Isabel Hardman Isabel Hardman

Ed Miliband prepares for his most testing week yet

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

  • Weekly delivery of the magazine
  • Unlimited access to our website and app
  • Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
  • Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

The next two weeks are indeed dangerous for Miliband because anything other than a powerful response will allow the Tories to brand him permanently with the ‘weak leader’ line they’ve been focusing on over the past month. He has two problems: the first is that Tom Watson’s departure means that there are very few big bruisers working with him any more, save Ed Balls, who brings his own electoral problems of an economic, rather than trade unionist, order to the table. Thus his top team looks rather weak too. Watson’s abilities as a bruiser took him down the wrong avenue to resignation, but Miliband needs someone of a similar ilk. That the Tories are licking their lips about the long-term consequences of Watson going underlines that: they think Miliband will be left even more exposed in the long-run by Watson’s departure.

The second is that he needs to show that he personally has steel underneath that soft exterior. The Tories have stopped talking about Miliband’s brother because they realised it contradicted the ‘weak’ narrative. So he has a chance to show a bit of muscle without being considered Machiavellian. Some in his party want some ‘hug a husky’ (rather than hug a McCluskey) moments that are emblematic of the sort of party he is leading. Seizing ‘One Nation’ for his party was perhaps an early attempt at this, but the problem is that no-one understands what it means any more than they managed to digest the Big Society. Others hope that he will grow in confidence. One of his most rock-solid supporters recently told me, in the middle of a long conversation about Miliband’s attributes, that ‘arrogance is never, ever going to be a problem with Ed’. They said it so pointedly it suggested they feared the problem was quite the opposite: he wasn’t steely enough. The next two weeks will show us whether their fears are founded or not.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in