Ed Miliband, former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and MP for Doncaster North has been elected leader of the Labour Party and is now also leader of the Official (and truly only) Opposition. I’d be lying if I didn’t say the media mobbing Ed and also seeing him make his victory speech was rather surreal and even a bit odd (though not in any bad way). His victory was won by the narrowest of margins, 1.3%(!) over his brother, but whatever the system and whatever the margin, a victory is still a victory and is now vital that despite whoever you wanted leader, we all back him.
Special commiserations for his brother, for being tipped for the last three years as the obvious successor to Brown and then to come so close must be almost heart breaking, but he was mature (and loving) enough to claim that “this is Ed’s day”, so I do hope he can keep his role as Shadow Foreign Secretary.
One thing I did notice, was the apparent glee from the Tory ranks. Apparently, Ed is somehow a return to the 1980s, a “Red Ed” and handing the Coalition electoral success on a platter. Really? For one Ed served Gordon Brown for 13 years as a policy adviser, he’s certainly a far flung from the militancy from that era. And also, they underestimate him at their own peril, hell; 3 years ago barely anyone had even heard of Ed, to turn everything around against all expectations (and his own brother) are something to be taken seriously.
It’s safe to say “New” Labour is truly at end, it is time for Labour to move on from the Blair-Brown era and let the new progressive era dawn very soon. Now bring on the real change and 2015!
Max
I only hope Ed has learned the lessons of the mistakes made by his great friend Gordon during the Brown era, and which I feel was characterised in the persona of Ed Balls. Leftist doctrine dictating policy in place of common sense. An example of this is with the issue of the government forcing Catholic adoption agencies to allow gay couples to adopt their children. Whilst I am certainly not a Catholic, and I equally favour Gay adoption, this was dealt with in a heavy-handed and clumsy manner which cost us the support of many people who, traditionally, had been among Labour’s core urban support; Roman Catholics. And it is not just me, on the David Miliband side of the party, who thinks this, but so does that arch-protagonist for the left John Cruddas.
If Ed can learn to be inspired by Labour values and left-wing ideals but not blinded by them (as I fear Diane Abbott certainly is), then he will do well.
“Leftist doctrine dictating policy in place of common sense. ”
Common sense is naivety in a pretty gift box.
Codswallop
You’re growing on me Woodcock… lol
Jack, I am as big a Labour supporter as you will find. I agree with MUCH of leftist doctrine, and I agree with the principle behind a lot of what Labour has done and has tried to do. But politics is more than just knowing what you believe in, but in understanding what others do as well. Most people in this country are not like you, me or Dan. Most people in this country are neither wholly to the left, nor wholly Tory. Most people are dotted on either side of center hence that center ground is where Labour has to stay. Labour has a duty to stick to its values, of course it does, but it is also a political party that AIMS TO WIN ELECTIONS. That means it is necessary very occasionally, to listen to the public and even when you are absolutely certain that you are right (as I believe we were on the issue of gay adoption), understand that there may be people who think you are wrong, and behave accordingly. I believe one of the problems with New Labour and even Labour under Brown was not WHAT it did, but the way it did things, seemingly oblivious to the opinions of the public at large. Iraq being a prime, but not the only, example. If Ed Miliband ignores what the rest of the country who may are not fully Labour thinks and simply says and does things to satisfy the Labour faithful, then we will be doomed to years and years of opposition. That is not what I want. We all have ideals, and they are commendable, but politics is about more than ideals.
Very true Sean. Even Thatcher was ffffffaaarrr more flexible and pragmatic than people think. Would she have liked to have added the NHS to her privatisation list? Im sure she would but she knew the public would never swallow it so it went largely unreformed. She believed in “small government” and regularly preached about it but the public sector actually grew hugely under her. She bemoaned the welfare state but welfare spending went up substantially.
These are but a few examples of where even the most “Iron” of politicians actually have to bend to public will and circumstance. Thatcher’s pragmatism and general statesmanship kept her in power for an unprecedented amount of time, even if her rhetoric defied the reality, and it was only when she became inflexible, re the poll tax, that she fell. I do believe she had core goals and principles but she adapted her approach as and when required to achieve those goals. Labour must do the same; it can have ideals or “ends” but may have to deploy different “means” to achieve them.
Blair recognised this when he largely deployed Conservative means (free market, deregulation, privatisation, praising Thatcher, the “prawn cocktail” offensive etc) to achieve Labour ends (minimum wage, child tax credits etc) I also believe Labour would look far more credible if they accepted that they did f*** up the economy and presented viable alternatives to the government policy rather than just bitch and moan on the political periphery.
Ed Milliband is not as tarnished as the previous Labour government, although he is far from “blame free”. He can talk about change and look relatively credible as long as that change reflects public opinion. Public opinion is largely center right and Blair hit all the right notes in 1997 when he promised to be “Thatcherite with a human face”. If Labour work against the government, become beholden to the unions and move their policy platform to the left as they did for much of the 80s, then that is not the kind of change the public will respond to and they will lose heavily and repeatedly no matter how unpopular the government may or may not be.
You forget Dan, that the single biggest cause of the economic crisis was not Labour “f***ing” up the economy, but Labour saving the banks, who are so identified by Tories as creators of wealth. Labour’s big economic mistake, was in listening too much to the Tories (who actually wanted the banks regulated less) and not actually stepping in and intervening in the banks until it had to. Labour did not cause this crisis (even if they did contribute to it), the banks did.
Im not blind. I have enough common sense to recognise that the Tory free market, less interventionist economic policy advocated by Thatcher, Reagan et al did in *some* ways contribute to the mess we are in but that is the difference between the Tories and Labour; When Thatcher came in to office she *challenged* the prevailing economic (post war) consensus of the day because once again we were in a real mess and clearly the economy and the country at large was on a downward spiral. She had no idea how it was going to work out but she knew the current consensus just wasn’t working so she set the markets and the country as a whole free with less interventionist policies. But therein lies the problem with “setting people free” its easy to know what you’re freeing them from, its a bit more difficult to know what you’re freeing them *to*. Every action has a reaction. Nothing is foolproof and only time could tell what problems and issues the new Thatcherite consensus would throw up.
Labour on the other hand *capitaulated* to an economic consensus (Thatcherism) rather than developed and challenged it. The truth is there is no right answer in politics, no one conherant strategy political, economic, social or otherwise that will solve all the problems of the world until the end of time. Politics and economics, like society as a whole, is constantly evolving and as such policy has to evolve with it.
Broadly speaking the Thatcherite consensus was absolutely categorically right for the time. It provided enormous wealth, access to capital and opportunity for investment to people from all backgrounds and classes. The “middle class” boomed as a result of the Thatcher consensus and Blair/Brown had the common sense and humility, at least in the first term of Labour, to recognise a good thing when they saw it and expand upon it. The problem was they didn’t develop or challenge it over the next decade and allowed its excesses and indulgences to continue seemingly oblivious to the dangers. Dangers the Tories actually were warning about long before the crash.
Jim Callaghan once said politics works in 30-40 year cycles. The Post war consensus broadly speaking lasted for 30-40 years and Thatcherism lasted from c.1979-present. Its time for a new consensus. Noone really wants to see a return to government interventionism, nationalisation etc. so it is almost undoubted that key elements of the Thatcherite free market programme will live on but I believe that David Cameron has it right when he says we need to stand up *for* big business, but stand up *to* big business where appropriate. This implies some form of government intervention will be required. In essence Thatcherism needs tweaking, not scrapping.
The fact is Labour failed when it missed the opportunity to challenge conventional economic thinking and Im sorry but that was a catastrophic failure on their part. They didn’t prepare for the bust in fact they denied it could even happen under Comarde Brown which gives you some indication in to their economic credibility. Tories understand economics and the Markets better than Labour. We will reform the economy in much the same way we did in the 1980′s and provide a new consensus for the country to follow. As ever that consensus will not be flawless and it will have virtues and vices it will be up to Labour, if and when they do get in to power again, to recognise and respond to those vices not ignore them as they did in the past.
If Tories understand economics, how is it that in the eighties and nineties, there was consistently high unemployment, peaking interest rates and even Thatcher’s bete noir inflation soared. The Tory pretence to economic superiority is just that. Pretence.
Tosh. Because anyone with any clue about economics knows it doesn’t happen overnight. You can’t change an entire economy and not expect their to be initial hiccups. The fact is when we left office every single economic indicator was improving, inflation, unemployment, interest rates, the lot were coming down. We were finally starting to see the fruits of our Labour and Tony Blair by his own admission inherited a strong economy with good prospects from the Tories. His very words in his memoirs were “Britain NEEDED the economic and industrial reforms of the 1980′s” and “Thatcher must be ranked as one of the 4 four great post war Prime Ministers”. He didn’t say that for nothing.
I didn’t say that her reign was one lacking achievement and that her reforms had some long term economic benefits. What I said was that the 80s and early 90s, were dominated by economic difficulty. Those points are not mutually exclusive.
Well its good that you accept her reign was one of achievement and that she left long term economic benefits, its certainly far more than any of your “comrades” have ever conceded, however if, like Blair et al, you have enough common sense to accept that, then surely you must accept that things cannot change over night? When you inherit an economy where unemployment is steadily rising (albeit at a slower pace)and where the prevailing mantra in the civil service has been “to manage the orderly slope in to inevitable decline” and you take radical and largely untested actions that move away the post war consensus emphasis on “full employment” and you restructure the economy using radical free market, monetarist reforms, then surely you accept it is inevitable that difficulties will arise as the “new economy” takes shape?
Thatcher and the the government called rising unemployment at the time a “neccessary evil”. She did not cut the saftey net for people as Labour like to claim in fact she inflated it to record levels to ensure the damage was as limited as possible. She had no desire to make people unemployed and took no personal relish from it. But she had a job to do; she had to save the economy and restructure it so it would provide sustainable growth for all our people in the future years.
She succeeded. The record low unemployment we had under Labour was not merely down to Blair/Brown et al and he had the common courtesy to admit it in his memoirs. It was down to the extraordinary, courageous and revolutionary zeal of the Thatcher government that made the impossible possible. Yes it was tough, yes at times the country looked like it was falling apart and yes it was not a flawless programme but the fact is it DID provide us with long term sustainable economic growth. It did provide us with greater wealth and tax revenues to be able to fund record investment in the public services. It did provide increased job opportunities which pulled unemployment down to record lows and it did give more ordinary people a chance to have a greater share in society in terms of home ownership, shares etc.
But the fact remains the same; Labour, whilst wise enough to accept the bulk of Thatcherism as irreversible, did not do enough to prepare for the future. Thatcher sacrificed her personal popularity and reputation at the time for the long term good of the nation. Labour mortgaged our futures to pay for their present. That is the difference. She dared to be unpopular and history has vindicated her.
Anyway, I have actually ceased to be a Birmingham Student and as a result feel that I should depart for Labour pastures anew. That was a fast year as a PG student but it was fun, and I thank everyone at BULS for that. It has been fun debating with you all. Best of luck to BULS, onwards and upwards comrades.
“…monetarist reforms…”
What’s monetarist about the abolition of credit restrictions while battling inflation?
“…did not do enough to prepare for the future. Thatcher sacrificed her personal popularity and reputation at the time for the long term good of the nation. Labour mortgaged our futures to pay for their present.”
Gordon Brown delivered more budget surpluses than any other Chancellor since the second world war and until the financial crisis kept borrowing lower as a share of GDP than it had been in 1997.
Believe it or not Sean, Dan ceased to be a student of BUCF many years ago and when any other political society would recognise that it’s time to move on and allow other students to come through his obsession is just one example of many people whose life revolves around CF and without it they cease to exist.
And believe it or not Dan there was a period before Thatcher and there is one afterwards. It’s sycophants like this who epitomise the Tory party and are one of the reasons why the Conservatives can never claim to be progressive or in touch with reality. The country recognise this and hence denied you an overall majority.
Sam you petulant and ill informed little child. Whether I ceased to be a student or not is irrelevant. So has Jack. So has Sean. So have countless other past and present commentators on these blogs. The fact is I graduated last year but if you think that is “many years ago” you need your head examining. I was President of BUCF and at the request of the current committee, many of whom came in under my tenure, I still play an active role in BUCF as I still live and work in Birmingham. I do not need to justify myself to you or anyone else in that regard and whilst you and others like you may see blogs like these as a chance to have a little conversation amongst yourselves, so you can cream over each other and self congratulate, blogs are actually meant to be a forum for debate. Anyone from any part of the country (or indeed the world) and anyone of any age should be able to comment on opinions raised on any blog or forum. That is the nature of public debate. If you want to have a private little conversation amongst yourselves do us all a favour and make the blog password protected that way you can be left to your dillusions in little Labour land. But lets face it if I stopped commenting then the comments on this blog would be a little thin on the ground and this blog would be even more irrelevant.
But while we’re on the point of “dillusions” and irrelevance you’ve just proved the point; there isn’t one credible person in Labour, not even the leader, that thinks the last election was anything other than a defeat for Labour. Apart from you of course. They lost 100 seats. They are out of government. Cameron came *this close* to snatching an outright majority, he gained nearly 100 seats, he got a swing of nearly 4% and managed to form a strong coalition with the Liberal Democrats. These are impressive achievements. The Tories might not have won the full trust of the public yet but they have certainly won the benefit of the doubt. We won more popular votes in this election than Labour won in their 3rd term and we got pretty much exactly what Blair got in his second term in 2001. We have MORE than earned the right to govern with the popular vote of the people and the seats are a hollow technicality. Labour on the other hand were roundly rejected and they will be for many years to come. A word to the wise Sam; get your facts right before you comment in future or you’ll just end up looking like a prat.