Change you can believe in?

David Miliband’s bid for the leadership (let us not pretend it isn’t), announced in yesterday’s Guardian, has at its centre the need for Labour to “change” to succeed: “New Labour won three elections by offering real change, not just in policy but in the way we do politics. We must do so again.”

The vision of change outlined in Miliband’s missive can be summarised under three headings: change of approach, change of policy and, obviously, change of leader. So how does his brave new approach stack up?

Change of Approach: Miliband states that Labour must “be more humble about our shortcomings but more compelling about our achievements” if they are to re-engage with voters. On the basis of his Guardian article, he hasn’t started terribly well. Whilst nobly acknowledging that reform of the NHS should have started sooner (this reminds me of the classic job interview answer: “my biggest weakness is that I’m a workaholic”), he then proceeds to glibly proclaim that the Tories protestations of a broken society or crumbling economy are quite simply wrong because crime is down, immigration is down, employment is up, etc… This is not a compelling argument but the sort of shopping list of tractor production “achievements” that voters loathe, as Guardian readers’ comments testify.

Change of Policy: A 750-word newspaper article is never going to detail every policy nuance, but the hints Miliband gives do not suggest a radical divergence from current Labour thinking. The role of an interventionist big government is still central to Miliband’s philosophy: “If people and business are to take responsibility, you need government to act as a catalyst.” Nor, it seems, is he proposing any real change to Labour’s tax and spend system, arguing that “traditional Tory means of charity, deregulation and lower spending” to deliver policy don’t “add up”. People are tired of an ever-expanding state feeding on the resources of our economy – Miliband proposes no shift from this approach.

Change of Leader: Would Miliband really offer Labour the strong, charismatic and inspirational leadership that Brown so evidently can’t provide? I think not. His performance at yesterday’s press conference with the Italian Foreign Minister was the sort of smarmy, question-dodging, “not-me-guv” act that turns so many off politics. Worse though (from a Labour prospective), whilst outwardly more human than Brown (not difficult), Miliband as Labour leader will only serve to make Cameron appear more statesmanlike. Miliband is the epitome of “Blair-lite”, his whole approach based on aping his mentor. Combined with his relative lack of experience, it will be very difficult for him and Labour to portray Cameron as the “shallow salesman” lacking in gravitas. Facing their third Prime Minister within the space of two years, the Tories would begin to look even more like a government in waiting.

Miliband’s entry into the leadership debate is looking decidedly ill-fated. By writing an article so obviously intended to launch his ascent to the top, and to then follow it with protestations of innocence, has made him look like the sort of weak, dishonest and dithering figure he is attempting to replace. To compound the situation, the change he proposes is little more than a shuffling of the deckchairs. I fear he may already be a busted flush.