i don't understand the cynicism in this thread (and elsewhere)
firstly i'm not unhappy with the emphasis he's put on iraq - throughout the campaign. it's quite rightly been a huge fucking albatross around the neck of the labour party - both in itself, and the way it was subsequently handled. i'm not sure how verifiable his opposition in 2003 was (he wasn't an mp at the time of course - i think there was a mehdi hasan blog about proof on the ns blog a few weeks back) - but either way it's a vital break to make, symbolically. i couldn't care less if it seemed or was opportunist, it was just *necessary*
thank you crackerjack for pointing out these:
Well he's also in favour of using the state (eg thru tax and/or govt contracts) to boost the Living Wage, as opposed to the minimum.
He says the 50% top rate is permanent.
He's opposed some of Nu Lab's illiberalism (3 month detention, absurd uses of anti-terrorism law).
He's for nice stuff and against bad stuff.
edit: Oh, and he probably favours a slower deficit reduction than his brother, but that's not confirmed as they've been vague about that all along.
also he's going to vote yes on av, which is obviously crap ersatz pr, but maybe a step in the right direction.
also he's for a fully elected house of lords right?
i'll be honest i still haven't had time to watch the speech, i just got back from turkey.
the bottom line for me is that i could give a shit about the relationship dynamics between him and his brother, beyond a purely theatrical interest - there's a worryingly high emphasis on it in this thread imho! the 'in the grip of the unions stuff' is nonsense, everyone needs to move on - i don't see how anyone can think it's wildly undemocratic. and they're going to need him in the next few years as much he'll need them.
really THE POINT IS in the (lol)
current economic climate, with the cuts about to bite, with an untested and brittle coalition, this is
an actual opportunity, isn't it?? to make the case for the role of the state, for bank regulation, and for a green economy (which my enviro mate tells me he has a pretty good record on). this is a key moment, no? the next 3/4/5 years, before the next election? possibly less than that, who knows..
the lib dems are weak, and cameron's sheen will come off as the nights draw in (he did BADLY in the may election, too, let's not forget that - six months away from polling day they were coasting to a comfortable majority).
SURELY the least the left ought to do now is stop fiddling with itself while rome burns, lobby ed to be brave enough to probe the cracks in the coalition, and answer the questions facing the country with keynesian policies, coupled with enlightened, progressive civil liberties, climate change and electoral reform policy. all these are realistically attainable policy goals at this moment in time, no?
don't believe it'll happen necessarily - but it's easier to make the case for it than it has been for ages; and if the labour party aren't imprisoned by the ethos of new labour anymore, then how is this not a good thing? tony blair was not really ever ~a labour man~, he delighted in rejecting party orthodoxies (like fairness, redistribution of wealth, sunshine, puppies etc). meanwhile brown was fried from the start. miliband is neither of those things. i don't think it makes me a cock-eyed optimist to think that might make a difference?
:slanted:
***
ps my god what choice did ed have, with the viciously anti-socialist* press we have (and he's
had, already), but to pitch his very first leader's speech to the right of 'red ed'? what would you do? i'm not saying he's some devious entriest genius in waiting, but come on, he's just not fucking stupid!
*whatever they think that word means at any one time
pps someone on twitter pointed out that neither blair nor cameron established a specific policy slate the minute they took over as party leaders. i don't know whether that's the right thing to do (morally or tactically), but it's certainly seen to be politically astute to hold back a bit.
post-post-script CAVEAT: i am not a member of the labour party nor have i ever been. and didn't vote for ed miliband. tho i did win a little bit betting on him lol
(sorry to witter on, seriously)
