I hope you will excuse me returning to the same subject today. I promise not to become obsessed with it....
It’s just that I’m not sure why it is that people are so surprised, shocked and hurt for poor wee David Miliband, and why they think that Ed is some sort of evil Enver Hoxha or Kim Jong Il figure waiting to collectivize our farms and have the workers march to victory sweeping the aristocracy away in their efforts to create a Stalinist of Maoist state.
Dealing with David’s hurt feelings is easy. He’s in politics for heaven’s sake. At the age of 29 he was head of the Blair policy unit, and at 41 the youngest Foreign Secretary since David Owen. He didn’t get there by being sensitive. He has some wounded pride. He needs to get over it. He’s got the punching power to end up in charge of something else, somewhere else. Don’t waste your sympathy on him. His type could fall off the top of the Scott Monument and walk away. Clearly his wife wanted it badly enough to cry, but she’ll get over that too. Like I say, he’ll survive.
Of course, in a way I can see why the Conservatives would rather have had David Miliband. There would be no serious opposition to anything they are doing. Miliband wouldn’t much mind how quickly the deficit is paid off; he would side with Cameron on constitutional issues against Clegg. One would wonder if Labour wouldn’t just join the coalition and leave opposition to the Celtic fringe countries.
The Daily Mail (of all papers) summarized Miliband the younger’s speech at the bottom of a particularly vitriolic piece by the chateratti commentator Quentin Letts (see above; click for readable size). What is terribly “Red” about any of this stuff?
* He says that it was wrong to go into Iraq. So did the Tories before the election. They said if they had known all the facts they wouldn’t have agreed to the invasion(!)
* He says he will have no truck with gratuitous striking and tells the unions they should not either. Can’t argue with that.
* He says that it’s wrong that a banker (of the gambling type) can earn more in one day than a care worker does in a year. Well, is it right, remembering that both these sets of people are state employees in many cases?
* He wants to see the banks lending to medium and small businesses. Doesn’t everyone, given that they provide jobs and are, or should be, the life blood of the country?
*He points out that there is no merit in paying off the entire deficit if we do not build a society worth living in. Can’t argue much with that, can you? Getting the economics right is no good if everyone hates living here.
* He agrees that Labour let too many foreigners. Most Tories must be pleased about that, surely? (Even if Vince Cable has pointed out that a sad lack of indigenous skills training over 30 years does mean that we actually do need them, and he is backed in that by the Tories’ friend, big business.)
The rest is navel gazing, but frankly no one would have said anything different. I mean, it isn’t our fault we don’t like Labour. It’s Labour’s fault we don’t like Labour.
Any thoughts?
It’s just that I’m not sure why it is that people are so surprised, shocked and hurt for poor wee David Miliband, and why they think that Ed is some sort of evil Enver Hoxha or Kim Jong Il figure waiting to collectivize our farms and have the workers march to victory sweeping the aristocracy away in their efforts to create a Stalinist of Maoist state.
Dealing with David’s hurt feelings is easy. He’s in politics for heaven’s sake. At the age of 29 he was head of the Blair policy unit, and at 41 the youngest Foreign Secretary since David Owen. He didn’t get there by being sensitive. He has some wounded pride. He needs to get over it. He’s got the punching power to end up in charge of something else, somewhere else. Don’t waste your sympathy on him. His type could fall off the top of the Scott Monument and walk away. Clearly his wife wanted it badly enough to cry, but she’ll get over that too. Like I say, he’ll survive.
Of course, in a way I can see why the Conservatives would rather have had David Miliband. There would be no serious opposition to anything they are doing. Miliband wouldn’t much mind how quickly the deficit is paid off; he would side with Cameron on constitutional issues against Clegg. One would wonder if Labour wouldn’t just join the coalition and leave opposition to the Celtic fringe countries.
The Daily Mail (of all papers) summarized Miliband the younger’s speech at the bottom of a particularly vitriolic piece by the chateratti commentator Quentin Letts (see above; click for readable size). What is terribly “Red” about any of this stuff?
* He says that it was wrong to go into Iraq. So did the Tories before the election. They said if they had known all the facts they wouldn’t have agreed to the invasion(!)
* He says he will have no truck with gratuitous striking and tells the unions they should not either. Can’t argue with that.
* He says that it’s wrong that a banker (of the gambling type) can earn more in one day than a care worker does in a year. Well, is it right, remembering that both these sets of people are state employees in many cases?
* He wants to see the banks lending to medium and small businesses. Doesn’t everyone, given that they provide jobs and are, or should be, the life blood of the country?
*He points out that there is no merit in paying off the entire deficit if we do not build a society worth living in. Can’t argue much with that, can you? Getting the economics right is no good if everyone hates living here.
* He agrees that Labour let too many foreigners. Most Tories must be pleased about that, surely? (Even if Vince Cable has pointed out that a sad lack of indigenous skills training over 30 years does mean that we actually do need them, and he is backed in that by the Tories’ friend, big business.)
The rest is navel gazing, but frankly no one would have said anything different. I mean, it isn’t our fault we don’t like Labour. It’s Labour’s fault we don’t like Labour.
Any thoughts?
