Ed Miliband’s Victory a Win for Social Democracy
Ed Miliband's stunning come from behind win over his older brother for the Labour Party leadership was a victory for the Social Democratic movement in the UK, and a lifeline to working people in Britain.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition is in the process of doing huge damage to the social fabric of Britain by stripping the welfare state and enacting vicious cuts accross the board. As it stood, there was no real opposition to the conservative economic model adopted by the Tories and New Labour. The Lib Dem's dreams of reigning in the Tory's neo liberal reforms have been crushed by a relentless David Cameron, and the party progressives thought might be able to do some good has been rendered completely useless.
If Labour had chosen David Miliband, the public would have had little to choose from. A Blairite at heart, the elder Miliband was more concerned with the centre than the tradition support base for Labour. Electing a pro business deficit hawk would have meant three parties representing corporate Britain, and none for working Britain.
With Ed Miliband, the public now has an option. They can choose to elect a party that represents the interests of the middle classes and the working poor, and they can choose a party that believes Britain's fiscal health should not be reliant on greedy bankers.
Ed Miliband is not the answer to all of Britain's problems, but his more people centred politics is a start. And Britain hasn't had that in a long time.
Ed Miliband's stunning come from behind win over his older brother for the Labour Party leadership was a victory for the Social Democratic movement in the UK, and a lifeline to working people in Britain.
The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition is in the process of doing huge damage to the social fabric of Britain by stripping the welfare state and enacting vicious cuts accross the board. As it stood, there was no real opposition to the conservative economic model adopted by the Tories and New Labour. The Lib Dem's dreams of reigning in the Tory's neo liberal reforms have been crushed by a relentless David Cameron, and the party progressives thought might be able to do some good has been rendered completely useless.
If Labour had chosen David Miliband, the public would have had little to choose from. A Blairite at heart, the elder Miliband was more concerned with the centre than the tradition support base for Labour. Electing a pro business deficit hawk would have meant three parties representing corporate Britain, and none for working Britain.
With Ed Miliband, the public now has an option. They can choose to elect a party that represents the interests of the middle classes and the working poor, and they can choose a party that believes Britain's fiscal health should not be reliant on greedy bankers.
Ed Miliband is not the answer to all of Britain's problems, but his more people centred politics is a start. And Britain hasn't had that in a long time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmtreasury/sets/72157624850826531/show/
Look at the first two charts here. Something clearly needs to be done about social security, and so far the various suggestions (IDS’ and others) coming forward at least offer some prospect of dealing with this.
Christian, when you say something ‘clearly needs to be done about social security’ I assume you mean it needs to be cut?
The thing is, welfare cheating is at a historical low, so those who are on it clearly need it. Why not focus attention on the rich who avoid paying tax and reducing the unnecessary military spending budget to plug the deficit hole? Instead, the Tories are advocating punishing the people who can least afford it. I don’t know why anyone thinks the Tories are any different – they are the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, and will go about reconstructing the state to protect their interests.
The deficit is a problem, but you need a growth plan to get out of it. Militant cuts will have the opposite effect and stunt growth for many, many years. The same thing happened with Thatcher in the early 80′s and in Chile under Pinochet, and under every other country going through ‘structural adjustment’ as advocated by neoliberalism. It’s a disaster waiting to happen, and thank god Labour can now provide a real alternative.
I don’t think we can say all 194bn of social security is “clearly needed” by those claiming it, but no need to pursue that, I take your point.
Right now,I think the Tories are happier to have Ed as Labour leader, over David, so what does that say?
The Tories are saying they are happier to have Ed as leader now, but wait till the public feels the full effect of the cuts. Then the Tories will begin to fear him like they feared Blair in the 90′s. I think they know this and are attempting to undermine him as quickly as possible (remember the Republicans saying they wouldn’t mind running against Obama over Clinton?).