Freud first described man's unconscious desire to kill the father in order to step into his shoes in his essay Totem and Taboo. The guilt evoked by this unconscious murderous rivalry is what, according to Freud, establishes cohesion within the group. It is the glue that binds a community together and enables it to function in a healthy way and to accept authority. The Oedipal guilt that Freud traced to its evolutionary roots was driven by the son's desire to possess the mother, his first love object, and to supplant the father. However, the sibling rivalry we have witnessed between the Miliband brothers has a different objective. It is not a fight to replace the father; it is a fight to be first in their father's love – to have the birthright of the firstborn. In the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau, Jacob is born fast on the heels of his twin brother Esau. When the time comes for their father, Isaac, who is nearing death, to bestow his blessing upon Esau, Jacob grabs the opportunity. With his mother's help, Jacob disguises himself before his blind father, Isaac, in order to steal his older brother's, birthright. The name, Jacob, in Hebrew, means 'heel-catcher' or 'supplanter'. Unlike Jacob and Esau, Ed and David are not twins – David is three years older – and Ed claims he has no memory of fighting with his brother as children. Nevertheless, both sons grew up under the powerful influence of their socialist/Marxist father, Ralph Miliband, who as a Belgian Jew fleeing from the Nazi scourge, was a strong supporter of political activism and the Labour party. Family dinners centred around political debate and socialist principles. While David has been described as more of his father's intellectual heir, Ed preferred to sneak off to watch the soap opera, Dallas, on television. Ed's fascination with the dynastic battles of the Ewing family may have served as a foretaste of his own family battle. Ed has shown considerable admiration for both his father and his brother and has enjoyed the reputation of being considered the 'nicer' of the two brothers, being more 'person-oriented', as opposed to David's cooler focus on policy-making. Ed has also followed more closely in his father's socialist footsteps, promoting fairness and social equality, supporting the unions and eschewing private sector input in education. But behind Ed's 'nice' persona, a much more ruthless politician has emerged who, like Jacob, took advantage of an opportunity to oust his brother. Also, just as Jacob had the support of his mother, Ed remembers his mother saying to him at bedtime, "Are you a boy to go tiger-shooting with?" He was being primed for the kill - and for winning the approval of both his mother and his father.The guilt that binds Ed and David Miliband together
Psychoanalyst Coline Covington: Just as in the story of Jacob and Esau, the older brother has been robbed of his birthright
David, on the other hand, does not see his parents as pushing their children to succeed. He has said, "For families of the post-Holocaust generation, there were generally two responses: one guilt, that you are alive, two, so much guilt that you had to be at the top of the class always.
"My parents didn't fall into either of those attitudes. They held the belief simply that there were great blessings to being born in 1960s London compared to 1930s Poland, where my mother started out, or being in occupied Belgium, and that was something they were determined to make the most of for their boys."
Nevertheless, what seems to have been emphasised within the ethos of the family was the importance of taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them as a way of combating the losses of the past and surviving the threats of the future.
As the younger son who was in David's intellectual shadow, Ed's success may have been especially determined by spotting the right moment to compete. As Ed admitted, "The biggest obstacle to me standing was undoubtedly that I knew David would be against me. I genuinely made the decision after the election... And what it came down to was this: am I really going to say I am not going to stand because my brother is standing? If he wasn't in the race I would not have had any hesitation. And in the end politics is about seizing the moment."
But, having seized the moment and having killed his tiger, Ed must now bear the inevitable guilt of succeeding over his brother while David has to face the reconstruction of his role as the older brother who has been defeated. Upon hearing the election results, Ed made a point of embracing his brother, pounding his back repeatedly while David maintained a painfully stiff smile.
The problem, however, that lies ahead for Ed is that as long as he succumbs to his guilt, David will be the albatross that he carries around his neck. In order to fully succeed without encumbrance, Ed will either have to be even more ruthless and plan a future without his brother or one of them will have to leave the political field altogether and succeed in another arena – just as Jacob and Esau had to establish their own separate nations.
Although the extent of the damage that has been done to David's political career is not yet evident, Ed now faces the inevitable challenge of what he chooses to do with his guilt. Like Antonio stranded on Prospero's island, Ed and David remain bound together – but for how long? 
Posts
