X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

Ed Miliband's Leveson response shows his weakness: he's a follower, not a leader. - Spectator Blogs

3 December 2012

3:09 PM

3 December 2012

3:09 PM

The biggest risk in punditry is the determination to see what you want to see. Confirmation bias is an ever-present clear and present danger to solid thinking. Nevertheless, though keeping this in mind, I wonder if Ed Miliband’s reaction to the Leveson Report has been wise, far less a response that will help him win the next election.

By “wise” I mean wise in a purely political sense, not “wise” as in appropriate, sensible or well-judged. The Labour leader’s demand that Leveson’s recommendations be implemented is, in its way, remarkable. This, after all, is a 2,000 page report published in four volumes. And yet within this mountain of ponderous, muddle-headed thumb-sucking Mr Miliband has not been able to – or has chose not to – identify a single passage with which he might quibble. This is an opportunity for David Cameron. Heresy Corner has a bracing post that goes some way towards explaining why this might be so:

Leveson’s predictability, though, goes beyond the familiar nature of much of the evidence, and the fact that the central conclusion – calling for a semi-independent regulatory body with statutory “underpinning” – was well trailed in advance. Leveson plods through the evidence, showing little insight and almost never offering an original observation. There’s no analysis beyond a general sense that the press’s critics are right and its defenders wrong. The turgidity of the prose seems to be an accurate reflection of the turgidity of the judge’s brain.

Perhaps he doesn’t understand journalism. (He can’t write, after all.) His regime, which requires meticulous record-keeping and would remove vital protection of investigative journalists from the rigours of the Data Protection Act, would make the most vital functions of a free press in exposing corruption and wrongdoing next to impossible. These proposals are astonishing, and show the dangers of the demand by Ed Miliband and the Hacked Off campaign, that Leveson’s recommendations be adopted “in full.” If Parliament’s job were simply to rubber-stamp the opinions of a single judge, we might as well abolish democracy entirely and hand legislative responsibility to the judiciary. They would, of course, make a pig’s ear of it, because however knowledgeable judges are about the law, they have the same occupational blind spot as members of other professions and callings, the assumption that what they happen to be expert in is the only thing that really matters.

Indeed. (And should you desire an example of how politicians would like to treat the media consult this Samizdata post. Broadcasters today; the printed press tomorrow. If they can get away with it.)

Anyway, this is an opportunity for the Prime Minister. Not because the next election will be decided by voters’ reactions to the non-urgent matter of press regulation (non-urgent, in one sense, that is because most of the objectionable practices are covered by existing criminal law). No, this is a question of leadership.


Conventional wisdom has it that with his anti-Murdoch, pro-Leveson agenda Ed Miliband has been leading the way, pinning the government on the back-foot. Perhaps so. But Miliband has not really been leading. He has simply chosen to follow opinions and campaigns crafted and led by other people. That’s his prerogative but it ain’t leadership. Going with the fashionable flow is not the same as leadership.

This, then, is Cameron’s opportunity. The task is not so much to demonstrate that Miliband is wrong (though he is) but that he lacks the leadership qualities necessary for office. Put it this way: can you imagine Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair contracting out entire major issues to quasi-independent members of the judiciary? There are times when inquiries are necessary but on issue after issue Miliband’s instinctive reaction is to call for an inquiry and then, once it has reported, ask that its recommendations be accepted lock, stock and barrel. Again, can you imagine Thatcher or Blair operating in this fashion? No, not really.

Adopting positions that comfort the stale prejudices and presumptions that animate your cosiest supporters isn’t leadership either. It’s the very opposite. It makes you feel good about yourself and wins you favourable headlines from the people who will never vote for the other guy anyway, but it doesn’t necessarily show you have the chops to be Prime Minister.

I suspect that polling on these matters is a false-friend to Labour. Sure, the public don’t much care for the press and sure they may say they support Leveson’s findings too. But, in truth, the public neither know much or care much about Leveson or the future of the press.

Miliband has been leader of the Labour party for more than two years but he has still not properly defined himself. The public still doesn’t really know what to make of him. It should go without saying that the Tories might by now have done a better job of framing Miliband in a negative light but, given the Labour leader’s failure to make a properly positive case for himself, the Conservatives are fortunate that there is still time to go to work on Ed.

Is there any issue upon which Miliband has really made his mark? Not really. It should not be impossible to argue that, sure, Miliband is not a stupid man, merely an unthinking man. Anytime there’s a problem he calls for an inquiry. That, Tories should argue, is a sign of a man who either doesn’t know his own mind or lacks the confidence to force the argument himself. In neither case does it suggest he has what it takes to lead the country. Ed’s a follower, not a leader.

So – at the risk of suggesting that other people could in this instance be persuaded to believe what I believe too – I’d recommend that the Tories use Leveson (and a couple of other comparable examples) as a means by which they can define Miliband in these negative terms. Miliband doesn’t have ideas; he has other people’s ideas. That’s fine for middle-management in some sleepy suburban backwater. It shouldn’t be enough for Downing Street.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close