Viewpoint: Ed Miliband and the Daily Mail

Labour leader, Ed Miliband MP pictured with his father, Ralph, who died in 1994

Kay Richardson is a Professor in the University of Liverpool’s Department of Communication and Media

“Is it really news that the Leader of the Opposition and a right-of centre newspaper should be at odds?  Is this not just another case of political culture business-as-usual?

“The row is politically useful, because it helps in the construction of clear demarcation lines between Left (Labour) and Right (Conservative), in an era when the real points of political division between our two main political parties, in terms of policy and of ideology are very much less clear-cut than they would once have been. 

”And the Labour Party benefits. The adversarial relations between left and right are rhetorically sustained, and in many ways Labour comes off as the ‘victim’ of an unfair attack by the newspaper.

“The rhetorical basis of the Mail’s attack is headlined in terms of patriotism. Ralph Miliband is stigmatised as an intellectual who was anti-British. By implication, the loyalty of the sons,  David and Ed, must be suspect too, if only weakly, considering how freely both men have acknowledged the influence of their father on their values and beliefs. Divergent values have a place in our politics only so long as ultimate loyalty to the country is sustained. Was Miliband senior beyond the pale?

“The counter-discourse is also able to take a stand on fundamental values. For Ed and the Labour Party, values at the level of the family are at stake. Not only can the Mail’s attack be characterised by the other side as factually incorrect, not only is Ed Miliband’s riposte heartfelt, imparting attention-grabbing dramatistic qualities into the picture, but it is not he, but his dead father who has been targeted.

After agreeing to allow Ed Miliband the right to reply, the Daily Mail reprinted a version of the original article and repeated the headline

“We hear a lot about how voters today are not interested in politics. The drama of this row may have been cultivated in order to generate intensity of public response, in the absence of more authentic forms of political engagement on the part of the citizenry.

“Even if we regret the superficiality (and misrepresentation ) that such engagement entails, it may be necessary to acknowledge a need for public discourse which speaks to citizens in terms of emotions as well as in terms of rational understanding of policy options.”