The politics of character assassination

There is a right and a wrong way to criticise Ed Miliband.

The right way is to explain, preferably using reasoned argument rather than ad hominem attacks, why his election as Prime Minister would be an utter disaster for Britain. This is an opinion which is not just shared by Conservatives and those on the political right: others who have expressed similar views include the former communist David Aaronovitch (see here), "Independent" journalist John Rentoul (who wrote in April that if Miliband wins "We have to take seriously the likelihood that his government will be a disaster."), and Dan Hodges (who explained here how Miliband drove him to resign from the Labour party.)

The wrong way is to accuse Miliband's dead father of being "The man who hated Britain" or send journalists to infiltrate memorial services.

There has, of course, been a huge amount of hypocrisy in some of the response to the Mail's attack on the late Ralph Miliband. For example, not that long ago the Guardian newspaper used exactly the same dirty trick against David Cameron, attacking him by proxy through this article criticising his own deceased father.

Since Ed Miliband has himself made speeches explaining how his father influenced him, it is legitimate for others to subject that influence to critical analysis, but there is no need for such analysis to be worded in pejorative or unpleasant language.

Character assassination and guilt by association using attacks on dead relatives do not enhance our national debate whatever political perspective they come from and whether they are organised by a political party or are undertaken by journalists trying to sell newspapers.

The past few days have also seen the release of Damian McBride's memoirs which reminded us all who the true masters of character assassination were.

McBride deserves a degree of credit for finally being open about some of the vile tactics he used on behalf of Gordon Brown. He deserves a lot of the flak he is getting for originally having used them. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that such tactics have been used too much (any use would be too much) by some people in all political parties.

Nor do I think there is any reasonable doubt that the "New Labour" culture of the people around both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was particularly pernicious in terms of leaking highly destructive material to the media, some of it true but much of it false, about both their internal opponents inside the Labour party and those outside the Labour party they perceived as their opponents. Who included rail crash survivors and NHS patients such as Rose Addis, the elderly lady they accused of being a racist, as well as Tories and Lib/Dems.

In the short term, unfortunately, personal smears against your political opponents can be effective. In the longer term, those who live by the smear usually die by the smear.

And even if they succeed, what is the cost? I was planning this post when I chose as my quote for today the line "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul."

I think the next election is going to be nasty. I hope the electorate will vote on the issues, and ignore  ad hominem personal attacks, wherever they come from.