Miliband And The Media

Murnaghan last Sunday, asked the question whether Ed Miliband is being hounded by a hostile media. Coming from someone who works for the Evil Media Empire, of Rupert Murdoch, the question itself seems a bit rich. The answer is, of course, Miliband is being so hounded, but the further, more interesting questions are why, and what should Labour do about it?

The glib answer to why would be that we have a Tory press, so why would we expect that they would not attack a Labour leader? But, that begs further questions such as, why do we have an overwhelmingly Tory press? The answer cannot be that the Tories are the party of business and Labour are the party of the workers. As far back as Lenin, it was recognised that Labour was only the Workers' Party in the sense that its membership was made up of workers, and it was organisationally and ideologically tied to workers organisation like the trades unions. But, as Lenin pointed out, it was a bourgeois workers' party. That is the reformist ideology that underpinned it was the same bourgeois ideology that underpinned the trades unions from whence it came, and which also dominated the vast majority of workers.

In other words, the LP, from the start, has been a party which has been little more than a development of the Liberal Party, from the end of the 19^th century, a party that relies on the votes and activism of workers, but whose ideology, and, therefore, its actions, are ultimately governed by what is in the interests of capital, and in particular, that big industrial capital, whose interests, and those of the workers, are mediated and negotiated within a modern social democracy.

Over the last century, capital has had enough experience of Labour to affirm itself of this understanding. Nor is it the case that “Red Ed” is in fact anything more than the palest pink with a hint of purple. Miliband differs little ideologically from Blair, who repeatedly won the support of the Tory press, despite trebling spending on the NHS, introducing the minimum wage, let alone being an ardent advocate of that one idea sure to set Tories off on an apoplectic fit – Europe.

In fact, the one paper you would think would be the clearest voice of the interests of the most important section of British capital – the FT – has, if anything, been more pro-Labour than Tory. It has generally criticised the policy of austerity, as opposed to fiscal expansion, in the US, for example.

Although part of the explanation of the actions of the British press can be located in its ownership structure, which gives a few, very rich, press barons the ability to treat the papers in their stable as their own playthings, it also has to be remembered that newspapers are businesses, and have to provide a commodity they can sell. Each will then try to place its product in a segment of the market it believes it can exploit to maximise its sales.

The reason we have an overwhelmingly Tory press is not because the Tories represent the interests of capital, and newspapers are owned by capitalists. The reason is that a large proportion of the population, who buy newspapers, hold the same kind of reactionary views that the newspapers they buy are happy to validate for them. We have the gutter press we have, because it acts like a comfort blanket for bigots, and the kind of bigotry that infects a sizeable section of the population, and whose manifestation is shown in the votes for the BNP, UKIP and the Tories.

None of this bigotry should be confused with the interests of capital. In large part, it is, in fact, contrary to the interests of modern, large-scale capital, particularly in respect of Europe and the free movement of labour and capital. If its in the interests of capital at all, its only those backward sections of capital, particularly those kinds of small, inward looking capitals, that make up the core of Tory votes and membership.

There is then another reason why the media don't like Miliband, and that is he appears different – summarised by the media as geeky. A fundamental aspect of bigotry is the singling out of anything or anyone who is different. Ed Miliband might be the finest P.M. the country ever had, might have all the qualities of intelligence, organisation, hard work, determination and courage required, but all that amounts to nothing when, in the mind of a bigot, he appears as “different”.

And, once that meme is established, simple game theory demonstrates that no paper that wants to retain its readers is going to demur from it. Indeed, few media commentators are going to risk their own reputation and prospects by challenging it.

Unfortunately then, for Miliband, he faces a perfect storm, in relation to the media. On the one hand, he had the audacity to be elected leader, despite the fact that the majority of the media were backing his brother, and confidently predicting he would win. From the start, he has faced their wrath, therefore. Secondly, he is seen as different, which is never going to be acceptable to bigots, or those that appease bigots. Thirdly, he is seen as part of the metropolitan elite, whose culture is antipathetic to the reactionary ideas and bigotry of those backward sections of the population that make up the bulk of the readership of the Tory press, and whose ideas have been reinforced as a result of the economic crisis engendered by the policies of the Liberal-Tories, and for which Europe, immigration etc. are an easy explanation.

So, what should Labour do about that? Perhaps, given the money paid out to David Axelrod, its a question he should already have answered. And, in doing so, he should have advised Miliband not to appease the worst representative of that reactionary media, by posing with a copy of the Sun. In fact, Miliband should stop being an appeaser altogether. You cannot appease bigots. Their bigotry has to be confronted, and the fears that underlie their bigotry addressed.

Miliband did well when he was attacking the Evil Empire, rather than appeasing it. Labour in general needs to go on the attack. After 30 years of monetarist and Austrian orthodoxy it was inevitable that its spell would be hard to break. Gordon brown should take credit for doing so in 2008, in response to the financial crisis, but he and Alistair Darling, should not have responded to the Tories switch back to austerity in 2010, by following suit. They should have followed Obama's lead, in demanding a continuation of fiscal expansion, until the economic recovery was fully established.

Brown was also wrong to have opposed Blair's support for joining the Euro. A single European market only makes sense in the context of a single currency and state. Labour should be spearheading the drive, with workers' organisations across Europe, for the establishment of a United states of Europe. That would be the best way of dealing with the arguments of euroseptics about benefit tourism, and the undercutting of wages etc.

Instead of appeasing the bigots with weasel words about preventing foreigners obtaining benefits in Britain, Labour should say we need a united Europe to bring the low levels of workers benefits and conditions, in Britain, up to those of the best in Europe, such as Germany. Labour needs to give a strong, clear and confident message, based on promoting the interests not just of British workers, but all worker across Europe, and should do so unashamedly, rather than trying to appease those reactionary ideas of the Tories, which do not even represent the interests of big capital, which itself requires a forward looking, modern European economy, that can quite easily provide decent minimum standards for workers, even if the backward looking, inefficient small capitals, built up under Thatcher, cannot.

In fact, Miliband has the opportunity to make a great advance, simply by making the decisive break from all of the mistakes that arose under Thatcher and her heirs. There would be nothing geeky about that.