Buy Zyban Online No Prescription Buy Lexapro No Rx Mobic 15 Mg 30 Pills Generic Nexium Sale Cialis China Price

Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband?


3:34 pm - September 12th 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Christopher Cook of the FT thinks I’m implying Conservatives are lying when I say Labourites should be careful of who they are publicly ‘worried about’ from the Labour leadership contenders.

That is a misreading of where I’m coming from, and partially in response to Soho Politico, I’ll explain why this is worth explaining.

I’ve said before I think David Miliband is a highly intelligent and capable Labour MP. I just don’t think he should be Labour leader for various reasons.

1. Economic policy
I disagree with David Miliband’s economic plans (put together by Alistair Darling) on three fronts: economicaly, politically and for internal Labour reasons. Economically it advocates cutting far too deeply and quickly, as even Ed Balls has said. It’s the kind of MOR plan that Obama put in place as soon as he came to power – which was neither big enough to actually reduce unemployment quickly, nor small enough to deflect Republican attacks.

Politically – it’s not an easily explainable or different enough plan from the Conservatives. It admits that Labour got it wrong on trying to protect the economy rather than cutting the deficit. This lack of a clear political message over the economy is why Labour lost the last election so badly – people saw Labour admitting they had messed up the economy. [explained in more detail here]

Internally – David Miliband’s plans pits the Labour left (plus Ed Balls and EdM) against David Miliband, and this is not good for party unity. Ed Balls’ plans pretty much unite most of the party. If David M’s plans are accepted – you’ll see unions and other greassroots Labour people frequently campaigning against their own party.

Tories have a reason to like all this – David Miliband accepts their broad economic consensus rather than saying there is an alternative and calling them ‘growth deniers’. Plus, Tories would love to see Labour infighting over the cuts. And lastly, they can then point to DM once he is elected and say: ‘see, he accepts Labour went too far in allowing the debt to get out of hand‘. What does Labour say in response to that?

[All the talk of Darling having an ‘escape hatch’ in his plans are minutae that will go over the head of most voters and the media. Guys, you think they pay that much attention to these plans?]

2. Progressive majority.
Another reason why I will not be voting for David Miliband, and why I think Tories like him, is because he is deeply centrist. Coming from a lefty like me this may not surprise you. But there’s a broader point here.

The Conservatives are great at finding ways to shift the consensus to the right. That means any centrist has to also keep shifting to the right rather than challenge that and shift the political spectrum back in their favour. I support Ed Miliband because he believes that a progressive majority of independent progressive voters and Labour’s base can win elections.

This is why he hasn’t attacked the Coalition from the right on issues. Contrast that with David Miliband’s campaign team attacking the Coalition from the right on crime (Jack Straw on Ken Clarke) on civil liberties (Alan Johnson saying Labour did nothing wrong) and on defence (cutting Trident is bad etc etc).

Their team genuinely don’t believe that Labour can win voters unless it is right-wing on social issues. Do you honestly think David Miliband’s team after being elected will disavow any of their previous positions on the above or on immigration, given his backers?

3. A shrinking electorate
And lastly – I don’t believe Labour can win an election unless it attracts back the 4 million working class voters it has lost since 1997. I think Ed Miliband will make more of an effort here than David will.

But more importantly, I believe Tories prefer D-Miliband’s centrism here because it means he has to fight for votes from a shrinking electorate which is mostly on the right. The Tories would prefer that poorer voters who don’t like them anyway remain apathetic and disengaged from politics.

Lastly
I’m not hating on David Miliband, just pointing out where I differ from him ideologically. If Ed Miliband goes on to win and then takes the course his brother advocated, I would of course argue against that.

So please don’t see this as an attempt to rubbish DM. I’m sick of all this media briefings against EM already, with him being called ‘Forrest Gump’ or people being told they won’t get jobs if he gets elected. This is not in the same vein.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Labour party ,The Left ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I broadly agree, but I think there’s a bigger tension that you realise between the progressive coalition, and the mission to recover our working class supporters. If you want to appeal to the progressive coalition by being liberal on issues such as crime and immigration, you’re going to have to work doubly hard to attract a lot of the working class support back – to assume they all stopped supporting us because we weren’t left-wing enough is I think dangerously unsupported by the evidence, especially on those issues.

Interesting arguments – actually argued very well.

1. Economic Policy – I think DM is more focused on creating growth rather than having the argument being focused just on cuts. The question of where is growth going to come from is fundamentally more important. Equally, important is the intellectual argument that economic and fiscal policy including taxation should be developed within the economic context of the period we live in.

The argument proposed by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls with regard to the 50 p taxation may be great when you have a cabinet minister’s pension or MP pension – but it does, in my humble opinion, work against aspiration.

2. Progressive Majority – The Progressive Majority that instinctively believes they are middle class remain very very suspicious about Unions – especially the warring Union bosses.

In 1994, Tony Blair was rejected by the Union bosses, but when it came to the membership he won hands down. We could have a repeat of that this year. The union membership includes people in public sector to people working in Banks – so

That does not mean, I am saying that David Miliband is a Tony Blair clone.

On the point about crime – it is the poorest in our society who disproportionately faces the impact of criminality in our society. Go to some of the estates and speak to some of the most law abiding citizens and you would find they want the government to be tough on crime and they want their kids to be able to come back from school without being shot or stabbed.

And more importantly, Jack Straw or Alan Johnson do not speak for David Miliband’s campaign.

3. The shrinking electorate argument does resonate to some extent – however, how do we bring them back to the labour fold. Does the party argue that there needs to be an underclass or so called working class – or do we believe in moving everyone through the socio-economic ladders. Why should the Labour party cede the aspiration ground to the Tories – why can’t we believe that we actually can make a difference and improve quality of life for everyone – why can’t we believe that a child born in the poorest of families can’t get a quality education and got to University and go and lead a fortune 500 company or be the Prime Minister.

If the US can do it why can’t we?

I am by no means suggesting that Ed Miliband or Ed Balls for that matter are against aspiration or improving the quality of life for the many. But to me their messages seem to somewhat emerge from the class divide. If we are truly a progressive party, shouldn’t we look beyond that.

On the anonymous attacks on Ed Miliband – I agree it is dangerous and divisive and David Miliband this morning made it very very clear that no one in his campaign is saying that. And I too am tired of these anonymous sources – if you are too embarrassed about putting your name to a quote don’t use it.

Finally, the attacks on David Miliband have been quite huge as well – starting with war criminal to geek to not human in speech to open and vile attacks on blogs.

Yes that needs to stop too. The media including the BBC are trying hard to say how bad the relationships are between the candidates but most are based on observations by journos who have nothing better to do. I actually think the leadership campaign has been run very well.

Sadiq Khan needs to tone it down as well.

Who do Tories want as Labour Leader? http://bit.ly/caNsnW

might he be poison if he is leader of our party, Sunny, and – lets say for the moment hypothetically – found to have been complicit in allowing torture?

“And lastly – I don’t believe Labour can win an election unless it attracts back the 4 million working class voters it has lost since 1997. I think Ed Miliband will make more of an effort here than David will. But more importantly, I believe Tories prefer D-Miliband’s centrism here because it means he has to fight for votes from a shrinking electorate which is mostly on the right. The Tories would prefer that poorer voters who don’t like them anyway remain apathetic and disengaged from politics.”

Oh for pity’s sake, not this one again.

How many more times does this need to be explained? As I said last time you made similar claims:

1) It is a comparison with one year (1997) chosen to prove a point. This is the same tactic as climate change deniers who compare everything with 1998. If you compare the 2010 result with 2001 and 2005 it doesn’t fit this analysis.

2) It is a call to base future tactics on the distant past. Labour cannot recreate the 1997 electorate. If the coalition has a full term then there will be voters at the next general election who weren’t even born in 1997.

3) It assumes that working class voters are a left-wing consitituency disillusioned by right-wing policies. A few conversations on the doorstep about immigration or crime should cure you of this misapprehension. As would a willingness to accept that turn-out is not simply a function of ideological disappointment.

4) It ignores the realities of change within Labour. New Labour did not appear immediately after the 1997 election and remain fundamentally the same for 13 years, gradually driving voters away due to maintaining a position on the right. The 1997 election result was a consequence of Labour’s repositioning. By 2010 Labour was seen as noticeably to the left of its position in 1997, particularly on issues such as immigration, crime and education. Combine this with the LibDem’s move to the right and it is fairly obvious that 2010 showed Labour losing votes to the right not the left.

David Miliband has a wider base of support in the parliamentary party – from Dennis Skinner to Alastair Darling.

He actually comes across as more “human” than his brother – although both constantly speak in soundbites – but the big difference is that the elder Miliband is being consistent, by defending his government’s record. Shitty record though it may be, at least he isn’t trying to do what his brother is doing, and disowning everything the Labour government did, a government he was a key part of. Consistency counts, Ed M seems like the kind of guy who will say anything and take any position if it gets him votes. David M, whilst not much better, seems to have some actual beliefs.

As for David being less useful to the prospects of a progressive coalition, that’s high talk from an Ed M supporter: the younger brother has spent most of his campaign (aside from cussing his brother) ploughing into the Lib Dems for being part of the government. Imagine you’re a Lib Dem: how receptive will you be to some twat in Labour who supported all the illiberal nonsense you entered government to repeal, telling you you’d be better off in his gang?

David M is the candidate most likely to reach out to the Lib Dems. Andy Burnham is too right-wing, Ed Balls is a fucking hypocrite because he crafted the Brownite economics that he is now criticising the government for building upon, and Diane Abbott helped sink the potential LibLab pact after the election.

And if Ed speaks “human”, then I’m a fucking alien. No one who speaks like Ed M can go around accusing others of not being fucking human. The man’s a test-tube-bred clone.

Somewhat hastily, but I’ve replied to you here, Sunny:

http://www.sohopolitico.com/2010/09/who-do-tories-want-to-win-labour.html

oldandrew – and I refuted you last time, but I’ll do it again:

1) It is a comparison with one year (1997) chosen to prove a point.

You can’t make a comparison with climate change. There is a finite UK population, and it’s demonstrably true that a large part of them stopped voting after 1997. The number of voters went down sharply after that. You can’t get away from that however many times you make the silly comparison with climate change graphs.

2) It is a call to base future tactics on the distant past.

Er no – it’s a point to say that there is a significant percentage of the population that previously voted Labour that doesn’t now. Voters don’t die that quickly.

Some of those may now see themselves as middle-class. Some might think Iraq or 90 days or high immigration will never see them vote Labour again. But you can’t write those people off as non-existent.

3) It assumes that working class voters are a left-wing consitituency disillusioned by right-wing policies. A few conversations on the doorstep about immigration or crime should cure you of this misapprehension.

We’re specifically talking about a constituency that voted Labour and now doesn’t. I’m NOT assuming all WC voters are left-wing.

Also: crime was never a big issue during this election – and Labour could quite easily point to its record and say it did better in reducing it.

As for immigration – yes I wanted the party to address that. But in a way that stayed true to its values and said: ‘yes, you’re right, we haven’t done enough to address housing shortage, nor the effects of globalisation’.

And Tories (and some New Labour MPs) want to ‘address immigration’ without addressing where those concerns come from (which basically means they’ll just scapegoat immigrants for their own policies).

4) By 2010 Labour was seen as noticeably to the left of its position in 1997, particularly on issues such as immigration, crime and education.

This is laughable – given in 1997 Labour went as far as a windfall tax on privatised utilities.

By 2010 it was only reluctantly taxing bankers bonuses and flatly rejected a high pay commission.

Your point also ignores that by 2010 the electorate had moved significantly to the left on tolerating and being happy with people ‘getting filthy rich’ – mostly because those people were also blamed for the financial crisis.

blanco:
but the big difference is that the elder Miliband is being consistent, by defending his government’s record. Shitty record though it may be, at least he isn’t trying to do what his brother is doing, and disowning everything the Labour government did

What an utterly bizarre argument. So you say its a ‘shit’ record, and then you go on to the praise the guy who defends that record rather than the guy who admits the party got a few things wrong.

If DAvid Miliband gets elected, no doubt soon you’ll be saying how terrible Labour are on civil liberties (as you do) while having criticised the guy who wants to break from them. Completely bonkers.

Sunny, I don’t want either Miliband to win – I think all the candidates are terrible.

I’m just saying, in a contest between one Miliband who is shit but at least owns up to it, and another Miliband who is also shit but tries to pretend he will be any different, I’d rather have to deal with someone who is upfront about their shitness.

What evidence from Ed Miliband’s career is there that he will break from anything Labour did to trash civil liberties? He’s just talked about the “core vote”, the poorer classes, who by Labour’s own definition do not care about civil liberties. What is it Labour says about the topic these days, yes, “civil liberties fetish”. Has Ed praised the stuff the coalition has done to break from New Labour’s past? Nope.

It’s a double bluff by the Tories. If they say they want David Milliband to win they hope this will pull some people who are voting away from him. It is him they are scared of the most and they are doing all they can to give people reasons not to vote for him.

The question of if he is the opponent that they should fear is another story completely, but this effort by them to stop him from winning is very transparent.

http://redrag1.blogspot.com/

Damn fine article.

I agree – I think a lot of Tories are just saying they’re scared of David M because he’s actually the candidate they want most. Both because they think they can beat him and because even if he does win he won’t go against the centre-right consensus politics.

Ed M, on the other hand, just might.

New Labour showed that there is no point in being tory lite. So there is no point in David being leader.

We don’t want 3 main parties all being tory. The Lib Dems have become tory lite, and it will kill them.

Hilarious.

The tories probably want him in because he’s a zionist communist from a family of zionist communists who’ll make them unelectable for about the next 1000 years. The idea of a gaffe prone lady who self identifies as “west indian” being the leader of a British political party is about the only thing I could think of that the tories would want more.

What difference does it really make anyway?

All three main parties are somewhere between centre left and far left. You’ve won the war. The political right in reality only exists as an imaginary bogey man for you lot to organise protests about, an “Emanuel Goldstein” figure to keep the masses vigilant. Do you think any genuine right wing party would keep us in Europe, lavish billions on entitlement schemes for the lazy and indigent or not reverse disastrous unfettered third world immigration? I think not. Cameron has offered India a say in our immigration policy for crying out loud, what exactly has he done which remotely resembles genuine political conservatism? I can’t think of anything at all. Nothing.

“All three main parties are somewhere between centre left and far left. You’ve won the war.”

Are you drunk?

9,

Returning to each point in turn.

1) The point is that selective comparisons are misleading. You can’t defend it in one case and reject it in another.

2) Changes that take place over 18 years (the likeliest period of time between 1997 to the next election) cannot be described as happening “quickly”. It is too long a period of time to think of it in terms of people being put off by one policy or another. Apart from those who have died or come of age over that time, people are in a completely different part of their life-cycle, policy or ideological direction cannot reverse that. A lurch to the left will not send 38 year olds back to university, turn parents of teenagers into teenagers, or let pensioners return to the workplace.

3) You were talking specifically about working class voters who had ceased to support Labour. Whether you are assuming they are left-wing because of their class, or because they have ceased to vote Labour, you are painting a very unlikely picture.

4) Strangely enough I was talking about the party’s positioning with respect to what the public most care about (for instance party leader, immigration, education, crime) not on the fiscal policy issue of your choice. By this measure Labour had moved to the left between 1997 and 2010.

18. Duncan Weldon

Sunny,

On the escape hatch point – I started typing a response, it became very long!

Over at my blog ( a rare weekend post):

http://wp.me/pt0AC-hX

Is it reasonably that the focus on Miliband’s Jewish lineage, the labelling him as communist, the declaring that the tories are lefties, and banging on about third world (non-anglo-saxon?) immigration leads me to believe Dutch is BNP?

Even the bogeyman comment and1984 reference appears as a rather weak attempt to pre-empt such suggestions.

Margin4error is about correct, I guess.

#15 Dutch: “…or not reverse disastrous unfettered third world immigration?”

In 2001 many Tories were talking about winning back the voters they had lost since 1992 (when JM won 14m plus, the highest ever). Shifting to the Right didn’t help them so I’m not sure how shifting to the Left in the next few years will win back Labour voters in 1997.

Unwittingly, Gordon Brown has produced two calamitous Labour leadership election campaigns in succession. The first was GB’s ascension without a campaign, electorally or politically. The second was generated by GB’s immediate resignation after the General Election. An announcement that GB would resign in November, after the party conference and after the Coalition spending review, would have encouraged a different debate within Labour.

Conducting a leadership campaign during the summer news silly season is unwise. The campaign that has been conducted has been uninteresting, even for us wonks. Smart parties use the leadership campaign to motivate people outside the party, but Labour tossed away this opportunity.

Dreadful candidates too.

Sunny, just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not after you.

Apparently to Dutch, everything looks left-wing. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume he’s a fascist.

No doubt he will accuse me of ad hominem tactics too, but I’d be interested to know how such an accusation can be justified without implicitly accepting that there is something inherently bad or foolish about anyone who would adopt a far-right, extreme-authoritarian political position.

@Shamit

Interesting points.

As you say crime is an issue and it affects the most vulnerable the most. New Labour went too far on some areas (ID cards, some aspects of RIPA) but when it comes to criminal justice policy you have to keep asking whether the policy protects the vulnerable; if it doesn’t then you have got it wrong.

I think Sunny is wrong about the shrinking electorate. ALL parties have lost members and votes over the last couple of decades. The social attitudes survey shows that over the last couple of decades the number of people associating with a political party has declined – for all parties. We are getting more politically apathetic. Note that in the US it was not Obama who invigorated the Democratic party, it was Howard Dean’s 50-state policy that enacted at the same time. Indeed, the decline in the Dems in the US is not because of Obama, but because the grassroots policy was not continued at the same rate.

My point is that there are many people across the spectrum who do not want to participate, and not just on the left, so a leader who can attract the centre as well as the left has more chance to get a larger support. Is this Ed or David? We honestly have no idea now, four months is not long enough to see who has the best approach to attracting supporters.

@Dutch I think you tried to get to ConservativeHome and came here instead. Try again, you’ll find that your opinions are welcome over at Lord Ashcroft’s vanity site.

Ad hominems (“brownshirts” is her favourite) is in fact all that Sally does have to offer.

Oh, and further to that point, why is it that Labour can only define itself by what the Tories are not, rather than coming up with your own ideas?

You’ve now voted against the AV referendum, despite supporting AV being in your manifesto (and ironically enough not the Tory one), mainly because it’s those wicked Tories in the Coalition putting it forward. If you’re now going to argue for selecting your leader on the basis of “The Tories are bluffing as to who they want so we must pick Milipede X – no, they’re double bluffing, we must pick Milipede Y” the game is up.

tory troll who denies being a tory (as they all do) “Ad hominems is in fact all that Sally does have to offer.”

In your opinion.

Which we have already established is worth jack shit.

“Is it reasonably that the focus on Miliband’s Jewish lineage, the labelling him as communist, the declaring that the tories are lefties, and banging on about third world (non-anglo-saxon?) immigration leads me to believe Dutch is BNP?

Even the bogeyman comment and1984 reference appears as a rather weak attempt to pre-empt such suggestions.”

Jewish is your word, I said Zionist. You’d like to think I was labelling him “jewish” as then you could call me a xenophobe and make a link between my previous comment and a 1930s German chancellor, and self righteously shout “fascist”. This isn’t the case.

The BNP is a vile one trick anti-islam platform. The fact that you would link what you clearly believe is jewish anti-semitism with a BNP political platform does nothing more than show your ignorance of the BNP’s manifesto. The BNP are a lot of things but they are certainly not anti-semites (in the jewish sense that is, they are definitely anti-islamic-semites).

@27

“Apparently to Dutch, everything looks left-wing. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume he’s a fascist.

No doubt he will accuse me of ad hominem tactics too, but I’d be interested to know how such an accusation can be justified without implicitly accepting that there is something inherently bad or foolish about anyone who would adopt a far-right, extreme-authoritarian political position.”

No sir, I would not accuse you of ad-hominem attacks, I would accuse you of obfuscation and misrepresentation, I did not in fact state, nor imply, that “everything looks left-wing”, I stated that our three main political parties are left leaning in ideology. I can back this up with data so I hardly think it’s “fascist”.

You fling around the word “fascist”, no doubt for it’s emotional effect, without providing any workable definition of what it means. I suspect for you it means “someone who doesn’t share my egalitarian world view”. I suggest to you sir that you devalue the word with your flippant and out of context usage.

“tory troll who denies being a tory (as they all do) “Ad hominems is in fact all that Sally does have to offer.”

In your opinion.

Which we have already established is worth jack shit.”

Yes dear, established with more ad hominem I imagine, never data or sound argument, no, never that.

@32 Dutch

The BNP are a lot of things but they are certainly not anti-semites.

Really?

Relevant paragraphs if you can’t be bothered clicking the above:

He [Nick Griffin] wrote in his own publication, The Rune: ‘I am well aware that orthodox opinion is that 6m Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into soup and lampshades… I have reached the conclusion that the “extermination” tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria.’

He is unabashed about this statement when I remind him of it. ‘I’d still say those three,’ he says, ‘but I’d add “and fact” if I was being polite and reasonable about it. The reason people like me aren’t polite and reasonable sometimes about the Holocaust is nothing to do with anti-Semitism or wanting to give offence. It is to do with frustration with how it is used to prevent any genuine debate on questions to do with immigration, ethnicity and the cultural survival of the western nations.’

Pushed further on the Holocaust – what he has in the past called the ‘Holohoax’ – he becomes more animated and more intransigent. His face reddens and his voice grows uncomfortably loud. The lunchtime murmur of hushed conversation and hesitant cutlery is drowned out by a full-bloodied reappraisal of Nazi atrocities. ‘The only reason the Nazis were so fanatically anti-Jewish was the very close correlation between some Jews and communism,’ he continues. He insists the number of deaths at Auschwitz has been inflated, and is emphatic that no more than 3.5m Jews had perished under Nazi rule.

BTW Dutch, elsewhere on this site you claim that Mossad perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the US… it ain’t looking pretty, really.

15. Dutch

‘…unfettered third world immigration? ‘

If we have had unfettered ‘ third world ‘ immigration why is the population only 61,414,062 ? Do they not have large populations there? Where is this ‘ third world ‘ anyway? The term has been defunct since the collapse of the Communist World. Nowadays we have high-income countries, medium-income countries and low-income countries.

33. Liza Harding

I agree with Red Rag – it’s a double-bluff, thought you’d be well-up on this, Sunny!
You sure you’re not a closet Tory? 😉

May the best brother win which is David Miliband.
He has no need to put everyone in their boxes, we’re all one team – Labour at the end of the day and should be a broader, more diverse party if we’re ever going to win again!
Already uniting people up and down the country with Movement For Change from David’s campaign – action speaks louder than words.

Let’s see who the public back!

Ugh – I’ve deleted the arguments with the BNP troll and left his initial point and rebuttals up there. More comments by ‘dutch’ and any responses will be deleted

I’m not particularly interested about the next leader of the LP and I doubt that the millions of lost (should really be potential) working-class voters are. Certainly many of the old voters are dead but the reason that these potential voters do not vote labour (or any party) is because they are all alike and they do not address the interests of the working-class.
Many on LC claim that nulab lost support around the issues of civil liberties and being too authoritarian and illiberal,but when your family is sitting in the dark with no electricity or unable to participate fully in the usual cultural activities. And when you are housed in areas where crime, vandalism and drug-taking is rife and has become a no-go area, those issues go on the back-burner.
Talking left or centre may be relevant on LC, it’s not to the majority of the disposessed,
It’s nothing less than shameful that the LP can’t win, particularly as the older voter (once considered the stereotypical tory voter) is now less likely to vote conservative, and this social group is the fastest growing,
The LP needs to go back to it’s roots as a party that aspires to socialism, although it appears many commenters here who are actively involved with LP don’t know what socialism is. because over and over again it’s shown that tinkering about with capitalism does not work, whoever is in power.

@28 – QED!!

You fling around the word “fascist”, no doubt for it’s emotional effect, without providing any workable definition of what it means.

Strangely enough, the only people who seem to have trouble with the definition of fascism are fascists…

To be honest i doubt any of the people who are going for the leadership could win another election, all of them are some way or another tainted with New Labour.

Both Milibands would before the next election return to the third way as they see it as the only way to win over the Tory swing voters.

Balls well he is tainted with browns idea of going left and then going west again, as he said wait until you see my Vision, it was of course a nightmare not a vision, Burnham is not a leader more a follower. Abbott is nearer to my idea of socialism, but that not much these days, I would have rather see her fight to get the local school up to a better standard then her send her kids into private education, sadly you are what you do.

I’m leaning towards Cameron winning about three elections before he gets dumped and a fourth with a new leader.

Surely DM must be wondering where he went so wrong.

Not only did he attract the unsolicited endorsement of Tony Blair.

He now has the unsolicited endorsement of John Prescott as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/sep/13/labourleadership-davidmiliband

“Politically – it’s not an easily explainable or different enough plan from the Conservatives. It admits that Labour got it wrong on trying to protect the economy rather than cutting the deficit.”

Sunny, I think you’re looking at this a bit too much through the prism of the leadership contest and the differences between the candidates’ positions – which most voters haven’t paid much attention to and will barely remember in a year’s time. All five agree on the following broad principles:

– Labour was right to go for a fiscal stimulus and the deficit is mainly due to the recession rather than previous profligacy.
– The deficit does need to be reduced, but not as quickly as the govt plans to do it.
– The balance of deficit reduction should be less skewed towards spending cuts than the govt’s plans.
– The key to reducind the deficit is higher growth and employment, and the govt’s plans put this at risk.

Yes, they differ in degree. But once the contest’s done, whoever wins will be able to take in essence the same line. Even the difference between the relatively hawkish David Miliband and the govt still runs into the tens of billions – a good deal bigger than the differences between the parties’ spending plans in 2001 and 2005. And even those smaller differences back then allowed for high-profile ‘dividing lines’, as the saying goes.

Maybe I missed it entirely but I haven’t seen anything about Tories wanting Mili-D to win, everything I’ve read suggests they want Mili-E to win because they feel they can fight him more easily than they can Mili-D. This seems to be the opinion of Cameron, Clegg and the Cabinet.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband? http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  2. Tam Chandler

    RT @libcon: Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband? http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  3. sunny hundal

    Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  4. Jay Baker

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  5. Paul Duxbury

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy <<< well argued article

  6. Max

    RT @libcon: Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband? http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  7. Peter Allen

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  8. Peter Williams

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  9. Luke Montague

    RT @libcon: Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband? http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  10. Tristan Cox

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  11. Richard Johnson

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  12. sunny hundal

    @anthonypainter @duncanweldon @donpaskini guys, my first point here is also in response to you: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  13. david martin

    RT @sunny_hundal: Why would Tories come out in support of David Miliband? Here's why: http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  14. Nick Watts

    RT @libcon: Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband? http://bit.ly/dqxZfy

  15. Cary D Conover

    #teaparty #912 Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband? | Liberal …: Contrast that… http://tinyurl.com/2ftcypq #LIBERTARIAN

  16. Martin O'Neill

    Very good piece by @sunny_hundal on the underlying case against David Miliband (and, by extension, *for* #edm4leader ) http://bit.ly/dqnknS

  17. andrew

    Why would Tories come out to support David Miliband? | Liberal …: Liberal Conspiracy · Home · Westminster Unions… http://bit.ly/cOWRmR

  18. Hal Berstram

    RT @martin_oneill: Very good piece by @sunny_hundal on the underlying case against David Miliband (and, by extension, *for* #edm4leader ) http://bit.ly/dqnknS

  19. David Miliband’s economic policy requires a second look | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] Sunny has argued that – All the talk of Darling having an ‘escape hatch’ in his plans are minutae that will go over the head of most voters and the media. Guys, you think they pay that much attention to these plans? […]

  20. Five Challenges: The Economy and deficits « Hopi Sen

    […] are those (like Sunny Hundal) who believe that the first group can just be dismissed. Their argument tends to be accompanied by […]

  21. Media Activist » Blog Archive » Red Ed, Red Tops, and The People Vs Themselves

    […] Baroness Warsi? How about we let Tories have a vote? Hey, in fact, let’s just ask David Cameron who he’d prefer to lead them, […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.