In defence of “poor Ed Miliband”

Apparently, Ed Miliband’s existence is analogous to a “relatively harmless STI”. This revelation, taken from Jordan Bishop’s article of last week, is typical of the media’s increasing readiness to use supposition, innuendo and personal bias to mock leading political figures.

Personal dislike is a shaky basis for any argument – indeed, Bishop comes across as unduly harsh. Focusing on pettiness – such as Miliband’s “incredibly silly” appearance on his trip to Afghanistan – merely detracts from the main issues.

So what are the main issues? The few crumbs of substance in Bishop’s piece appear to centre on economic policy. But Ed Miliband’s apparent “U-turn” regarding Labour’s economic record is a misnomer.

In fact, Miliband and his team have continually advocated plans to gradually decrease the deficit over the course of the next parliament. Yes, he thinks Labour should have been quicker to acknowledge the need for cuts, but this is a far cry from repudiating Labour’s economic record altogether. No U-turns here.

Then we have Bishop’s allegation that Ed Balls was the only senior Labour politician to maintain that the cuts are completely unnecessary and so his appointment to the role of Shadow Chancellor was another U-turn revealing Miliband’s “directional ineptitude”. Not quite. Balls has in fact acknowledged the need for cuts, but emphasises the need for economic growth as a prerequisite. So how is this inconsistent with Miliband’s policy? No U-turns here either.

Contrast this with the inconsistencies of the current government and it seems they would do well to adopt some basic management techniques of their own, such as Ed Miliband’s policy “sign off” form which is being used to check public statements made by Shadow Ministers. Rather than “governing every minute aspect of human life”, as Bishop hyperbolically suggests, a policy like this might actually ensure the broadcasting of a consistent message.

Bishop’s unsubstantial, personal attack on the leader and his anti-politics fervour – “What more can you expect from politicians?” – are unhelpful and encourage apathy. Such tabloid thinking stifles intelligent debate. So let us cut out such nonsense and have a grown-up discussion instead.