EM needs an AC

Am I being too harsh or is Ed Miliband's first post-leave interview a bit of a waste of space?

Given that he's been soaked in baby shit for the last couple of weeks it's perhaps unfair to expect him to say anything much on his first day back, but then again he shouldn't have done the interview if he didn't have something specific to communicate. As it is, the only headline it's generated is a negative one - the rumour of a clash between him and Alan Johnson over tuition fees. ("Appearing to disagree" with your shadow chancellor a few weeks after appointing them - and when the issue in question clearly in your sights at the time - well, it's not a good look.)

The rest of the interview is full of vacuities and contradictions. Miliband reacts to Johnson's suggestion that the 50p tax rate policy is temporary with a resounding statement of principle:

"One of the things that gets me out of bed in the morning and that I care about is that Britain is a fundamentally unequal society and that's the reason I said what I said about the 50p rate...it's about values and fairness and about the kind of society you believe in and it's important to me."

Gosh, so that's that then. It stays! Hang on...

"Put it this way, I took the view that I did in the campaign, that remains my view. And when I think about the next election – is our policy going to be to reduce the 50p rate for people on £150,000? I don't think it is. But obviously, we'll decide that nearer the time."

So, er, maybe not then. He seems to have only half-realised that hanging your principles on a tax rate is silly. Throughout the interview he seems to be playing to his own members rather than to the voters. There's lots of very vague stuff about how the party must change but very little about his vision for the country. This is the closest he gets...

Is Britain materially better off than it was 20 to 30 years ago? Yes, absolutely it is. But for some people the gap between the dreams that seem to be on offer and their ability to realise them is wider than it's ever been before, and it seems much more of a struggle and that's what interests me. How do you close that gap between the dreams that are apparently on offer and people's ability to realise them?

...which sounds like the opening of a particularly tedious sociology essay.

But the worst part is when he tries to explain how he wants Labour to change with reference to Michael Lewis's book The Blind Side, which is about American football. I've no idea if the extended metaphor he uses makes any sense if you've read the book or understand the sport. But I do know it's a bizarre and almost perversely obscure way for the leader of a British political party to explain what they're about.

Ed Miliband became leader because he said he was against Bad Things like "spin". But the truth is he clearly needs someone around who can help him express himself in language people understand. Who will be his Alistair Campbell?

Comments

[Scott]

"It features two dominant story lines. The first is an examination of how offensive football strategy has evolved over the past three decades in large part due to Lawrence Taylor's arrival in the 1980s and how this evolution has placed an increased importance on the role of the left tackle."

Maggie Thatcher as Lawrence Taylor. The left tackle as the free market.

"The second storyline features Michael Oher, the former left tackle for the Ole Miss football team, and current left tackle for the Baltimore Ravens. The author follows Oher from his impoverished upbringings through his years at Briarcrest Christian School, his adoption by Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy and on to his position as one of the most highly coveted prospects in college football."

Ed as Michael Oher. But who adopted him? And who covets him? And why exactly are Labour the Baltimore Ravens?

(Thickipedia quotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Side:_Evolution_of_a_Game)

[Ian Leslie]

Yes, er, good to get that cleared up.

[Lyle]

I'll be his Malcolm Tucker if they can get me a Tier 1 visa.