On Len McCluskey, Ed Miliband and the “Blairites”

Len McCluskey’s interview with the New Statesman has received plenty of interest in the last 24 hours. Although thanks to the GDP announcement, such stories are likely to drift away from the front pages for the time being. The Labour leadership’s reaction to McCluskey’s attack on “Blairites” was swift and hard, with Miliband labelling McCluskey’s comments “reprehensible” and “disloyal”. Those comments from McCluskey rankled with me too – but he also made one particularly correct call which has been obscured in in the media melee.

“If [Miliband] is brave enough to go for something radical, he’ll be the next prime minister”, is not a controversial statement so much as an assertion of fact. No-one should be under the impression that Miliband can quietly coast into Number 10. Any attempt to become a “submarine Prime Minister” will be holed below the waterline. Despite what many of his critics (both inside and outside of the party) might have you believe, Miliband can’t coast to victory via a mythical “35% strategy” – and he won’t try either.

No, saying that Miliband must be radical – or at the very least, bold – is a sentiment on which even Len McCluskey and Tony Blair can agree. Both men have used the pages of the New Statesman in recent weeks to urge Miliband to be more expansive, to flesh out his vision and to be clearer about what he stands for. Of course the two men have completely different perceptions of what a “radical” Ed Miliband would look like – but the point still stands that both would like greater definition and less abstraction.

So would I, but I sense we’ll be made to wait a while longer. (Personally I’d like to see an economy stimulating house building program – which is a policy that might even unite both Blair and McCluskey in policy terms too.)

But the use of names and labels was both counterproductive and unhelpful. Attacking “Blairites”, Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander doesn’t really scan. No-one seriously believes that any “Blairite” grouping holds any particular sway over Miliband – and that’s if you even believe the term “Blairite” still has relevance (which, incidentally, I don’t). Similarly, picking out individual Shadow Cabinet members serves to achieve the following:

a) further disrupts Ed Miliband’s greatest acheivement so far – party unity (which has taken a bashing recently)
b) makes policy disagreements deeply personal
c) ensures that Ed Miliband can’t/won’t reshuffle any of those mentioned even if he felt so inclined

Whatever quotes may have appeared in the New Statesman, Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander are not the most influential figures in Ed Miliband’s sphere. McCluskey surely knows this, and I’d imagine both Jim and Douglas would agree. And even if they were the voices which could single-handedly alter Miliband’s thinking – would this kind of criticism have the desired effect with Ed Miliband? I very much doubt it.

I suspect one of the consequences will be that some within the party will take this as a gauntlet thrown, and seek to see the party’s biggest affiliate sidelined, rather than worked alongside, in the fight ahead. Miliband’s task will continue to be keeping everyone inside the tent.

Frustratingly, all of this back and forth, the attack and the thundering response, allows the press to write stories about “splits” and “loyalty” with headlines like “Labour vs The Unions”. Meanwhile, our real enemy – that’s the Tory Party – are getting their act together. Not on the economy (that’s still a mess) but by bringing in smart, savvy, thoughtful politicians like Jo Johnson and the impressive Jesse Norman into the Downing Street sphere.

Whilst they’re getting themselves organised, we’re threatening to tear ourselves to bits. Let’s take a deep breath everyone.

And stop.