Ed Miliband's Labour Q&A: 10 highlights

Labour leader says he will attend anti-austerity march on 20 October.

A jacketless Ed Miliband, evidently buoyed by the media response to his speech, breezed his way through this afternoon's Q&A session with Labour delegates. Here are ten notable points from it.

1. Miliband reaffirms his green credentials

After criticism over his failure to mention the environment in yesterday's speech, the former Climate Change Secretary sought to reaffirm his green credentials. He attacked George Osborne's belief that "you can either have a good environment or a good economy", adding: "I don't know what planet future Osbornes are planning to live on".

Elsewhere, he said that he was angered that the aviation debate was dominated by economic considerations, rather than environmental ones. If the UK was to meet its legally-binding commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, aviation had to "play its role".

2. "Comrades"

Evidently convinced that he's seen off the "Red Ed" jibes, Miliband twice addressed delegates in the traditional socialist manner - "comrades".

3. Miliband will attend anti-cuts demo

To cheers from delegates, Miliband confirmed that he would attend the TUC's anti-austerity march on 20 October.

4. Living wage: "not a panacea"

While promising to work to ensure that more employers pay the living wage, Miliband emphasised that it was not "a panacea".

"It doesn't solve the problem, it will just make a difference over and above the minimum wage," he said.

He promised to consider whether government contractors should be legally obliged to pay the living wage but added that fiscal constraints meant this may not be feasible.

5. Rejects free schools

Shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg has promised that Labour will support free schools provided they meet certain tests, but Miliband cited them as an example of where the coalition was going wrong, suggesting that they are, by definition, a negative development.

6. On Trident: "I'm not a unilateralist"

Invited to support nuclear disarmament, Miliband replied that he was not a "unilateralist" but a "multilateralist" (a stance that will likely disappoint his mother, an early CND activist). The government should aim to retain the "minimum deterrent" required for security purposes, he said.

7. Supports votes at 16

Miliband confirmed his support for lowering the voting age and argued that the government would have reconsidered its decision to abolish the Educational Maintenance Allowance were 16-year-olds were able to vote.

8. Opposes Labour candidates in Northern Ireland

While he wished Labour members standing for election in Northern Ireland well, Miliband said that he feared it would compromise the British government's status as an "honest broker".

9. Reassurance on public sector pay freeze

Miliband emphasised the need for pay restraint in the public sector but sought to reassure delegates by stating that he "was not talking about the next parliament". He added that Labour would not implement the 1% pay cap in the same way as the government, there would be more discrimination.

10. Who will win the election

Seeking to frame the 2015 election campaign, Miliband said that the winner would be the party that "unites, rather than divides, Britain".

Ed Miliband answers questions from delegates at the Labour Party conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump ushers in a new era of kakistocracy: government by the worst people

Trump will lead the whitest, most male cabinet in memory – a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

“What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone,” wrote the American poet James Russell Lowell in 1876, in a letter to his fellow poet Joel Benton. “Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?”

Is there a better, more apt description of the incoming Trump administration than “kakistocracy”, which translates from the Greek literally as government by the worst people? The new US president, as Barack Obama remarked on the campaign trail, is “uniquely unqualified” to be commander-in-chief. There is no historical analogy for a President Trump. He combines in a single person some of the worst qualities of some of the worst US presidents: the Donald makes Nixon look honest, Clinton look chaste, Bush look smart.

Trump began his tenure as president-elect in November by agreeing to pay out $25m to settle fraud claims brought against the now defunct Trump University by dozens of former students; he began the new year being deposed as part of his lawsuit against a celebrity chef. On 10 January, the Federal Election Commission sent the Trump campaign a 250-page letter outlining a series of potentially illegal campaign contributions. A day later, the head of the non-partisan US Office of Government Ethics slammed Trump’s plan to step back from running his businesses as “meaningless from a conflict-of-interest perspective”.

It cannot be repeated often enough: none of this is normal. There is no precedent for such behaviour, and while kakistocracy may be a term unfamiliar to most of us, this is what it looks like. Forget 1876: be prepared for four years of epic misgovernance and brazen corruption. Despite claiming in his convention speech, “I alone can fix it,” the former reality TV star won’t be governing on his own. He will be in charge of the richest, whitest, most male cabinet in living memory; a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

There has been much discussion about the lack of experience of many of Trump’s appointees (think of the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs) and their alleged bigotry (the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, denied a role as a federal judge in the 1980s following claims of racial discrimination, is on course to be confirmed as attorney general). Yet what should equally worry the average American is that Trump has picked people who, in the words of the historian Meg Jacobs, “are downright hostile to the mission of the agency they are appointed to run”. With their new Republican president’s blessing, they want to roll back support for the poorest, most vulnerable members of society and don’t give a damn how much damage they do in the process.

Take Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general selected to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt describes himself on his LinkedIn page as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and has claimed that the debate over climate change is “far from settled”.

The former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is Trump’s pick for housing and urban development, a department with a $49bn budget that helps low-income families own homes and pay the rent. Carson has no background in housing policy, is an anti-welfare ideologue and ruled himself out of a cabinet job shortly after the election. “Dr Carson feels he has no government experience,” his spokesman said at the time. “He’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

The fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder, who was tapped to run the department of labour, doesn’t like . . . well . . . labour. He prefers robots, telling Business Insider in March 2016: “They’re always polite . . . They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”

The billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos, nominated to run the department of education, did not attend state school and neither did any of her four children. She has never been a teacher, has no background in education and is a champion of school vouchers and privatisation. To quote the education historian Diane Ravitch: “If confirmed, DeVos will be the first education secretary who is actively hostile to public education.”

The former Texas governor Rick Perry, nominated for the role of energy secretary by Trump, promised to abolish the department that he has been asked to run while trying to secure his party’s presidential nomination in 2011. Compare and contrast Perry, who has an undergraduate degree in animal science but failed a chemistry course in college, with his two predecessors under President Obama: Dr Ernest Moniz, the former head of MIT’s physics department, and Dr Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. In many ways, Perry, who spent the latter half of 2016 as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, is the ultimate kakistocratic appointment.

“Do Trump’s cabinet picks want to run the government – or dismantle it?” asked a headline in the Chicago Tribune in December. That’s one rather polite way of putting it. Another would be to note, as the Online Etymology Dictionary does, that kakistocracy comes from kakistos, the Greek word for “worst”, which is a superlative of kakos, or “bad”, which “is related to the general Indo-European word for ‘defecate’”.

Mehdi Hasan has rejoined the New Statesman as a contributing editor and will write a fortnightly column on US politics

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era