Has David Miliband become a sort of Trotsky/Emmanuel Goldstein figure whose reputation has to be trashed at every opportunity by acolytes of Brother Ed?

How sad.

And how odd that the attack should be made in terms of his alleged inability to articulate his motivations and his supposed lack of access to language.

I’ve always seen those as Ed’s problems.

Not that I believe much of this story, but there seems to be something wrong with DM’s logic here:

He added: “When I grew up the Holocaust seemed quite recent growing up in a Jewish family where many of our relatives had been killed in the Holocaust – it might be really distant for you but when I was growing up that was still pretty real for us and we were strongly taught by my father that if you had a talent and you had the opportunity to use it then you should use it for the common good, and that is the reason I was doing the job.”

What is the link between the Holocaust and using it for the common good? Although it is ironic that anyone should be taught to use their gifts for the common good by that particular Stalinist. Does DM think that if the Holocaust had not taken place it would have been fine to use your talents for your own selfish ends? How does the Holocaust place a moral obligation on people to use the skills for the common good?

It is not important, it just seems weird. Not a complex thinker perhaps.

The whole conversation seems contrived. Do real people actually talk like that to one another?

It seems designed to suggest that David M, and perhaps by inference others, are unable to be themselves and have to rely on spin doctors and focus groups to tell them how to behave and speak. By doing so it plays to a popular prejudice.

I think you would seriously struggle to find any career politician capable of ‘being themselves’, purely because there are a lot of thoughts and opinions that would be political suicide to share.

consider the number of times private comments caught on mikes or stated ‘off the record’ have ended careers?

what does the holocaust have to do with it? pretty simple, really: vast numbers of incredibly intelligent, talented and skilled people were slaughtered by the Nazi machine purely for being Jewish. It kinda makes sense for a Jewish father to impress upon his sons that you must use your gifts for the good of mankind. Not only in memory of those who died, but to show the world that Hitler was wrong, and modern day anti-Semites are wrong.

It’s not the only reason to want to excel, but it’s a bloody good one.

or something.

This is an interesting spin on the quotes I agreed for the book – certain sections of which provided important context that seem to have been excised from the quotes in this article (unless they were cut from the book – haven’t seen the published version yet).

In fact, the narrative of my quotes for the book emphasised how David became much more relational after the training, and how his use of these 1-2-1 meetings with members of the public helped to energise his campaign.

He was able to explain why he was running – the problem for many politicians is that they fear that anything that they say which is personal will get trawled over, misinterpreted and used against them by the press – kind of in the way that this article has done! – so they are naturally reticent to open up about the deeper stuff.

My participation in the book certainly was not an attack on David – particularly as I understand he also contributed, along with a number of his close friends and allies. I recounted this story to show how community organising techniques can help politicians to relate more effectively to people.

Perhaps best to read the book in full to get the real story.

4. Steven Van der Werf

I think you would seriously struggle to find any career politician capable of ‘being themselves’, purely because there are a lot of thoughts and opinions that would be political suicide to share.

Indeed. Something for which the media ought to be ashamed – as we see time and time again, usually with Right Wing politicians. No one bothered to ask what Nicholas Ridley for instance meant, or even Keith Joseph. A case might even be made for Enoch Powell.

consider the number of times private comments caught on mikes or stated ‘off the record’ have ended careers?

Indeed. The media pack, and I count LC with them, alas, is vicious.

what does the holocaust have to do with it? pretty simple, really: vast numbers of incredibly intelligent, talented and skilled people were slaughtered by the Nazi machine purely for being Jewish. It kinda makes sense for a Jewish father to impress upon his sons that you must use your gifts for the good of mankind. Not only in memory of those who died, but to show the world that Hitler was wrong, and modern day anti-Semites are wrong.

Wrong about what? Their lie that Jews were not willing to use their gifts for the common good of mankind? I think that is a bizarre claim to make. You think that Ralph Milliband wouldn’t have told his children to work for the good of mankind (in so far as RM, a defender of mass murder on grounds as equally spurious as race, understood it) if the Holocaust has not taken place?

It’s not the only reason to want to excel, but it’s a bloody good one.

I don’t. I think it is lame. Be nice to the Goyim or they will kill you? What sort of argument is that? Not that I can see Miliband Senior making that argument.

“When David Miliband couldn’t explain why he wanted to be Labour leader”

It was because it was there – what impelled Scott on the attempt to get to the South Pole in 1911/12, or Mallory for his attempt to get to the summit of Everest in 1924.

Mallory is famously quoted as having replied to the question “Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?” with the retort, “Because it’s there.”

@3. Cherub: “The whole conversation seems contrived. Do real people actually talk like that to one another?”

If you recall, that was part of the Johann Hari kerfuffle. Interviewees don’t speak in coherent sentences; they are continually backtracking and thinking about clearer ways to make a point. So interviewers help them out when putting the conversation down on paper. Whether the conversation is honest depends on what the interviewer delivers in the final draft.

I am not accusing Jonathan Cox of any misdeeds. It is clear throughout the quotes above that he was paraphrasing David Miliband whilst trying to maintain the nature and flow of the conversation. The fiction of Elmore Leonard or George V Higgins is based around the dialogue of fictional crooks, politicians and lawyers. As Jonathan Cox experienced, real ones aren’t so interesting.

I still think David looks like Mr Bean. I know its probably silly, but appearance counts for a great deal in this life. Not that Ed is particularly convincing, either. They are the Rosencranz and Guildenstern of British politics aren’t they, useful holding up an arras or bringing bad tidings, but about as inspirational as a mad old bloke wandering around with a placard saying “The End Is Nigh!”

I think “so much for subtlety” sums up exactly why politicians don’t like being personal when facing press or public.

DM offered a degree of insight into his upbringing, and the aspects of that upbringing that impacted on him strongly – and some people attack the sentiment.

I mean, to question the “logic” of an emotional expression on one’s influences is clearly idiotic.

But people feel comfortable doing that to politicians. Which is sad and is why we never really see them be themselves.

I wouldn’t complain about Cox possibly reworking the interview to make it readable.

Not when his dull prose, combined with an inadequate vocabulary, makes it completely unreadable anyway. The second paragraph runs, “I said … and he said … and I said … and he said …” The rest of his piece over-uses that same verb to report speech to the point where it gets distracting.

Lets see, rich speak in posh voice, both when put under pressure revert to my parents were immigrants as Ed did this week. Both have no idea how hard it is to live on the min wage or benefits, both have this love affair with Thatcher because that the basic premise of their belief in Politics , both want the job so they can add their names to history and my Shiite has more socialism in it them both of these Pratt’s.