Analysis: Who is David Miliband?
When asked which politician they would rather go on a date with, more British gay men picked David Miliband than anyone else. David Cameron came second.
It’s not the first time the two men have been compared with each other. Fresh faced and presentable, both have an innate grasp of how to handle the media and a tactician’s approach to politics. But Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband come from very different places.
While the Tory leader’s family was basking in its links with various Conservative MPs and royal family, Mr Miliband’s was being torn asunder by Hitler’s invasion of Belgium in 1940, with his father and grandfather being forced to flee to England. The family were not reunited until 1950, by which time his father, Ralph, was well on the way to establishing himself as one of Britain’s pre-eminent Marxist intellectuals.
He may not have swallowed the Marxism, but the intelligence certainly came through. David Miliband went to Oxford and then followed a career straight into public policy, starting with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, then the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Commission of Social Justice before being brought on as a contributor to Labour’s 1997 manifesto.
By this stage he was head of policy, but once Tony Blair had swept to power on a tide of optimism and goodwill, he was the de-facto head of the prime minister’s policy unit. It was at this stage that Alistair Campbell, who needs no introduction, gave him the nickname ‘Brains’ after the Thunderbirds character.
Elected to parliament in 2001, Mr Miliband then went on to grab a slew of ministerial posts, rising steadily up the ranks and demanding a greater portion of column inches as party members began to look him up and down for signs of a potent challenger to Gordon Brown’s rise in the party.
First he was appointed schools minister, then Cabinet Office minister and minister of state for communities and local government where, despite not being a secretary of state, he still sat as a full member of Cabinet.
By this stage his already astronomical career path went into warp drive. He was promoted to environment secretary and then, when Mr Brown finally took over the reins, foreign secretary.
That last decision was a calculated one. Various quarters were pushing Mr Miliband to stand against Mr Brown when Mr Blair was – essentially – forced from office. But he didn’t budge.
He was probably wise to do so. The party had made it its mind on Brown and it was going to give him a chance. To have attempted a leadership bid then would have tainted his ambitions with failure and division.
His reward was one of the high offices of state, but it was carefully selected. Mr Brown gave him as powerful a job as he could while keeping him out the public’s sight. Barring the tumultuous events leading up to the Iraq invasion, foreign policy does not enjoy a prominent position in the mind of the British electorate, so Mr Brown found a way to temporarily nuetralising this potential threat while minimising the damage he could do.
That tactic barely survived the year. Yesterday’s article in the Guardian was a carefully framed political manoeuvre, whatever Mr Miliband might say. By refusing to mention Mr Brown by name he both protected himself against any accusation of outright treachery and simultaneously worsened the prime minister’s position. In much the same way, his concentrated attack on the Tories fulfilled a double function. It made the article look like a standard, harmless Labour text – after all, attacking the opposition is what parties in government do. But it also stands as a picture-show to Labour members. ‘Look’, it says, ‘this is how much better I’d do it if it was my job to take these guys on’.
Mr Miliband gives every impression of being a good political operator. Sitting in the same room as Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell for years will do that to a man. But how much do we know about what he actually believes in?
In the frankly unpleasant new world of policy triangulation and personality politics, the line between beliefs and political strategy is wearing thin. Should Mr Miliband find himself leader in opposition – which remains the most likely event – he will probably find a little more space for himself on the centre-left. Nothing too wacky, but the sort of centre-left where you’d put a windfall on energy companies or tack a little extra on income or capital gains tax. The more the Tories focus on their bread-and-butter issues like inheritance tax and crime, rather than their early infatuation with the environment, the more likely this becomes.
Off the record, this is what we hear: Mr Miliband was a private critic of the Iraq war and the only person in Cabinet who dared tell Tony Blair he needed to speak out against the war in Lebanon. He is definitely very pro-EU. But his votes tell a slightly different story, one of persistent loyalty to the government. He voted for the Iraq war and against an investigation into it. He voted for all of Labour’s anti-terrorism laws, and he supported student fees and foundation hospitals.
Frankly, it all looks rather Blairite. But as a decent Marxist, Ralph Miliband will have undoubtedly communicated to his son that men are not solely made up of their beliefs or methods but also by their environment, by the time they live in. It was essential to the success of the New Labour project that Mr Blair gave no indication whatsoever of looking leftward – such was the train-wreck of old Labour’s electoral performance in that area of the political map. Things may well be different for a future Labour leader, assuming they take over after an electoral defeat in 2010 – but possibly even if they take over before then. A slightly more centre-left position may well become more welcoming, and Mr Miliband would be just the sort of man to take it if he has to.
That time is still a long way off, but yesterday’s article turned all eyes towards him. Mr Miliband is definitely in the race for No 10, either before or after the next election. That much is certain.
