He could have spent the next three years fending off headlines about sibling rivalry, or he could take his "dream job" in America where only a handful of anoraks even know who he is.
It's not difficult to see why David Miliband has chosen to join a humanitarian charity in New York. Not since Frasier and Niles Crane have two bookish siblings in the same profession been watched so avidly in the hope they will do each other down. From where the elder Miliband is standing, it just isn't funny any more.
David's departure doesn't mean, of course, that he will never be back. He may feel it wise graciously to leave the orbit of British politics until such time as Ed's star has burned itself out, and then make a comeback. If so, he will have done himself no harm to have worked in a meaningful role delivering vitally important services to people in need. It's just a pity so few of his former Westminster cronies have done the same.
Neither the Prime Minister nor David's brother Ed have had much of a career outside politics. Both did politics, philosophy and economics (PPE) at Oxford, the closest there is to a foundation course for politicians-in-waiting. After a brief spell as a TV journalist, working – you guessed it – on a politics programme, Ed started working for the Labour Party and became an adviser to Gordon Brown, being elected an MP in 2005. David Cameron, meanwhile, joined the Conservative Research Department straight from university before becoming an adviser to Norman Lamont and Michael Howard. His seven years as a PR man – working for media company Carlton Communications – at least gave him up-front experience of business, but wasn't exactly at the sharp end of service delivery.
The ideal for any party should be to have elected representatives from all walks of life. Why? Because politics is not the real world as most people experience it – you only have to listen to the frat-house din of Prime Minister's or First Minister's questions to understand that – and it is already too easy, particularly at Westminster, for politicians in that boarding school atmosphere to lose a sense of reality, becoming more like each other than they are like the people they serve.
Those whose professional experience and sense of identity is rooted in a sphere outside politics, be it teaching, manufacturing, nursing, running a small business, doing a trade, or working in the creative industries, are more likely than a party apparatchik to understand the challenges facing others working in that sphere; that just stands to reason. If nothing else, these political outsiders tend to have a warmer reception from the public than career politicians because people see them as one of their own. Think of former Labour Health Minister Alan Johnson (a former postman), former Scottish Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson (a social worker), and former ship steward John Prescott. Working class Prescott held on as Deputy Prime Minister for 10 years at least in part because of his popularity with the Labour grassroots, who were put off by former lawyers and media men like Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson.
There are many former lawyers at Holyrood and Westminster, Nicola Sturgeon and Kenny MacAskill among them. A slew of politicians have also dabbled in journalism, such as Ed Balls, but these professions have always been on a two-way street with politics. Truly representative parliamentary politics requires a broader cross-section and on that score, Holyrood perhaps does better than Westminster. The two most recent first ministers of Scotland have been a former maths teacher (Jack McConnell) and an economist (Alex Salmond) and on the backbenches, there is a wealth of professional experience, from social workers such as the SNP's Dennis Robertson to doctors like Labour's Richard Simpson, a GP and psychiatrist.
So, for David Miliband, a spell doing humanitarian work would not only be worthwhile and fulfilling but a CV enhancement should he ever wish to apply for the job of Prime Minister. The problem is, having left politics, few former politicians go back. Pity – it would do politics good if they did.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article