Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

RSS

“Red Ed”? Not quite.

Where is the radical candidate who came from behind to win the crown?

By Mehdi Hasan Published 29 October 2010 13:42

Tags: Financial Times Ed Miliband Vince Cable Barack Obama Bank Bonuses business

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

56 comments

Sun, 2010-10-31 23:07 — RK (not verified)

When are the reds going to see the world the way it works rather than how it should work.

Because when you start saying how it should work (and most of the time as way of critisizm) you are blaming someone instead of making the change yourself.

And there could only be so many to be "doing the changes"...that is when sh** hits the fan. And you end up in position such as Obama's where you give close to trillion to Banks but get absolutely nothing from them. That is worse than any capitalistic government manage to ever achieve.

In this regard, atleast in so far as handling of Banks is concerned many capitalists such as myself would applaud Brown, because he was right in principle. But he should have gone the whole hog and broken those rascals to the bones.

Separate Investment Bank from retail i.e.

Tue, 2010-11-02 21:16 — ang (not verified)

I know this sounds sad, but I have just been looking back at some of the footage of the Labour leadership campaign and I really can't believe that David Miliband is not our leader.
Such a damn shame.
So handsome, so intelligent and such a contrast to the tories. Ah well.

Tue, 2010-11-02 22:09 — Luddite (not verified)

ang!! your right it is
sad. If the Labour party can't reconnect with the skilled working class.. It won't matter who leads the Labour party. The blue collar workers are the key to Labour's future success, a group of workers that are doing just fine with British manufacturing booming because of our new coalition government, lead by them two handsome chaps Cameron and Clegg.

Tue, 2010-11-02 22:09 — Mrs Nobody

Ang are you serious?

Thu, 2010-11-04 14:57 — marley (not verified)

Well no please don't comment Luddite.

Sat, 2010-10-30 22:31 — Martin (not verified)

Ed M won the leadership - and the New Statesman backed him - because he presented himself as a leftish version of his brother. This was mostly bullshit (cf Iraq and the graduate tax). Nothing more than mood music.

He won't win a general election like that - as a leftier version of New Labour - hence the different tone in his CBI speech and the rejection of the Balls position on cuts.

Cameron and Osborne have successfully shifted things in their favour. Labour's position on things like housing benefit makes them look spendthrift and unserious. It is very hard for Labour to avoid these kind of attacks - that they're well-meaning but irresponsible, that they caused the mess and aren't serious about clearing it up - and moving further to the left isn't going to help.

Regardless of whether Balls is right about the economics - which he is - it is bad politics to position Labour as the high-spending party, especially when it comes to defending what the average voter sees as generous welfare payments (£500-a-week housing benefit). This is a trap for Labour.

Ed M doesn't appear to have any clear or coherent position when it comes to things like the CSR and university funding. What was Labour's response to the Browne report? There wasn't one. What is Labour's policy on university funding? It hasn't got one.

Labour doesn't now look like an alternative government but is stuck in the same kind of role it had in the 80s. Nor does Ed M look like a potential prime minister.

Given that Labour have been barely visible in the months since he became leader, I give Ed M 3/10 so far.