Sunday, 26 September 2010

The MiliBros Affair & Politicians

The Sunday papers provide 'wall-to-wall' coverage of the 'Miliband of Brothers' and the words of the new Leader of the Labour Party - and it is on the latter I wish to concentrate.

In today's Telegraph Andrew Gimson has a piece which is well worth a read and raises a few points which seem to have escaped most commentators. If Ed had so much love for his brother David, just why did he stand against him? If the words of Diane Abbott were 'distinct truths' that needed to be said, then why did Ed not say them?

There can be no doubt that MiliD must be - and no doubt is - extremely disappointed to have lost the opportunity of becoming leader of his party. There is also no doubt that the brothers have differing views on policy, yet Ed expects and would like David to serve under him and it would appear that David, from what he is reported to have said, would seem to be willing to do just that.

This raises the question once again of principles - if a campaign is fought for leadership and is lost, how can the loser then agree to serve under and follow the principles of the victor? Does that not demonstrate one of the reasons for which our present form of democracy fails? Is it not logical to expect the loser to politely say 'Thanks but no thanks', retain his/her dignity - encapsulated in which would be the respect of the electorate - and continue to fight for that in which they believe?

The Purple Scorpion has a post in which he writes:
"Is it beyond the imagination of journalists that Ed may have said what he had to say in order to get himself elected leader, and will now say what he has to say in order to get himself elected Prime Minister?"
On that comment, one is reminded of a quotation by Walter Karp (1934-1989), an American journalist and political theorist, who said:
"The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the 'best' sources"
 which stands as an endictment to the standard of journalism today.

The entire MiliBros Affair just demonstrates for the nth time that politics is not about principle and honour, but about position and power - mores the pity. If our politicians had principles and honour and adhered to those qualities, perhaps the country would be better served?

Just a Sunday thought................... 


Update: Helen Szamuely on Your Freedom and Ours also has a piece worth reading.

3 comments:

James Higham said...

I just can't express how banal and boring the whole Millipede biz is.

Raedwald said...

Excellent insight; reminds me of Bierce "A Politician is an eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive."

Witterings From Witney said...

JH, agreed but can still be commented upon from the angle I use, one that is at the heart of our ills.

Raedwald, thank you for your endorsement.