Labour leader wants his brother in his shadow cabinet
With all the bad news piling up for Labour leader Ed Miliband, he could certainly use some good news.
The news he would welcome most is embracing his brother David back into his inner circle.
As Miliband prepares to promote a number of women within his shadow cabinet -- including Yvette Cooper -- what Miliband really covets is the return of his brother.
"David is a massive asset to our politics and our party," the younger Miliband declared. “And I’ve always said I’d be happy to have him back, I want to have him back. But in the end he’s got to decide what’s the right thing for him to do.”
After the 2010 Labour leadership contest, the elder Miliband decided the right thing for him to do was sit on the backbenches. But with Labour struggling in Parliament and suffering in the eyes of Britain's political class, Ed Miliband needds a game-changer.
The addition of David Miliband to his shadow cabinet could be that very game-changer. But it seems tension between the two siblings could be preventing that from happening.
“It was a difficult leadership contest that we had. It was difficult for us. The reason I stood is because I felt I had something distinctive to say and I said it yesterday [in my conference speech]," the younger Miliband explained. "That is was why I ran. That’s what I believe. That’s why I think society needs to change.”
For his own part, David Miliband is focused on grassroots organizing for a Labour Party that has come to tend to neglect that key part of political organizing.
“It is my way of supporting Ed, supporting the party and helping us back into Government," the elder Miliband explained. “He’s been very supportive, the party’s been supportive, which is good."
The problem for David Miliband is that the weak leadership being provided by his brother threatens to undermine any gains he makes through grassroots organizing. Perhaps it isn't merely Ed Miliband who needs his brother in the shadow cabinet. Perhaps David Miliband needs to be there to shore up his own gains.
Either way, the Miliband brothers are better off working together within the shadow cabinet. Even if David doesn't see that, Ed keenly does. How could he not?
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sack Balls, Screw the Unions
Ed Balls helped create British fiscal mess, cannot remain Shadow Chancellor
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
If Labour leader Ed Miliband has a single, overriding problem, it comes in the embodiment of his Shadow Chancellor of the Excchequer, Ed Balls.
As a former Secretary to the Treasury -- charged with heloing manage Britain's public finances -- Balls had a direct hand in the profligacy that has led to the current state of the UK's finances.
Yet he has the temerity to stand as Shadow Chancellor, even as he continues to avoid admitting his part in the ballooning of Britain's public debt.
Terry Smith, the President of Tullet Prebon, has had enough. He says it's time for Balls to depart from Ed Miliband's shadow caucus.
“He is in total denial about the fact that Labour was running a deficit years before the financial crisis struck and seems to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by excessive debt,” Smith declared. "There is no avoiding the fact that Labour ran a growing deficit from 2002 as the economic boom was heading towards its peak”.
Smith charges that Balls, as well as Gordon Brown and those others tasked with keeping Britain's finances on the rails, put political expediency far ahead of responsible fiscal management.
“Moreover, the government spending which led to this deficit before the banking crisis struck was wasteful, unproductive and cynically aimed at buying the loyalty of a growing dependent section of the population to the Labour Party,” Smith continued.
Ed Balls wasn't the only thing on Smith's mind. He also declared the pensions owed to public service employees to be unviable, and suggested they should be cut back.
"Unviable because we cannot sustain a system in which people can retire and live for another 20 years at the expense of the state,” he explained. “This was never the intention of the original social security systems and it has been made unviable by improvements in health care and life expectancy.”
Smith has presented Ed Miliband with some difficult choices. Certainly, labour unions will never tolderate a Labour leader who pushes back against their unsustainable pensions. Certainly, the left wing of the Labour Party will bristle at Ed Balls being relieved of his duties.
Smith suggests that Balls should be shuffled to the most junior shadow cabinet post in existence. Ed Miliband would be better off shuffling Ed Balls out of politics altogether.
Balls, and his allegiance to the unions, are relics of an old left-wing politics that has catastrophically failed in Britain. If the Labour Party is to survive -- and its survival is far from guaranteed -- they will need to find a new brand of left-wing politics that can account for and repair the damage done by Ed Balls and his associates.
Labels:
Britain,
Economics,
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
Labour Party,
Labour Unions,
Terry Smith
Monday, July 11, 2011
Ed Miliband and the "New Centre"
Labour leader politely tells Tony Blair to stuff it
In an interview with the BBC, Labour leader Ed Miliband has dismissed concerns voiced by former Prime Minister Tony Blair that settling on the left will doom the Labour Party to a future of electoral defeat. Blair has urged the Labour Party to move closer to the political centre.
Miliband disagress on what the centre is.
"Tony Blair is entitled to his view, I've had conversations in private which have been good conversations with Tony Blair but let me just say this - it all depends on where you think the centre ground is," Miliband said. "I'm absolutely a leader placing my party firmly in the centre ground but there's a new centre ground in our politics."
"The new centre ground, for example, that means you speak out on these issues of press responsibility, a new centre ground that says that responsibility in the banking system - which we didn't talk about enough when we were in government - is relevant, a new centre ground that says people are worried about concentrations of private power in this country when it leads to abuses," Miliband declared. "And that's the new centre ground."
As with so many things, the Labour leader is flat-out wrong. He's wrong in his preoccupation with countering "private power". Abuse of public is the far-greater threat.
Certainly, private power can lead to abuses. But there are already mechanisms within society to handle these abuses: criminal law.
But there are entirely too few societal mechanisms equipped to deal with abuses of public power. The greatest threat of abuse of public power in Britain has always been the Labour Party.
For evdience of this, one needs look no further than the saga of the Militant Tendency, a group that managed to seize tremendous influence within the Labour Party in the 1970s and 80s. A hardline Marxist group, the Militant Tendency demanded the "nationalization of the commanding heights of the British economy". They even managed to ram a policy resolution through the 1972 Labour Party convention.
It wasn't until former Labour Leader Neil Kinnock recognized the threat the Militant Tendency posed to British civil society that they were expunged from the Labour Party. If not for Kinnock's wisdom, the threat may have never been dealt with.
Some doubt that the modern Labour Party possesses Kinnock's wisdom. Much more recently, Jim Fitzpatrick, MP for Poplar and Limehouse, and former Minister of the Environment, has warned that the Labour party has been infiltrated by radical Islamic groups that aim to re-establish Britain as a Muslim theocratic state governed by Shariah law.
Using state power -- also described as public power -- to force Britons to live under the tenets of Shariah law would be the ultimate abuse. Fitzpatrick seems to be convinced that the Labour Party isn't taking this threat seriously.
While Miliband may be more interested in milking the News of the World scandal for all he can get, and pretending that his party's experimentation with "tripartite" economic regulation, which routed Britain's ability to regulate the amount of debt assumed by British finanical instutitons, wasn't partially to blame for the economic meltdown, it's important to remember that it's the Labour Party's flirtations with tyranny that have been most destructive to the British polity.
Ed Miliband would prefer that Britons be concerned with what unethical journalists or reckless financiers are doing than what elements within his own party would do with the public power they so desperately covet. As long as they can describe themselves as "the left", Miliband may be truly blinded to their corrosive influence.
In an interview with the BBC, Labour leader Ed Miliband has dismissed concerns voiced by former Prime Minister Tony Blair that settling on the left will doom the Labour Party to a future of electoral defeat. Blair has urged the Labour Party to move closer to the political centre.
Miliband disagress on what the centre is.
"Tony Blair is entitled to his view, I've had conversations in private which have been good conversations with Tony Blair but let me just say this - it all depends on where you think the centre ground is," Miliband said. "I'm absolutely a leader placing my party firmly in the centre ground but there's a new centre ground in our politics."
"The new centre ground, for example, that means you speak out on these issues of press responsibility, a new centre ground that says that responsibility in the banking system - which we didn't talk about enough when we were in government - is relevant, a new centre ground that says people are worried about concentrations of private power in this country when it leads to abuses," Miliband declared. "And that's the new centre ground."
As with so many things, the Labour leader is flat-out wrong. He's wrong in his preoccupation with countering "private power". Abuse of public is the far-greater threat.
Certainly, private power can lead to abuses. But there are already mechanisms within society to handle these abuses: criminal law.
But there are entirely too few societal mechanisms equipped to deal with abuses of public power. The greatest threat of abuse of public power in Britain has always been the Labour Party.
For evdience of this, one needs look no further than the saga of the Militant Tendency, a group that managed to seize tremendous influence within the Labour Party in the 1970s and 80s. A hardline Marxist group, the Militant Tendency demanded the "nationalization of the commanding heights of the British economy". They even managed to ram a policy resolution through the 1972 Labour Party convention.
It wasn't until former Labour Leader Neil Kinnock recognized the threat the Militant Tendency posed to British civil society that they were expunged from the Labour Party. If not for Kinnock's wisdom, the threat may have never been dealt with.
Some doubt that the modern Labour Party possesses Kinnock's wisdom. Much more recently, Jim Fitzpatrick, MP for Poplar and Limehouse, and former Minister of the Environment, has warned that the Labour party has been infiltrated by radical Islamic groups that aim to re-establish Britain as a Muslim theocratic state governed by Shariah law.
Using state power -- also described as public power -- to force Britons to live under the tenets of Shariah law would be the ultimate abuse. Fitzpatrick seems to be convinced that the Labour Party isn't taking this threat seriously.
While Miliband may be more interested in milking the News of the World scandal for all he can get, and pretending that his party's experimentation with "tripartite" economic regulation, which routed Britain's ability to regulate the amount of debt assumed by British finanical instutitons, wasn't partially to blame for the economic meltdown, it's important to remember that it's the Labour Party's flirtations with tyranny that have been most destructive to the British polity.
Ed Miliband would prefer that Britons be concerned with what unethical journalists or reckless financiers are doing than what elements within his own party would do with the public power they so desperately covet. As long as they can describe themselves as "the left", Miliband may be truly blinded to their corrosive influence.
Labels:
Britain,
Ed Miliband,
Labour Party,
Tony Blair
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Ed Miliband & the Wilting Rose of Labour
Labour leader warned of Liberal-esque collapse
After the 2011 federal election, Canadians should be aware of two central facts about the Liberal Party.
The first is that they'll be back. The second is that it will take them some time to get there.
In the wake of local council elections that yielded disappointing returns for Labour -- and surprising wins for the Conservative Party -- the Grits' British counterpart, the Labour Party, are being warned that they may face a similar collapse.
The warnings to Labour leader Ed Miliband come from Ian Lewis, the party's shadow Secretary of Culture, and Labour manifesto co-author Patrick Diamond.
Lewis has warned of regional splits that may deeply damage Labour's prospects of governing again in the future. The party has lost ground in Scotland, and is suffering badly in southern regions of the United Kingdom.
"Today, they see Labour as the party of the North, standing up for the poor, benefit claimants, immigrants and minority groups," Lewis declared. "A party which overspent without delivering sufficient value for money. A party which talks a lot about rights but not enough about responsibility."
Labour won 800 new local council seats on May 5. But the Tories emerged on May 6 with a net gain of council seats, despite having expected to lose at least 1,000 seats.
"On the whole, despite the Government’s too-fast, too-deep cuts, tax increases and trebling of tuition fees, they stuck with the Tories," Lewis said. "A situation which if sustained would mean we will not win the next general election."
Diamond considers Labour's council elections letdowns to be a mere microcosm of a trend that is sweeping not just Britain, but all of Europe.
"Labour's ejection from office mirrors an even starker European trend, as the pendulum has swung aggressively against the left. Local council victories last Thursday cannot disguise the governing crisis which threatens Labour's very survival as a party of power," Diamond wrote in The Guardian.
"There remains little sense of what would be the ideological programme through which the left can govern in a world transformed irrevocably by the global financial crisis," Diamond continued. "The recurring question has been why, in the midst of a crisis whose origins clearly implicate the neoliberal right, it is social democrats who remain battle weary and defensive. The crisis that began with a wave of sub-prime lending in the United States has been hastily redefined as a crisis of public debt and government deficits. It is the state – its size, role, and efficiency – that is now at the centre of political debate, not the inherent instability of markets and free-market ideology."
Yet if Diamond feels that British voters are making their political decisions hinging on public debt and deficits, he must know they need only took to the Labour Party that managed Britain's finances so disastrously.
In fact, the "too-deep, too-fast" cuts and "trebling of tuition" that Lewis complains about can be attributed directly to the Labour Party and its spend thrift nature. Even as the Blair/Brown government emptied public coffers and drove up debt, they evaded accountability by offsettting heaps of debt against future budgets.
Diamond seems to despair at what he considers the looming destruction of the Labour Party. (There is little reason to despair just yet, this page of history is not yet written.)
Lewis, on the other hand, offers some semblence of a solution to Labour's looming troubles, even it seems like mere platitudes.
"It is important we understand the depth of people’s feelings and frustrations if we are to have any chance of reconnecting so they start listening to us again," Lewis concluded. "We have to face up to the fact that there was little sign of those squeezed middle voters in the south east, south west and east of England returning to Labour."
In other words, Ed Miliband and Labour have some deep soul-searching to do if they want to get the party back on course to govern Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron and the Tories have been making the hard decisions Labour couldn't, and the British public's appreciation seems to be showing in their election returns.
They're not sharing the predicament of the Liberal Party just yet. But if Labour isn't careful, they soon could be.
After the 2011 federal election, Canadians should be aware of two central facts about the Liberal Party.
The first is that they'll be back. The second is that it will take them some time to get there.
In the wake of local council elections that yielded disappointing returns for Labour -- and surprising wins for the Conservative Party -- the Grits' British counterpart, the Labour Party, are being warned that they may face a similar collapse.
The warnings to Labour leader Ed Miliband come from Ian Lewis, the party's shadow Secretary of Culture, and Labour manifesto co-author Patrick Diamond.
Lewis has warned of regional splits that may deeply damage Labour's prospects of governing again in the future. The party has lost ground in Scotland, and is suffering badly in southern regions of the United Kingdom.
"Today, they see Labour as the party of the North, standing up for the poor, benefit claimants, immigrants and minority groups," Lewis declared. "A party which overspent without delivering sufficient value for money. A party which talks a lot about rights but not enough about responsibility."
Labour won 800 new local council seats on May 5. But the Tories emerged on May 6 with a net gain of council seats, despite having expected to lose at least 1,000 seats.
"On the whole, despite the Government’s too-fast, too-deep cuts, tax increases and trebling of tuition fees, they stuck with the Tories," Lewis said. "A situation which if sustained would mean we will not win the next general election."
Diamond considers Labour's council elections letdowns to be a mere microcosm of a trend that is sweeping not just Britain, but all of Europe.
"Labour's ejection from office mirrors an even starker European trend, as the pendulum has swung aggressively against the left. Local council victories last Thursday cannot disguise the governing crisis which threatens Labour's very survival as a party of power," Diamond wrote in The Guardian.
"There remains little sense of what would be the ideological programme through which the left can govern in a world transformed irrevocably by the global financial crisis," Diamond continued. "The recurring question has been why, in the midst of a crisis whose origins clearly implicate the neoliberal right, it is social democrats who remain battle weary and defensive. The crisis that began with a wave of sub-prime lending in the United States has been hastily redefined as a crisis of public debt and government deficits. It is the state – its size, role, and efficiency – that is now at the centre of political debate, not the inherent instability of markets and free-market ideology."
Yet if Diamond feels that British voters are making their political decisions hinging on public debt and deficits, he must know they need only took to the Labour Party that managed Britain's finances so disastrously.
In fact, the "too-deep, too-fast" cuts and "trebling of tuition" that Lewis complains about can be attributed directly to the Labour Party and its spend thrift nature. Even as the Blair/Brown government emptied public coffers and drove up debt, they evaded accountability by offsettting heaps of debt against future budgets.
Diamond seems to despair at what he considers the looming destruction of the Labour Party. (There is little reason to despair just yet, this page of history is not yet written.)
Lewis, on the other hand, offers some semblence of a solution to Labour's looming troubles, even it seems like mere platitudes.
"It is important we understand the depth of people’s feelings and frustrations if we are to have any chance of reconnecting so they start listening to us again," Lewis concluded. "We have to face up to the fact that there was little sign of those squeezed middle voters in the south east, south west and east of England returning to Labour."
In other words, Ed Miliband and Labour have some deep soul-searching to do if they want to get the party back on course to govern Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron and the Tories have been making the hard decisions Labour couldn't, and the British public's appreciation seems to be showing in their election returns.
They're not sharing the predicament of the Liberal Party just yet. But if Labour isn't careful, they soon could be.
Labels:
Britain,
Ed Miliband,
Ian Lewis,
Labour Party,
Patrick Diamond
Monday, May 09, 2011
Nice.
Labour leader preemptively dancing on Margaret Thatcher's grave
Some Nexus readers may recall the days after Ted Kennedy's death, when certain left-wing bloggers declared that right-wing bloggers were "dancing on Kennedy's grave".
The best available evidence was gathered and examined. With the exception of a handful of individuals, it turns out this allegation was untrue. Although the individuals in question refused to accept the evidence regardless of how overwhelming it was, there was no realistic basis for that politicizing Kennedy's passing.
On the left side of the aisle, however, it seems to be a very different story.
With concerns over Margaret Thatcher's health mounting, it seems that some left-wingers -- such as Keir Morrison -- aren't waiting for Thatcher to actually die before the dancing begins.
Morrison, who won election to Nottinghamshire Council last week, was recently spotted wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words "a generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher's grave."
If it were merely Morrison, a youthful member of a Morrison family dynasty on Nottinghamshire Council, caught up in this it would be one thing.
But Labour leader Ed Miliband still has yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why he would willingly be photographed with Morrison; both of them all smiles.
A spokesperson for Miliband's office has claimed that Miliband didn't know the slogan was on Morrison's T-shirt. If anyone, anywhere in the world, believes that, that spokesperson likely also has a slightly-used clocktower to sell them.
Nor this is the first time that someone high up in Labour has embarrassed their party like this. Last year leadership hopeful John McDonnell declared he would have liked to to travel back in time and kill Thatcher while she was still Prime Minister.
He was applauded for the "joke".
It seems that so blatantly wishing ill on Lady Thatcher has become a quite ordinary practice among the British left. Nor does the Canadian left by any means seem immune.
Be aware. It's just how these people operate.
Some Nexus readers may recall the days after Ted Kennedy's death, when certain left-wing bloggers declared that right-wing bloggers were "dancing on Kennedy's grave".
The best available evidence was gathered and examined. With the exception of a handful of individuals, it turns out this allegation was untrue. Although the individuals in question refused to accept the evidence regardless of how overwhelming it was, there was no realistic basis for that politicizing Kennedy's passing.
On the left side of the aisle, however, it seems to be a very different story.
With concerns over Margaret Thatcher's health mounting, it seems that some left-wingers -- such as Keir Morrison -- aren't waiting for Thatcher to actually die before the dancing begins.
Morrison, who won election to Nottinghamshire Council last week, was recently spotted wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words "a generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher's grave."
If it were merely Morrison, a youthful member of a Morrison family dynasty on Nottinghamshire Council, caught up in this it would be one thing.
But Labour leader Ed Miliband still has yet to offer a reasonable explanation as to why he would willingly be photographed with Morrison; both of them all smiles.
A spokesperson for Miliband's office has claimed that Miliband didn't know the slogan was on Morrison's T-shirt. If anyone, anywhere in the world, believes that, that spokesperson likely also has a slightly-used clocktower to sell them.
Nor this is the first time that someone high up in Labour has embarrassed their party like this. Last year leadership hopeful John McDonnell declared he would have liked to to travel back in time and kill Thatcher while she was still Prime Minister.
He was applauded for the "joke".
It seems that so blatantly wishing ill on Lady Thatcher has become a quite ordinary practice among the British left. Nor does the Canadian left by any means seem immune.
Be aware. It's just how these people operate.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Ed Miliband Swearing Off Class Warfare?
Labour leader reaffirms commitment to universality
When it became evident that former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stood little chance of winning the 2010 election (well beforehand), he resorted to what some would consider to be a fairly typical Labour Party tactic:
He picked on British Conservative Party leader (and now Prime Minister) David Cameron's Eton Hall education.
Needless to say, it didn't work. David Cameron and the Tories marched onto victory in the 2010 election and partnered with the Nick Clegg-led Liberal Democratic Party to form a government.
Brown's successor, Ed Miliband has eschewed class warfare by addressing one of the core principles of the welfare state: that of universality. Under universality, social programs are expected to pay out to all citizens, even those who are much, much more well off than their fellows.
Including millionaires, who Miliband insists would continue to receive child benefits under a Labour government.
"I'm in favour of that yes, and I'm in favour of it because it's a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits, and frankly there aren't that many millionaires in this country," Miliband explained, although he doesn't deny that the benefit is primarily meant for the poor.
"Families on £45,000 need child benefit in my view and it's a way that society recognises the costs of having kids," he continued.
And though he plans to ensure that even the wealthiest would keep such benefits under a Labour government, he isn't planning to take his foot off the taxation pedal. Rather, he plans to levy higher taxes on banks and raise additional revenues by pursuing tax evaders (although the latter will itself require a generous investment of resources into investigative agencies).
One presumes that Miliband's imagined bank tax hike will be in addition to the global bank tax accepted by Prime Minister Cameron. So even as Miliband promises not to tax the wealthy while denying them benefit, he clearly still plans to squeeze them for as much tax revenue as he can imagine; this to avoid programming cuts.
While Ed Miliband clearly wants to avoid publicly declaring war on the wealthy, he isn't shying away from calling on them to fund programs that will offer them comparatively meagre benefits.
Is it class warfare of another variety? It will be up to Britons to decide.
When it became evident that former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stood little chance of winning the 2010 election (well beforehand), he resorted to what some would consider to be a fairly typical Labour Party tactic:
He picked on British Conservative Party leader (and now Prime Minister) David Cameron's Eton Hall education.
Needless to say, it didn't work. David Cameron and the Tories marched onto victory in the 2010 election and partnered with the Nick Clegg-led Liberal Democratic Party to form a government.
Brown's successor, Ed Miliband has eschewed class warfare by addressing one of the core principles of the welfare state: that of universality. Under universality, social programs are expected to pay out to all citizens, even those who are much, much more well off than their fellows.
Including millionaires, who Miliband insists would continue to receive child benefits under a Labour government.
"I'm in favour of that yes, and I'm in favour of it because it's a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits, and frankly there aren't that many millionaires in this country," Miliband explained, although he doesn't deny that the benefit is primarily meant for the poor.
"Families on £45,000 need child benefit in my view and it's a way that society recognises the costs of having kids," he continued.
And though he plans to ensure that even the wealthiest would keep such benefits under a Labour government, he isn't planning to take his foot off the taxation pedal. Rather, he plans to levy higher taxes on banks and raise additional revenues by pursuing tax evaders (although the latter will itself require a generous investment of resources into investigative agencies).
One presumes that Miliband's imagined bank tax hike will be in addition to the global bank tax accepted by Prime Minister Cameron. So even as Miliband promises not to tax the wealthy while denying them benefit, he clearly still plans to squeeze them for as much tax revenue as he can imagine; this to avoid programming cuts.
While Ed Miliband clearly wants to avoid publicly declaring war on the wealthy, he isn't shying away from calling on them to fund programs that will offer them comparatively meagre benefits.
Is it class warfare of another variety? It will be up to Britons to decide.
Labels:
Britain,
Ed Miliband,
Gordon Brown,
Labour Party
Friday, October 01, 2010
Should Diane Abbott Make the Cut?
Abbott wants to be Municipal secretary in shadow cabinet
With the Labour leadership campaign finally behind him, Labour leader Ed Miliband now needs to look to establishing his Shadow Cabinet.
It's only natural that the other leadership contenders would line up to be considered for roles. Diane Abbott is clearly no different.
Although it probably won't, Abbott's status as the token female candidate of the campaign should probably cast some doubt on whether or not she'll receive any such role. After all, Abbott couldn't even convince electors within her own riding that she would make a good leader. Support for her leadership was scarcely more than 20% in her own riding.
But Abbott clearly seems to think of herself as a contender for Shadow Cabinet. She's even picked a portfolio out for herself -- she wants to be the Communities and Local Government Secretary.
"London and the inner cities do not get enough representation and I’d like to see that change," she announced. "Multiculturalism, gang crime and housing look very different in London than the rest of the country."
But given the level of support for Abbott within her own riding, and the anemic level of support for her leadership in general, it may be far to speculate if she would have made the cut for the Shadow Cabinet under Labour's customary rules.
Prior to Tony Blair's tenure as Labour leader, members of the Shadow Cabinet used to be chosen by the party's Parliamentary caucus. The leader would assign portfolios once the Shadow Cabinet was chosen.
Tony Blair discontinued this practice.
If Ed Miliband were to reinstate this practice, it's fair to speculate if Abbott, who unequivocally was not a serious contender for the leadership, would make the cut.
Judging from the support she received in the leadership campaign, the available evidence seems to suggest "probably not".
With the Labour leadership campaign finally behind him, Labour leader Ed Miliband now needs to look to establishing his Shadow Cabinet.
It's only natural that the other leadership contenders would line up to be considered for roles. Diane Abbott is clearly no different.
Although it probably won't, Abbott's status as the token female candidate of the campaign should probably cast some doubt on whether or not she'll receive any such role. After all, Abbott couldn't even convince electors within her own riding that she would make a good leader. Support for her leadership was scarcely more than 20% in her own riding.
But Abbott clearly seems to think of herself as a contender for Shadow Cabinet. She's even picked a portfolio out for herself -- she wants to be the Communities and Local Government Secretary.
"London and the inner cities do not get enough representation and I’d like to see that change," she announced. "Multiculturalism, gang crime and housing look very different in London than the rest of the country."
But given the level of support for Abbott within her own riding, and the anemic level of support for her leadership in general, it may be far to speculate if she would have made the cut for the Shadow Cabinet under Labour's customary rules.
Prior to Tony Blair's tenure as Labour leader, members of the Shadow Cabinet used to be chosen by the party's Parliamentary caucus. The leader would assign portfolios once the Shadow Cabinet was chosen.
Tony Blair discontinued this practice.
If Ed Miliband were to reinstate this practice, it's fair to speculate if Abbott, who unequivocally was not a serious contender for the leadership, would make the cut.
Judging from the support she received in the leadership campaign, the available evidence seems to suggest "probably not".
Labels:
Britain,
Diane Abbott,
Ed Miliband,
Labour Party
Thursday, September 30, 2010
David Miliband Retreats to the Backbenches
Aims to give younger brother space as Labour leader
For David Miliband, being defeated for the Labour leadership -- the leadership he was considered the odds-on favourite to win -- to his younger brother must have been a truly humbling experience.
The general consensus within his party seems to be that he has embraced that humility in withdrawing from frontline politics, and resigning himself to a more humble role as a backbench opposition MP.
"The party needs a fresh start from its new leader, and I think that is more likely to be achieved if I make a fresh start," the elder Miliband announced. "Having thought it through, and discussed it with family and friends I am absolutely confident it is the right decision for Ed, for the party, and for me and my family."
"This is now Ed’s party to lead and he must be able to do so as free as possible from distraction," he continued. "This is because of the simple fact that Ed is my brother, who has just defeated me for the party leadership."
David seemed to believe -- at least so far as his statements have been concerned -- that resigning to the backbench was the best way to promote an image of unity amongst Labour.
"I genuinely fear perpetual, distracting and destructive attempts to find division where none exists, and splits where they don’t exist, all to the detriment of the party," he concluded.
"Two adults who happen to be brothers who have different views about the party. It's important to have magnanimity in defeat... It didn't become the bloodbath a lot of people predicted. I'm not dead, I'm still here," he explained. "It's important I don't get in the way of that if Ed wants to make plans to reform, that's his own choice. He must have an open field to lead as he sees fit."
For his own part, the younger Miliband -- and new Labour party leader, Ed Miliband -- seemed accepting of his brother's decision, if not slightly disappointed.
After all, the younger Miliband had previously announced he planned to offer his older brother the role of Shadow Chancellor. That role will now fall to Yvette Cooper.
"He is my brother and I am very clear that, as leader of this party, my door is always open for him to serve in the future, either in opposition or back in government," the younger Miliband announced. "I am obviously delighted to be leader of this party but I am obviously disappointed for him. That is the paradox."
Of course, there is another aspect to the elder Miliband's departure that no one in the party seems eager to talk about: the attempt to erase any trace of Tony Blair and New Labour from the party moving forward.
The elder Miliband isn't the only New Labour stalwart to move to the backbenches. Nick Brown, Labour's chief whip since Blair led the party to government in 1997, was asked for his resignation. He complied.
Certainly no one in the Labour Party -- especially not the younger Miliband himself -- would admit that the ender Miliband was directly asked (or even subtlely encouraged) to step aside. Yet it certainly doesn't seem unfair to ask the question.
The extent to which Ed Miliband could address such a query may also be in question. He's been dressing up his thoughts on the matter in the language of brotherly love.
"The biggest obstacle for me standing in this contest was the relationship with David, because I thought long and hard about it," the younger Miliband said. "But in the end I concluded that if I had something to say which was distinctive, if I felt I would be the best leader of this party, for me not to stand in those circumstances would actually be an abdication of my responsibility, my responsibility to this party, my responsibility to this country and that is why I stood."
"My love for David is very deep, and his for me is too," he concluded. "It has been a difficult time, obviously, but it will withstand this."
That should be enough to keep any uncomfortable questions at bay -- except from the most daring of questioners.
For David Miliband, being defeated for the Labour leadership -- the leadership he was considered the odds-on favourite to win -- to his younger brother must have been a truly humbling experience.
The general consensus within his party seems to be that he has embraced that humility in withdrawing from frontline politics, and resigning himself to a more humble role as a backbench opposition MP.
"The party needs a fresh start from its new leader, and I think that is more likely to be achieved if I make a fresh start," the elder Miliband announced. "Having thought it through, and discussed it with family and friends I am absolutely confident it is the right decision for Ed, for the party, and for me and my family."
"This is now Ed’s party to lead and he must be able to do so as free as possible from distraction," he continued. "This is because of the simple fact that Ed is my brother, who has just defeated me for the party leadership."
David seemed to believe -- at least so far as his statements have been concerned -- that resigning to the backbench was the best way to promote an image of unity amongst Labour.
"I genuinely fear perpetual, distracting and destructive attempts to find division where none exists, and splits where they don’t exist, all to the detriment of the party," he concluded.
"Two adults who happen to be brothers who have different views about the party. It's important to have magnanimity in defeat... It didn't become the bloodbath a lot of people predicted. I'm not dead, I'm still here," he explained. "It's important I don't get in the way of that if Ed wants to make plans to reform, that's his own choice. He must have an open field to lead as he sees fit."
For his own part, the younger Miliband -- and new Labour party leader, Ed Miliband -- seemed accepting of his brother's decision, if not slightly disappointed.
After all, the younger Miliband had previously announced he planned to offer his older brother the role of Shadow Chancellor. That role will now fall to Yvette Cooper.
"He is my brother and I am very clear that, as leader of this party, my door is always open for him to serve in the future, either in opposition or back in government," the younger Miliband announced. "I am obviously delighted to be leader of this party but I am obviously disappointed for him. That is the paradox."
Of course, there is another aspect to the elder Miliband's departure that no one in the party seems eager to talk about: the attempt to erase any trace of Tony Blair and New Labour from the party moving forward.
The elder Miliband isn't the only New Labour stalwart to move to the backbenches. Nick Brown, Labour's chief whip since Blair led the party to government in 1997, was asked for his resignation. He complied.
Certainly no one in the Labour Party -- especially not the younger Miliband himself -- would admit that the ender Miliband was directly asked (or even subtlely encouraged) to step aside. Yet it certainly doesn't seem unfair to ask the question.
The extent to which Ed Miliband could address such a query may also be in question. He's been dressing up his thoughts on the matter in the language of brotherly love.
"The biggest obstacle for me standing in this contest was the relationship with David, because I thought long and hard about it," the younger Miliband said. "But in the end I concluded that if I had something to say which was distinctive, if I felt I would be the best leader of this party, for me not to stand in those circumstances would actually be an abdication of my responsibility, my responsibility to this party, my responsibility to this country and that is why I stood."
"My love for David is very deep, and his for me is too," he concluded. "It has been a difficult time, obviously, but it will withstand this."
That should be enough to keep any uncomfortable questions at bay -- except from the most daring of questioners.
Labels:
Britain,
David Miliband,
Ed Miliband,
Labour Party,
Tony Blair,
Yvette Cooper
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ed Miliband Wins By a Hair
Younger Miliband top second choice on Labour ballot
After months of underwhelming campaigning, the British Labour Party has finally named its successor to Gordon Brown.
Ed Miliband accumulated enough second-choice votes on the preferential ballot to edge out his older brother David by less than 1%.
In a rather unambitious victory speech, Miliband pledged to lead his party back to power.
"My aim is to return our party to power," he announced. "This is a tough challenge. It is a long journey. But our party has made the first step in electing a leader from a new generation."
But instead of merely offering knee-jerk reaction to the coalition government of the Tories and Liberal Democrats, Miliband has promised a comparatively collaborative approach to government.
"As well as setting out an alternative when the government gets it wrong, we will support it when it is right," he continued.
Yet at the conclusion of a leadership campaign in which moving beyond Tony Blair's famed New Labour was often a central theme, Miliband more or less promised to re-deliver the magic that created New Labour.
"We have a lot of ground to make up if we are to rebuild the broad coalition of support that swept us to power in 1997," he announced. "We must never again lose touch with the mainstream of our country."
Of course, claiming an eventual margin of victory of scarcely more than 1%, Ed Miliband can hardly claim to represent the mainstream of his own party, let alone of Britain.
However Ed Miliband chooses to approach this detail, he may want to send a thank-you card to Ed Balls.
The ballot-by-ballot breakdown of the preferential vote shows that, until Ed Balls was eliminated, the younger Miliband trailed his older brother David by what eventually turned out to be the margin of victory.
It wasn't until the final ballot that the vote shifted in favour of the younger Miliband.
The intrigue of the preferential ballot is that it allows a candidate to effectively play the role of kingmaker without having to directly endorse another candidate.
Ed Miliband has already offered his brother David the key role of shadow Chancellor. It's certainly fair at this point to wonder what Miliband is prepared to offer Balls.
In the meantime, Britain -- and the rest of the world -- will wait to see what Ed Miliband has in store for his party.
After months of underwhelming campaigning, the British Labour Party has finally named its successor to Gordon Brown.
Ed Miliband accumulated enough second-choice votes on the preferential ballot to edge out his older brother David by less than 1%.
In a rather unambitious victory speech, Miliband pledged to lead his party back to power.
"My aim is to return our party to power," he announced. "This is a tough challenge. It is a long journey. But our party has made the first step in electing a leader from a new generation."
But instead of merely offering knee-jerk reaction to the coalition government of the Tories and Liberal Democrats, Miliband has promised a comparatively collaborative approach to government.
"As well as setting out an alternative when the government gets it wrong, we will support it when it is right," he continued.
Yet at the conclusion of a leadership campaign in which moving beyond Tony Blair's famed New Labour was often a central theme, Miliband more or less promised to re-deliver the magic that created New Labour.
"We have a lot of ground to make up if we are to rebuild the broad coalition of support that swept us to power in 1997," he announced. "We must never again lose touch with the mainstream of our country."
Of course, claiming an eventual margin of victory of scarcely more than 1%, Ed Miliband can hardly claim to represent the mainstream of his own party, let alone of Britain.
However Ed Miliband chooses to approach this detail, he may want to send a thank-you card to Ed Balls.
The ballot-by-ballot breakdown of the preferential vote shows that, until Ed Balls was eliminated, the younger Miliband trailed his older brother David by what eventually turned out to be the margin of victory.
It wasn't until the final ballot that the vote shifted in favour of the younger Miliband.
The intrigue of the preferential ballot is that it allows a candidate to effectively play the role of kingmaker without having to directly endorse another candidate.
Ed Miliband has already offered his brother David the key role of shadow Chancellor. It's certainly fair at this point to wonder what Miliband is prepared to offer Balls.
In the meantime, Britain -- and the rest of the world -- will wait to see what Ed Miliband has in store for his party.
Labels:
Britain,
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
Labour Party,
Race for the Rose '10
Monday, August 02, 2010
Elitism... It's What's For Dinner
Andy Burnham obsessed with New Labour "elitism"
When Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham suggested that the leadership of the Labour Party was too elitist under Tony Blair, he must have been satisfied with the results.
After all, that was June. Now it's August, on the verge of Labour members voting on their new leader, and Burnham is lobbing accusations of elitism again -- this time at David and Ed Miliband.
The Miliband brothers, he alleges, are both the result of the Labour party recruiting from "the elite".
As such, Burnham charges that the Miliband brothers -- one of whom will likely assume the party leadership -- represent the worst of the old party leadership.
"At its worst, it was self-indulgent, arrogant, elitist, Londoncentric and all of that has to change," Burnham contends. "It looked hollow and rootless at times."
Who is the antidote to Labour party elitism? Why, Burnham proclaims that it's none other than himself.
"I didn't have well-connected parents," he declares. "People are looking for politicians who have real life experience."
Whether or not Andy Burnham was born into any power elite establishment, however, is irrelevant. While Labour was in government under Gordon Brown, Burnham served in a pair of Minister of State roles -- for health and sport -- as well as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
In other words, Burnham is among the elite MPs of his party.
So while Burnham can pledge that he will be an anti-establishment candidate, this is repeatedly undermined by the detail that he, himself, is a member of the establishment within his own party.
He could certainly pledge to be less elitist -- as the Miliband brothers themselves have done -- but to be pretend that he isn't himself now a part of the elite defies credulity.
When Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham suggested that the leadership of the Labour Party was too elitist under Tony Blair, he must have been satisfied with the results.
After all, that was June. Now it's August, on the verge of Labour members voting on their new leader, and Burnham is lobbing accusations of elitism again -- this time at David and Ed Miliband.
The Miliband brothers, he alleges, are both the result of the Labour party recruiting from "the elite".
As such, Burnham charges that the Miliband brothers -- one of whom will likely assume the party leadership -- represent the worst of the old party leadership.
"At its worst, it was self-indulgent, arrogant, elitist, Londoncentric and all of that has to change," Burnham contends. "It looked hollow and rootless at times."
Who is the antidote to Labour party elitism? Why, Burnham proclaims that it's none other than himself.
"I didn't have well-connected parents," he declares. "People are looking for politicians who have real life experience."
Whether or not Andy Burnham was born into any power elite establishment, however, is irrelevant. While Labour was in government under Gordon Brown, Burnham served in a pair of Minister of State roles -- for health and sport -- as well as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
In other words, Burnham is among the elite MPs of his party.
So while Burnham can pledge that he will be an anti-establishment candidate, this is repeatedly undermined by the detail that he, himself, is a member of the establishment within his own party.
He could certainly pledge to be less elitist -- as the Miliband brothers themselves have done -- but to be pretend that he isn't himself now a part of the elite defies credulity.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Ed Miliband: The All-Or-Nothing Labour Leader
Younger Miliband monkeywrenches future coalitions in advance
With some recent comments concerning Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, Labour leadership candidate Ed Miliband has staked out some key real estate in the Labour leadership conest.
He's defined himself as the all-or-nothing candidate.
Miliband has accused Clegg of being a sell-out and a "crypto-Tory".
"He has totally sold out to the Tories - he's revealed himself to be a crypto-Tory." Miliband insisted.
Some may recall that the Conservative Party of Britain had campaigned on up to six billion pounds of budget cuts in their first budget. Many believed that the coalition with the Lib Dems would result in this number being reduced -- something that clearly has not been the case.
Miliband attributes this to a "macho" attitude toward the deficit on Clegg's part -- one that he suggests made a Labour-Lib Dem coalition untenable.
To make his point -- and perhaps there is one to be made -- Miliband has invoked the spectre of the 1980s and former Pime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
"This is exactly what happened in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher, but this time you have a Liberal Democrat party and a Liberal Democrat leadership which is frankly in cahoots with this agenda," Miliband added.
These comments point toward Miliband's expectations for Labour in a future election. Not only does he expect that a Labour victory would be possible in the next election -- indicating that he plans a fast rebuild of the party -- but it also indicates that Clegg has no real interest in forming a coalition of his own with the Liberal Democrats.
In other words, it would be all or nothing for the Labour Party under Ed Miliband. Whether this is admirably ambitious or unfortunately brash has yet to be seen.
With some recent comments concerning Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, Labour leadership candidate Ed Miliband has staked out some key real estate in the Labour leadership conest.
He's defined himself as the all-or-nothing candidate.
Miliband has accused Clegg of being a sell-out and a "crypto-Tory".
"He has totally sold out to the Tories - he's revealed himself to be a crypto-Tory." Miliband insisted.
Some may recall that the Conservative Party of Britain had campaigned on up to six billion pounds of budget cuts in their first budget. Many believed that the coalition with the Lib Dems would result in this number being reduced -- something that clearly has not been the case.
Miliband attributes this to a "macho" attitude toward the deficit on Clegg's part -- one that he suggests made a Labour-Lib Dem coalition untenable.
To make his point -- and perhaps there is one to be made -- Miliband has invoked the spectre of the 1980s and former Pime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
"This is exactly what happened in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher, but this time you have a Liberal Democrat party and a Liberal Democrat leadership which is frankly in cahoots with this agenda," Miliband added.
These comments point toward Miliband's expectations for Labour in a future election. Not only does he expect that a Labour victory would be possible in the next election -- indicating that he plans a fast rebuild of the party -- but it also indicates that Clegg has no real interest in forming a coalition of his own with the Liberal Democrats.
In other words, it would be all or nothing for the Labour Party under Ed Miliband. Whether this is admirably ambitious or unfortunately brash has yet to be seen.
Labels:
Britain,
Ed Miliband,
Labour Party,
LDP,
Nick Clegg,
Race for the Rose '10
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Ed Miliband Drives Spear Into HIs Brother's Heart
Younger Miliband brother playing for keeps
When Ed Miliband followed his older brother, David Miliband, into the Labour leadership race, their mother Marion Kozak, must have been hoping for a tame contest.
With Ed Miliband's recent denunciation of Britain's participation in the Iraq War, any hopes of that have likely faded. Ed Miliband has introduced what will be the greatest wedge issue between himself and his older brother.
"As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam's threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time," Miliband the younger announced. "The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed."
"The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it," he continued.
In making the Iraq War a key issue in the Labour leadership contest, Ed Milibad also makes the Blair Doctrine a key issue.
The Blair Doctrine, simply described, reflected Tony Blair's belief that military intervention is often necessary in order to achieve humanitarian ends.
The Blair Doctrine represents an overly moralistic take on neo-conservative thinking in regards to foreign policy. Neo-conservative thinking recommends the diligent confrontation of known threats; Blair's variation of this notion recommends the diligent confrontation of humanitarian dangers.
While George W Bush's official pretext for the Iraq War depended heavily on the presence of weapons of mass destruction -- which, even if Hussein didn't possess them, he was certainly seeking them. Blair's official pretext relied on this as well, but a global do-gooder philosophy weighed heavily on the decision.
Not only is David Miliband perceived as being much closer to Tony Blair than his brother Ed is, but as Foreign Secretary Miliband had key responsibilities for the prosecution of the Iraq War. Miliband the younger carries no such baggage.
However, the older Miliband will also be able to boast involvement with the decision to end British combat operations in Iraq. Moreover, while the older Miliband was involved in managing the last years of that combat mission, he had no significant role in the decision to go to war there.
Naturally, David Miliband doesn't want Iraq to be at issue in this leadership campaign.
"While Iraq was a source of division in the past, it doesn't need to be a source of division in the future," he announced. "Iraq was a big issue at the 2005 general election but the vast majority of MPs and candidates I have spoken to this time say that while it was a big issue then it was much less of an issue in 2010."
"I said during the election campaign that I thought it was time to move on," he added.
Ed Miliband clearly has little intention of moving on from the Iraq War -- just yet. But while invoking the Iraq War will certainly help to divide Labour voters from his older brother, he isn't the only candidate to denoucne the war. Ed Balls and John McDonnell have also spoken out against the war.
While the war will divide Labour voters against his brother, that portion will likely splinter between the three candidates -- and a significant porton of them will look toward Balls as their candidate of choice.
Whether Ed Miliband envoking the Iraq war will lead to hard feelings between himself and Miliband the elder will be a matter for the private lives of the two brothers.
But foreign policy will be a key challenge for the Labour Party moving forward. The leadership campaign would have been remiss without addressing it.
When Ed Miliband followed his older brother, David Miliband, into the Labour leadership race, their mother Marion Kozak, must have been hoping for a tame contest.
With Ed Miliband's recent denunciation of Britain's participation in the Iraq War, any hopes of that have likely faded. Ed Miliband has introduced what will be the greatest wedge issue between himself and his older brother.
"As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam's threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time," Miliband the younger announced. "The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed."
"The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it," he continued.
In making the Iraq War a key issue in the Labour leadership contest, Ed Milibad also makes the Blair Doctrine a key issue.
The Blair Doctrine, simply described, reflected Tony Blair's belief that military intervention is often necessary in order to achieve humanitarian ends.
The Blair Doctrine represents an overly moralistic take on neo-conservative thinking in regards to foreign policy. Neo-conservative thinking recommends the diligent confrontation of known threats; Blair's variation of this notion recommends the diligent confrontation of humanitarian dangers.
While George W Bush's official pretext for the Iraq War depended heavily on the presence of weapons of mass destruction -- which, even if Hussein didn't possess them, he was certainly seeking them. Blair's official pretext relied on this as well, but a global do-gooder philosophy weighed heavily on the decision.
Not only is David Miliband perceived as being much closer to Tony Blair than his brother Ed is, but as Foreign Secretary Miliband had key responsibilities for the prosecution of the Iraq War. Miliband the younger carries no such baggage.
However, the older Miliband will also be able to boast involvement with the decision to end British combat operations in Iraq. Moreover, while the older Miliband was involved in managing the last years of that combat mission, he had no significant role in the decision to go to war there.
Naturally, David Miliband doesn't want Iraq to be at issue in this leadership campaign.
"While Iraq was a source of division in the past, it doesn't need to be a source of division in the future," he announced. "Iraq was a big issue at the 2005 general election but the vast majority of MPs and candidates I have spoken to this time say that while it was a big issue then it was much less of an issue in 2010."
"I said during the election campaign that I thought it was time to move on," he added.
Ed Miliband clearly has little intention of moving on from the Iraq War -- just yet. But while invoking the Iraq War will certainly help to divide Labour voters from his older brother, he isn't the only candidate to denoucne the war. Ed Balls and John McDonnell have also spoken out against the war.
While the war will divide Labour voters against his brother, that portion will likely splinter between the three candidates -- and a significant porton of them will look toward Balls as their candidate of choice.
Whether Ed Miliband envoking the Iraq war will lead to hard feelings between himself and Miliband the elder will be a matter for the private lives of the two brothers.
But foreign policy will be a key challenge for the Labour Party moving forward. The leadership campaign would have been remiss without addressing it.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Ed Miliband to Come Up the Middle?
Labour may ditch Blair/Brown baggage with compromise candidate
With the slate of candidates for the Labour leadership contest filling up, David Miliband remains the odds-on favourite to win. Ed Balls seems to be viewed as the number two man in the race.
But as Andrew Grice suggests, the dynamics that are so often at play in political leadership contests may give the winning edge to a third candidate: Ed Miliband.
As Grice notes, David Miliband was a staunch supporter of Tony Blair. In turn, Blair helped champion his careeer. Ed Balls is a close contemporary of Gordon Brown who, in Paul Martin-esque fashion, applied relentless pressure to help spur Blair's departure from office.
Balls will be saddled with memories of that relentless push.
Like any political party in need of unity, Labour members would very much like to put the Blair/Brown divide behind them.
For Ed Miliband, matters are rather different. He isn't seen as particularly close to Blair or Brown, despite having served in Brown's cabinet.
The differences between the two Milibands also seem be paramount in the minds of Ed Miliband's supporters.
"Ed Miliband's supporters do not like comparing him to his brother and there is a noticeable absence of war (and major policy differences)," Grice writes. "When pressed, they say David offers brains without charisma while Ed offers both and can therefore reconnect with Labour's lost supporters while uniting the party."
"Ed Miliband's critics claim he lacks the experience or instant judgement to handle unexpected events and would offer compromises rather than strong leadership – more Neil Kinnock (one of his main sponsors) than Mr Blair," Grice continues. "Mr Brown is said to have described Ed Miliband as 'a cross between an academic and a preacher'. Quite a lot of Labour members may like the sermon."
Last but not least, the preferential ballotting system used in Labour Party leadership votes may facilitate the younger Miliband in emerging as a compromise between his older brother and Ed Balls.
While Labour could stand to break from the bitter divisiveness of the Blair/Brown struggles, it would adopt a risk in electing Ed Miliband as a figure of compromise.
Compromise candidates are often perceived by the public as not having been fully imparted with their authority by the party membership.
For a party coming off of a catastrophic election loss, that could prove to be even more devastating than the loss itself. The Labour Party will need to weigh its options very carefully before making that kind of decision. Unfortunately, the preferential ballot may actually deprive them of the opportunity to do that.
With the slate of candidates for the Labour leadership contest filling up, David Miliband remains the odds-on favourite to win. Ed Balls seems to be viewed as the number two man in the race.
But as Andrew Grice suggests, the dynamics that are so often at play in political leadership contests may give the winning edge to a third candidate: Ed Miliband.
As Grice notes, David Miliband was a staunch supporter of Tony Blair. In turn, Blair helped champion his careeer. Ed Balls is a close contemporary of Gordon Brown who, in Paul Martin-esque fashion, applied relentless pressure to help spur Blair's departure from office.
Balls will be saddled with memories of that relentless push.
Like any political party in need of unity, Labour members would very much like to put the Blair/Brown divide behind them.
For Ed Miliband, matters are rather different. He isn't seen as particularly close to Blair or Brown, despite having served in Brown's cabinet.
The differences between the two Milibands also seem be paramount in the minds of Ed Miliband's supporters.
"Ed Miliband's supporters do not like comparing him to his brother and there is a noticeable absence of war (and major policy differences)," Grice writes. "When pressed, they say David offers brains without charisma while Ed offers both and can therefore reconnect with Labour's lost supporters while uniting the party."
"Ed Miliband's critics claim he lacks the experience or instant judgement to handle unexpected events and would offer compromises rather than strong leadership – more Neil Kinnock (one of his main sponsors) than Mr Blair," Grice continues. "Mr Brown is said to have described Ed Miliband as 'a cross between an academic and a preacher'. Quite a lot of Labour members may like the sermon."
Last but not least, the preferential ballotting system used in Labour Party leadership votes may facilitate the younger Miliband in emerging as a compromise between his older brother and Ed Balls.
While Labour could stand to break from the bitter divisiveness of the Blair/Brown struggles, it would adopt a risk in electing Ed Miliband as a figure of compromise.
Compromise candidates are often perceived by the public as not having been fully imparted with their authority by the party membership.
For a party coming off of a catastrophic election loss, that could prove to be even more devastating than the loss itself. The Labour Party will need to weigh its options very carefully before making that kind of decision. Unfortunately, the preferential ballot may actually deprive them of the opportunity to do that.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Labour Leadership Race Getting Crowded
With the Labour Party extending the deadline for would-be leaders to declare their candidacy, the race to become the successor to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has gotten crowded.
It may get more crowded yet.
The campaign started slowly, with the Miliband brothers, David and Ed, declaring their candidacy. They have since been followed by Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott.
Abbott is the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. In 1987 Abbott was the first black woman elected to the British House of Commons. Abbott is a second-generation Birton born to Jamaican immigrants. She has also contributed her talents to the Jamaica Observer newspaper.
Although Abbott, 56, was a member of the National Council for Civil Liberties, where she worked alongside former Labour Cabinet Ministers Paul Boateng, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, Abbot has no Ministerial experience -- likely a handicap in the contest.
John McDonnell, 58, is the MP for Hayes and Harlington. He chairs the Socialist Campaign Group, a group by the name of Public Services Not Private, and the Labour Representation Committee. He also serves a group of eight large labour unions as their benefactor in Parliament.
McDonnell will likely be the left-wing standard-bearer of the leadership campaign. Among his acts as a left-wing insurgent within the Labour caucus has been joining together with a number of Plaid Cymru MPs to demand an inquiry into the Iraq War that his own party initiated.
One could expect that a McDonnell victory would be the prelude to a significant leftward shift for Labour Party policy.
Leigh MP Andy Burnham, 40, seems to be the heavyweight of the newcomers. He has served as Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, and as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Burnham joined Labour at the tender age of 14, in protest to the Thatcher government's treatment of miners.
However, Burnham was also hit by the recent controversy over MPs' expenses. He attempted to claim 16,000 Pounds Sterling in expenses for a home he had been renovating in London. He submitted the claim on numerous occasions. It was rejected each time.
Whether or not the Labour Party manages to attract additional leadership candidates, the stage has been set for an intriguing leadership campaign.
It may get more crowded yet.
The campaign started slowly, with the Miliband brothers, David and Ed, declaring their candidacy. They have since been followed by Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott.
Abbott is the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. In 1987 Abbott was the first black woman elected to the British House of Commons. Abbott is a second-generation Birton born to Jamaican immigrants. She has also contributed her talents to the Jamaica Observer newspaper.
Although Abbott, 56, was a member of the National Council for Civil Liberties, where she worked alongside former Labour Cabinet Ministers Paul Boateng, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, Abbot has no Ministerial experience -- likely a handicap in the contest.
John McDonnell, 58, is the MP for Hayes and Harlington. He chairs the Socialist Campaign Group, a group by the name of Public Services Not Private, and the Labour Representation Committee. He also serves a group of eight large labour unions as their benefactor in Parliament.
McDonnell will likely be the left-wing standard-bearer of the leadership campaign. Among his acts as a left-wing insurgent within the Labour caucus has been joining together with a number of Plaid Cymru MPs to demand an inquiry into the Iraq War that his own party initiated.
One could expect that a McDonnell victory would be the prelude to a significant leftward shift for Labour Party policy.
Leigh MP Andy Burnham, 40, seems to be the heavyweight of the newcomers. He has served as Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, and as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Burnham joined Labour at the tender age of 14, in protest to the Thatcher government's treatment of miners.
However, Burnham was also hit by the recent controversy over MPs' expenses. He attempted to claim 16,000 Pounds Sterling in expenses for a home he had been renovating in London. He submitted the claim on numerous occasions. It was rejected each time.
Whether or not the Labour Party manages to attract additional leadership candidates, the stage has been set for an intriguing leadership campaign.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
David Miliband Makes Bid for Labour Leadership
David Miliband, Ed Miliband to contest Labour leadership
The race to replace former Labour leader -- and now former Prime Minister -- Gordon Brown has finally gotten started, as former Foreign Secretary David Miliband has declared his candidacy for the job.
As Labour leader, Miliband will aim to be prepared to defeat Prime Minister David Cameron and return to office as immediately as possible.
“We live in a new political world, and the responsibility of office may return sooner than people might think," Miliband announced. "I am standing because I believe I can lead Labour to rebuild itself as the great reforming champion of social and economic change in this country.”
Miliband has long been a fast-rising mover-and-shaker within the Labour Party. Before even winning a Parliamentary seat, Miliband was a key policy advisor. After winning election 2001 he quickly ascended to first the office of Environment Secretary, then to the Foreign Office.
Miliband insists that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats' move to reject a coalition overture from Labour and instead align with the Cameron Conservatives has left Labour as Britain's last true voice for social justice.
“The decision of the Liberal Democrats to join a Conservative Government is a momentous one," Miliband insisted. "It creates an enormous responsibility for the Labour Party, revitalised in the right way, to represent all shades of progressive opinion and present itself as an alternative government. That is the task in front of us.”
But if Miliband is to win the Labour leadership, he may have to overcome an extremely familiar opponent: his brother, Ed Miliband.
Like David, Ed Miliband also has experience in cabinet, having served as Energy Secretary in Brown's government.
While other individuals, such as Ed Balls and Andy Burham, have also been described as likely candidates (Alan Johnson previously made some noise about seeking the Labour leadership, but has seemingly relented and backed the elder Miliband), many observers seem to believe that the Labour leadership will ultiamtely be decided between the Miliband brothers.
The rivalry between the two brothers -- likely simmering gently since childhood -- should make the Labour leadership campaign very interesting.
The race to replace former Labour leader -- and now former Prime Minister -- Gordon Brown has finally gotten started, as former Foreign Secretary David Miliband has declared his candidacy for the job.
As Labour leader, Miliband will aim to be prepared to defeat Prime Minister David Cameron and return to office as immediately as possible.
“We live in a new political world, and the responsibility of office may return sooner than people might think," Miliband announced. "I am standing because I believe I can lead Labour to rebuild itself as the great reforming champion of social and economic change in this country.”
Miliband has long been a fast-rising mover-and-shaker within the Labour Party. Before even winning a Parliamentary seat, Miliband was a key policy advisor. After winning election 2001 he quickly ascended to first the office of Environment Secretary, then to the Foreign Office.
Miliband insists that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats' move to reject a coalition overture from Labour and instead align with the Cameron Conservatives has left Labour as Britain's last true voice for social justice.
“The decision of the Liberal Democrats to join a Conservative Government is a momentous one," Miliband insisted. "It creates an enormous responsibility for the Labour Party, revitalised in the right way, to represent all shades of progressive opinion and present itself as an alternative government. That is the task in front of us.”
But if Miliband is to win the Labour leadership, he may have to overcome an extremely familiar opponent: his brother, Ed Miliband.
Like David, Ed Miliband also has experience in cabinet, having served as Energy Secretary in Brown's government.
While other individuals, such as Ed Balls and Andy Burham, have also been described as likely candidates (Alan Johnson previously made some noise about seeking the Labour leadership, but has seemingly relented and backed the elder Miliband), many observers seem to believe that the Labour leadership will ultiamtely be decided between the Miliband brothers.
The rivalry between the two brothers -- likely simmering gently since childhood -- should make the Labour leadership campaign very interesting.
Labels:
Britain,
David Miliband,
Ed Miliband,
Race for the Rose '10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)