The Brothers

- I do vaguely remember a television series with this name, from the 70's, didn't it have something to do with haulage? That may be apt, because the Labour Party's fight back might be a bit of a long haul, given the Tory/LibDem plans to exclude the possibility of a General Election before 2015. But the Party has made a start this week, choosing its new leader. And as I said in an earlier blog, I voted for Ed, although David was my second choice, I guess I was a fan of "The Brothers", whichever way the voting went.

I don't usually comment on national political matters unless they are of relevance to the residents in my ward, or particular to my region, but occasionally some stories come along where I feel I ought perhaps to offer my few pennyworth.

This is such a time.

A few things strike me about the announcement that following Ed Miliband's election to leader, older brother David has decided not to seek office in the Shadow Cabinet.

I think it is a real shame and a loss to the Labour Party and ultimately the country that David has taken this course of action. But I quite understand why. In many ways it would be impossible for them to work together, not because they are not perfectly capable of it,  but because the media and political observers, would always be looking for an angle, ratcheting up any political disagreements, using the "brothers" dimension.

So if David wanted to propose a particular course of action or policy that was in any way controversial, Ed would be accused of either nepotism if he supported it (is it still called nepotism if it is fraternal?), or the media would point to brotherly disunity if he did not. It would also make it difficult for David to be critical of any of Ed's proposals. It is tough enough having to manage collective shadow/cabinet responsibilities without this extra dimension.  I don't see how they would be able to manage this.

I recall Alastair Campbell resigning from his job at number 10 when he "became the story", something very similar would happen here.

I think the line that pundits are taking over this has been very unfortunate. The ultimate reasoning that one must apply from the whole coverage of the leadership campaign in respect of these two being brothers, that one has usurped the other's crown, that it must be difficult for their Mum (which of course it must be) is that siblings should not follow each other into politics.

In centuries gone by, in the upper classes, it was traditional for each son to follow a different career, one would inherit the title and the land, one perhaps join the army, one go into the church. We ought to have left all that behind us a long time ago, there is no earthly reason why siblings or partners should not share the same career hopes, but it would seem that only one should try to make it to the top in politics. Otherwise your relationship with your sibling or partner that you have been in competition with, becomes the story.

Is this what we want? That people should be forced to sacrifice their own passions and aspirations because our media are incapable of seeing further than the family rivalry? I think it is a terrible shame.