worthless.  Recent history suggests that Gordon Brown’s strategy, with his apparent decades of honing his political acumen, is less robust than my rambling thoughts.  Let us deal instead, then, with what we can be reasonably certain of.  Gordon Brown will not last beyond spring 2010, and a leadership race will occur some time in the next 18 months as a result.  David Miliband doubtless knows that he stands in a strong place to win, and has this week essentially begun his campaign.  But there will be “I’m not Miliband” candidates, and there will be “anyone but Miliband” voters.  James Forsyth, on the Spectator’s Coffee House blog, has suggested that Harriet Harman appears to be everything Miliband is not.  It could be Harriet by September, he argues: a sobering thought indeed.  As one D. Miliband would say “in six months’ time, people will be saying ‘I don’t like Harman, let’s have that Brown back’” - he’s prescient like that.

Harriet Harman will be sitting pretty tonight.  She knows that she emerged from recent speculation about leadership ambitions far more positively than Miliband is managing.  She also knows that she can win the support of the Labour Party, and has her useful husband as a strong tie to the Unions.  Miliband has never been tested by a national party election process, and is comfortably distant from the Unions.  What is more, Harriet Harman is seen as a bit of a joke - a loose cannon; a bit of an embarrassment.  Should she try for leadership and lose, she would benefit from the fact that few people take her seriously to begin with.  But she has proved that she is a force to be reckoned with.

Quentin Letts had a sketch in the Daily Mail today outlining his view of a Harman premiership.  In it, he disgracefully employs every mysogonistic quip about women in government and parodies Harman as a total lightweight.  He paints a picture of Harman as a disgusting man-hating feminist, who has Andy Burnam as the only man in her cabinet because of his nice eyelashes.  It is a truly horrendous piece.  But it plays right into Harriet’s hands.  Remember her awful trying-to-be-a-joke-but-even-the-row-of-allies-on-the-front-bench-were-cringing comment at PMQs the other week?  Asked to consider herself as prime minister, her reaction was some misplaced jibe about there not being enough airports in the country for all of the men who would emigrate.  A perfect opportunity to allow the pubic the opportunity to picture her as PM and she tells them how men hate her because she is a feminist.  This is the image she wants to be portrayed!  He colleagues cringe because gender warfare, like the class warfare of Crewe and Nantwich, has no place in modern politics.  But she wants to bring it back with a vengeance, and she hopes that the grassroots Labour party will support her aims to resurrect it in the coming leadership contest.

Miliband is looking to government; to policy, strategy, and legislating.  Harman is looking to get herself elected leader.  One strategy can yield short-term gain, but spells long-term disaster (for a recent historical reference, consult Mr. G. Brown).  The other is a thoughtful, sensible and wise approach to party leadership: not just getting there, but doing something valuable with it.  It was Brown’s downfall, and it is guaranteed to be Harman’s.  She might be smiling now, like Brown was in summer last year, but six months into her leadership and the wheels will be well and truly off the Labour Party’s ailing wagon.

David Miliband’s article in the Guardian yesterday was a reasonable attempt to get the Labour party off the back foot. Since October last year, the narrative has been all Tory ascendancy and Labour distress. Miliband is of the gang of ministers ready to take New Labour - a ’90s philosophy - into the second decade of the 21st century. He honestly believes in what he proposes, and honestly disapproves of Conservative policy.

One senses a mild feeling of frustration from Miliband. Here he is, cometh the hour, etc, and Brown is sending Labour’s last chance for electoral success down the drain. Gordon Brown cannot talk about the future. He can tell us how he is “getting on with the job”, and is the “right man to get us through these difficult times”. He portrays himself as the man of the hour, forgetting, perhaps, that he created the circumstances he now believes he should get us out of. Miliband, on the other hand, has been largely untainted by back-room squabbles under both Blair’s leadership and Brown’s. Indeed, the mere fact that commentators are asking whether the Foreign Secretary has enough experience for the Premiership is evidence enough that he gets his head down and gets on with the job. Who was David Cameron before 2005? Miliband is no lightweight.

What interests me most, though, is that Miliband has tried to critique the Tories. He is confident that, in a genuine battle of ideas, Labour would win. For denying the opportunity to have such a battle, Gordon Brown is to blame. David Miliband is careful to spell out Labour’s future, but is right to contrast it with that of the Conservatives. Just read from his much-discussed but little-read article yesterday:

The Tories overclaim for what they are against because they don’t know what they are for. I disagreed with Margaret Thatcher, but at least it was clear what she stood for. She sat uncomfortably within the Tory party because she was a radical, not a conservative. She wanted change and was prepared to take unpopular decisions to achieve it.

The problem with David Cameron is the reverse. His problem is he is a conservative, not a radical. He doesn’t share a restlessness for change. He may be likable and sometimes hard to disagree with, but he is empty. He is a politician of the status quo — even a status quo he consistently voted against — not change.

Find me a floating voter who does not agree with that. Miliband took some stick for writing an article about Labour’s future, but somebody had to start discussing it before it is too late. If the Labour party wants to salvage itself, policy strategists like Miliband should be ready to discuss policy strategy! Brown is as childish as he is selfish. If he will not resign, he should be deposed.

So, I ask, should the Tories be afraid of Miliband? If he were to become leader this autumn, and call a General Election within the month, he would send shockwaves through Westminster. But in the intense media storm of a snap election and new leader, he could push his policy and methods of government strongly. The Tories would be caught off-guard, and their flimsy policy would be open to as stringent study as is possible. Miliband would lose, certainly, but by small enough a margin to keep his role of leader for the coming Parliament, in which he would be a strong opponant to the limited Tory majority government. The Tory dream of a comfortable decade in power would be gone: they would be struggling five years down the line. The Tories should be very scared of this scenario. All that stands in its way is the fickleness of Gordon Brown’s unstable character.

“The Labour party never does mad things.”

David Miliband

Miliband makes me seem all prescient.

Not that this was what I was expecting. A seemingly non sequitorious reference to the admittedely influential expanding Indian and Chinese middle classes seems typical of him. He has clearly embraced his brief as foreign secretary. He has also demanded quite a substantial amount from the government, certainly more than it has delivered thus far and, as the article mentions, he has not stated that Brown is a figure the party is dependent upon.

No, Miliband desires that Labour find itself a new soul. This is crucial to his argument that Cameron can not defeat Labour fully: if Labour can alter itself away from New Labour, Miliband suggests, the Tories will remain one step behind. Of the two assessments of the situation I find his entirely superior to Harman’s. Miliband seems to recognise, or at least is the only member of the Labour Party willing to admit, that the damage done to his party is deep. Perhaps Harman is restricted through her forced smile after one smashing defeat after another became stuck (I always found it quite unkind how she was expected to do the PR mop-up on national television time and time again…) but she has expressed no concern as to Labour’s direction.

Miliband, meanwhile, is steets ahead of not only her but the rest of the Labour high rankers. In this article in April he outlined what he thought Labour had to become in order to surive: a creature distinct from its 2001 incarnation and instead on informed by radical liberals and social democrats, something which I found most pleasing seeing as these are my favourite forms of leftist in history. Perhaps as good he is conscious of the enormity of the task facing Britain if it is to do its part in averting environment catastrophe: what is required is not merely a shift in policy but an entirely new structure for the economy, in lieu of rampant engorgement on petrol.

Miliband’s vision is given a new urgency by the dire state that Labour has plunged into: now the party’s future effectively rests upon whether it can be convincingly and winningly realised. It would be a remarkable achievement were it accomplished, and I suspect that in private Miliband shares my severe doubt that Brown is the man to do as much. No, to implement the vision there is none better than the visionary.