Miliband: Holyrood key to fightback

DAVID Miliband was still at Oxford University when he first accepted an invitation to holiday in Argyll. One of the other holidaymakers, Lord Foulkes recalls: "It was 22 years ago. We were in a large house in Skipness for 14 days and it rained for 13 of them. We played a lot of Trivial Pursuit and Monopoly and, I can tell you, David doesn't like to lose."

The first impression created by that intense, "brilliant" student from Corpus Christi College had a powerful effect on Foulkes. So much so that he is now one of Miliband's most vocal supporters in the race for the Labour leadership.

The prize is certainly a great one. Given the fragile state of the economy and the political uncertainties underpinning the coalition government, the winner could conceivably find him or herself propelled into a general election campaign within months of becoming Labour Party leader and then into Downing Street.

But if the prize is great, so too is the risk. To win the Labour leadership, Miliband will have to beat younger brother Ed in what is turning into a very close fight. The elder brother, bookies' favourite from the start, has it all to lose.

Both know how important the Scottish Labour Party is to the leadership contest – which is why Ed visited Holyrood last week and why David is writing in today's Scotland on Sunday (Page 16). Always one of the strongest bulwarks in the Labour movement, the Scottish party is now treated with a mixture of awe and deference by senior English party figures simply because it kept Scotland defiantly red in the general election when the rest of the UK was turning blue.

So is Scottish Labour more likely to back Ed or David? What is each brother's vision for Scotland and its relationship with the rest of the UK? On the surface, it can seem as if they have adopted the same approach. They have pledged more autonomy for the Scottish party. Of the two, Ed has been the more vocal on this but, crucially, neither has really articulated what more autonomy" would mean or what it would look like.

Both have made clear they are considering a change in the title of the senior party figure in Scotland, creating the new position of Scottish Labour leader rather than forcing the incumbent to cope with the long-winded title "Leader of the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament" and ending the turf war with whoever holds the Scotland portfolio at Westminster.

They have both promised to look into the possibility of MSPs having a greater say in the election of party leaders – giving them the same voting rights as MPs – and they have both backed the full implementation of the Calman Commission recommendations. Significantly though, neither has tried to trump the other by promising additional fiscal powers – the arrangement known as Calman Plus. There are, however, significant differences below the surface.

According to Foulkes, David has more stature, gravitas, intelligence and electoral appeal. The Labour MSP said: "He is more statesmanlike and charismatic. He acts more like a prime minister. We are not just talking about the next party leader, we are talking about a potential prime minister."

Writing in Scotland on Sunday, David is reaching out to the Scottish

party. He has promised not only to put the leader of Scottish Labour on to the National Executive Committee, which Iain Gray has requested, but to go further and also put the Scottish leader on to the shadow cabinet.

The older Miliband also stresses the importance of a Labour victory in next year's Holyrood elections for the party, writing: "The route back to Downing Street starts with a Labour First Minister in Bute House next year."

Ed has also promised more autonomy for Scottish Labour and more influence for the party leader – leaving the brothers with very similar positions on the practical, structural side of politics.

But where Ed's supporters believe he scores highly in Scotland is with his "values". David has always had ambition, but has been criticised for lacking emotion and "heart" – something his brother could never be accused of. And it is this ability to connect to the roots of the Labour movement that Ed's Scottish supporters believe will give him the edge north of the border.

Labour MSP John Park believes the younger Miliband not only "understands" Scotland but also talks "the right language" for Scottish Labour.

Park is reluctant to categorise Ed as "Old Labour" or Left-wing: he prefers the term "Real Labour" – but that probably amounts to the same thing.

"Ed has been very quick to adopt a lot of things that appeal to many in Scottish Labour: the living wage, the high-pay commission. It is about trying to move Britain politically into the centre-Left," Park said.

Park also believes Ed's high-profile commitment to proper autonomy for the Scottish Labour Party marks a clear difference with his older brother.

"Britain has changed since 1999, devolution has done that. It has been a great achievement, but the structures of the Labour Party have remained static. We have different election campaigns and we should look at how resources are allocated within the party too," he said.

His supporters certainly believe that while David talks a good game when it comes to more autonomy for the Scottish party, Ed will deliver, partly, they say, because he actually believes in it and partly because he knows the Scottish Labour Party very well.

Speaking to Scotland on Sunday this week, Ed said he was "pleased" that his message appeared to be "resonating" with party members north of the border and said the key was principle, not presentation. He said: "I have been talking most about values in this campaign and values we need to stand up for. I don't think it's about re- presentation or rebranding. It's about saying: there are some clear values we need to stand up for, the gap between rich and poor is too wide and we need to narrow it, we do need proper dignity at work for people and that means a living wage.

"So maybe it's standing up for those principles which is resonating with people and I certainly hope it is."

There are many Labour MSPs who remember Ed when he was seconded by Gordon Brown to work for the Scottish party in the 1999 Scottish election campaign. "I think it has given me an understanding of the strength of devolution, not just for Scotland but for the entire United Kingdom," he said.

While it may well be true that taking part in a full election campaign alongside Donald Dewar is better preparation for dealing with the complexities of Scottish Labour politics than a wet fortnight in Argyll, it will be how the Milibands deal with each other that will probably decide this contest.

So far the contest has been relatively amicable, with the odd verbal swipe, but little more than that. Park has been reassured by the calm nature of the contest to date, but he is aware, as are the brothers, how tense it could get by the end. "It could be that, as brothers, they continue to get on well and it is all brotherly love. I suppose, though, it could go the other way and they could scrap like brothers, too.

"At the moment, though it has been very good-natured. It remains to be seen what happens when it gets close to the end. It might be the same as it was with Blair and Brown, they remained courteous to each other, but it was those close to them who were sticking the knife in."

While both camps are keen to press the case for their favourite, both are also refreshingly candid about their weaknesses. Ed's supporters admit (in private, at least) that David, a former foreign secretary, would win a leadership contest if it was to be held today, particularly if the candidate had to move straight on to become PM.

Likewise, David's supporters admit that Ed has been better at working the local constituencies, has secured more grassroots support and is likely to do better in Scotland.

That was certainly reflected in a Scotland on Sunday straw poll of Labour MSPs, which found more support for Ed than his brother. Out of 30 of Labour's 46 MSPs, seven were prepared to say publicly that they backed Ed, with four supporting his brother, two opting for Andy Burnham and none for either Ed Balls or Diane Abbott.

One of the vagaries of the complicated Labour leadership process, however, is that it rewards the candidate with the most general spread of support, not the candidate with the most first-choice votes.

This means that huge importance will be placed on the ability of candidates to secure second-choice support from Labour members.

The Ed Miliband camp will hope to pick up second choice votes from both David Miliband and Balls so that, even if their man comes third in the first round, he might be able to edge ahead because of the transfers.

The one other big constituency that will have a huge say in the final outcome is the union vote. Union leaderships may recommend support for one particular candidate or they may not. Indeed, the Scottish unions may take a different approach to their London-based colleagues.

Both Milibands may like to portray this contest as a simple case of sibling rivalry but, in reality, they both know it is much more important than that.

This leadership election is about ideas, autonomy, party structures and ideology: in short, the very future of the Labour Party is at stake.

There was a time when everyone in the Labour movement was a brother. It is undoubtedly the case now though, that there are only two brothers who matter – and only one of whom can win.