Loading... Please wait...

Blog of Jay Baker

About the author

Feed

RSS Feed

How the Left Helped the Media Marginalise Miliband

@ 7:54 pm, Sun 5th Feb 2012











In my first book I included a prediction that New Labour was an unsustainable election-winning machine that would eventually break down, fixed only by the progressive values that the party was founded upon. That’s what happened.

When Ed Miliband became a candidate for leader of the Labour Party, he was seen as the best hope for a realistic opportunity to take the party back on its progressive course. When he became leader via a total of votes cast by MPs, members, and union members, many of us celebrated. His statesmanlike yet Blairite brother was defeated, and it was the demise of New Labour; time to start over.

As I’ve discussed at length several times here, Ed faced an immediate backlash from:

  • The right-wing media: The Guardian backed the Liberal Democrats at the general election, and despite that party forming a coalition with the Conservatives and becoming their apologists, the broadsheet continued to undermine Ed Miliband, as did John Rentoul over at The Independent. But as if that wasn’t enough, naturally the press of Rupert Murdoch and his ilk were pulling out all the stops, too. Christening Miliband “Red Ed,” the right-wing rags focused on the large amount of votes from unions that contributed to his leadership win. All these votes were trivialised as not, say, the will of membership card-carrying workers, but their bosses, cleverly called “union barons.” Unite’s head representative – pardon me, union baron Len McLuskey, had even forged links with a “militant” union boss abroad – Canadian Leo Gerard, who came from the nickel mines of Sudbury, Ontario and has worked to globalise workers’ unions to match up with the globalised nature of the corporations they work for…a scary “militant” if I ever heard of one.
  • The BBC: Despite being responsible for one of the greatest media manipulations in British media history when it edited footage of the Battle of Orgreave during the miners’ strike to falsely portray the picketers, and not the police, as instigators of the violence, the BBC’s old school small-C conservatism wasn’t enough to keep at bay constant claims by the right-wing media (as in, all the rest) that they were too “left-leaning” (which, as many media groups and experts will tell you, is a fabrication). So, they’ve only aided and abetted their more unashamed right-wing counterparts in framing the Credit Crunch™ as something related largely to Labour rather than Thatcherite financial deregulation, and presenting the cuts as part of TINA* instead of an ideological quest to sell off everything no matter the cost (as per Tory policy since Thatcher).
  • The Blairites: Furious that their boy David Miliband had been pipped at the post in the last moments of the race to be leader, Ed was soon surrounded by those from the inner circle who clung to New Labour’s broken legacy and all the big business opportunities it opened up for them as individuals post-retirement. Lord Sainsbury even pulled his party donations because of Ed’s leadership. Their feeding of the negative news stories about him via their think tanks was only part of the action taken to stop Ed from listening to mass majority of progressives who comprise the grassroots base of the political party. To assuage their fears right away, he made Alan Johnson, not Ed Balls, shadow chancellor, despite the fact everyone knew two Eds was better than one. However, Balls got the post later on anyway, and the Blairites weren’t happy.

So, straight from the start, Ed Miliband had it made clear to him that trying to pry himself and his base away from the clutches of New Labour ideology that sought to support much of Thatcher’s capitalist quests wouldn’t be easy: he was being bullied into backing off from the stuff that would’ve made his dad proud. But hey, he still had his party members and all the grassroots activists to stick by him, right?

Wrong.

They crucified him.

Party members complained about his presentation in public. Bloggers ranted that he wasn’t socialist enough. Citizens in cities across the country blamed him for “allowing” Labour councils to slash services despite their budgets being cut by the national coalition government on high. In spite of the fact he even brazenly spoke at the March 26th “March for the Alternative” organised by major unions and even being cunningly juxtaposed by Murdoch’s Sky speaking over footage of rioting protesters, Ed got nothing much from the lefties besides a bashing. It was incredible. Did they, deep down, long for New Labour? Had they long since fallen in love with their oppressors?

As the months went by, Ed’s language softened. He took baby-steps away from anything that could be spun as reinforcing his “Red Ed” image as all the knives came out from inside his party and other parties, while the press slaughtered him. Few rallied to his side to stand up for him, making it easier for these forces to pile on the pressure to have him change his position further.

The one hope Labour had in a leader considered by undecided voters to be the best bet – by proxy – of abandoning New Labour was, incredibly, actually lacking in support from the reds. With each passing month of his leadership, the armchair experts spent more and more energy criticising Ed Miliband than I’d seen them use even to criticise his New Labour predecessors. In turn, this vulnerability was capitalised on by the media. He was defenceless. He remains defenceless today.

If Ed Miliband actually loses the leadership before 2015, what would that do to Labour? Well, apart from the party resembling the mess that was the Tory Party from 1997 to 2005 and starting a series of upheavals that could last several elections, it would likely leave its leadership position immediately open to a more Blairite politician.

Sure, we all know that no matter what they tell the press, Labour would never wreak upon Britain the kind of devastation done by the Tories at the moment, pay freezes and spending cuts or no – because they answer to a broad base of left-wing unions and community members who forced even the odious Tony Blair to pass some progressive policies. But isn’t it better to stick by a leader who comes from a more progressive position on a personal basis, rather than one doing things for people under duress? Ed Miliband is, on paper, arguably the best Labour leader the party’s had since 1994 at the latest. The Labour party needs a strong leader, but any leader is only as strong as his followers entrust and empower him to be.

So far, too many of Labour’s followers have guided their party right into the right-wing media’s hands. If they want to win the next election at all, they’d better rally round their leader, and they’d better do it fast – activists, bloggers; all of them. While they’re wanting him to stay progressive, in this system he needs all the help he can get.

*TINA: There Is No Alternative

Comments · Show / Hide
You may only comment from within MembersNet »