Miliband v Miliband: Who cares?

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

All of a sudden, today, there’s lots of chatter about the dynamics of Labour’s leadership race in the context of two brothers running for the same job.

It starts with an interview Ed Balls gave to Total Politics, quoted in the Mail today, in which Balls remarks that David and Ed Miliband’s “briefing” against one another is “pretty unedifying”.

A ‘well-placed Labour source’ has responded, saying:

“Ed is cutting his brother very hard and aggressively…I think David has been surprised and quite hurt by the way Ed is conducting his campaign” I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he walks away if he loses to Ed.”

It’s an unattributed source – the kind we as a party need to move on from (I was accused of doing something similar just yesterday, to my own quiet displeasure) – and the premise contained therein sounds like nonsense, or spin, or both.

A little more candid assessment of the dynamic – though not much, and still overly-objective – comes from Diane Abbott in today’s Telegraph, in what is really her first full-length interview since being nominated. Abbott says:

“If you’re 44 and your 40 year old brother is running against you, it can’t all be sweetness and light. There’s always a rivalry between siblings, let alone in a leadership race. They’re both quite grown up, but as a mother, I think there’s something not quite right about it. We’re selecting from one of the narrowest gene polls in history.”

James Macintyre has a more in-depth piece, which is a fairer, less politically-ambitious and more journalistic take on the dynamic.

With Labour Uncut’s contribution, that’s four new pieces in a day, just when I was hoping water would prove thicker than blood.

While I can see that there’s a story here for the media to salivate over, the fact that two brothers are running in the same contest is of course a distracting side show from what this contest is really about. Maybe that’s why Balls and Abbott are spiky (bitter?) about it, and why they’re raising it now. Prior to this week, of course, the consensus was that Labour wanted a wide contest – the more the merrier, including both Milibands. Now, some are looking to shape the media narrative as one of inevitable division, rather than different views.

Simply, the Labour leadership race isn’t about the relationship between two brothers. It’s about the relationship between 160,000 members, 4 million trade union members and the British people at large. It’s about debating and finding a vision.

To me, that two of the contenders are related is not an issue to dwell on. My sister and I may agree on some things. But we probably disagree on more. We share a lot, but our stories, our views and the experiences that shaped them are totally different. That explains why we’re different people, and why we want different things, or would approach things we care about in varied ways.

Labour have just come out of 16 years of personality-based warfare, which was very rarely if ever productive to the common cause. This time, we could do without writing Shakespearian tragedies before the First Act, and use this opportunity to focus on what people – within the leadership contest and without – are saying and where those people would take the Labour Party.

Not on personality differences, or blood groups. That’s not in Labour’s interest.