Ed Miliband’s ‘radical’ speech

This is what we have to deal with. People get ready!

This is a response I wrote in the comment section to the Guardian’s analysis of Ed Miliband’s speech. I simply had to express my view and hope others will respect my right to express myself honestly without hiding behind a pseudonym. This can’t go on. We have no authentic party of the left. We are in a perilous state. I pray somehow this can be resolved peacefully, but we need some truthful words and those with the courage to speak them. I waited for others to do so and no one has done. In the words of Bob Dylan, “I guess it was up to me”.

Did I listen to a different speech? What exactly was radical about that? Ed Miliband spoke of his bravery in speaking out against Rupert Murdoch. But he did so after the Millie Dowler story broke, when there was national revulsion at the practices of the News of the World hierarchy. He didn’t really break ranks there. The Guardian had his back for starters. He did nothing courageous. Murdoch had already rejected Labour.

As for his comments on Fred Goodwin, once again, what was so radical about that? A man nationally loathed who has come to symbolise the greed and arrogance of bankers. But what specific policies did Miliband put forward to change the system of debt-based banking based on fiat currencies? None.

His comments on the rioters and on welfare claimants show how out of touch he is with the public. No self-respecting leftwing politician would be so superficial in speaking of looters without addressing the grievances that led to such an outbreak of anger. Real boldness would have addressed the root causes of the UK riots. Here, Miliband was too diplomatic. He didn’t dare deal directly with the social under-investment in youth projects and the stripping away of what little was left of inner city welfare in the first of the cuts. How could he be bold, with the press waiting in the wings ready to accuse any sociological analysis as a return to leftist politics, as if such a thing was wrong.

This is another in a long line of speeches written in backroom offices by spin doctors to give the appearance of radicalism. Of course, there is no way he could go any further to the left than the centre-right. It is almost a Pavlovian response within the media to accuse any Labour leader who simply identifies the greed of big business as being part of “old fashioned” Labour socialist principles, as if ideas of social justice are somehow part of a trend that went out of style.

In the same way that the BBC is continually accused of leftwing bias by the right in order to ensure it never strays into anything resembling radical territory, the accusations of “Red Ed” resorting to “Bennite” politics is designed to make sure he stays firmly in the centre-right of politics. Tony Benn wanted to nationalise all utilities and supported Sinn Fein at a time when it was roundly accused of being a terrorist organisation. How is Ed’s speech even remotely Bennite? It isn’t.

At a time when Britain (and the world) is at crisis point, when the public have lost all trust in politicians, the politician seen as being most to the left has shown in his speech that he is unable to move to the authentic left because of the old media tropes (started by Murdoch’s Sun, but now infecting all mainstream media) of “Loony Lefties”, so that any even remotely radical proposals to deal with free market capitalism and debt-based banking are ignored in favour of bland comments about holding bankers to account and looking after “hard-working people”. And as for his comments about Afghanistan, how can it be that not a single mainstream party can chime with the views of a large part of this country who recognise our middle-east military crusades as being profoundly immoral?

With no authentic party of the left, the public is left with no choice. When this country descends into bloody anarchy, troops are on the streets with water cannon, tear gas and rubber bullets and we are brought to the brink of civil war, don’t anyone be surprised at how we arrived at such a situation. The majority of the people in this country have been betrayed to ensure the few continue to live a lifestyle which is built on exploitation of the weak. But those few seem unaware of how this inability to work towards creating a fairer society will rebound on them. Are they really going to be happy hiding behind gated communities with machine-gun wielding security protecting them? That is not a life for anyone. We must find solutions that benefit all. We must free ourselves from the shackles of big business and rapacious banking cartels.

When even Seumas Milne cannot muster criticism for such a vacuous collection of words then we have arrived at an impasse where the only possible outcome is a mass rejection of democratic politics in this country by a public fed up with lies and half truths and struggling to survive. Who does everyone think they are kidding? This is the world of mass communication, independent media from a variety of sources. No one is buying this. The banking system is broken, it needs a radical overhaul, a return, in the first instance, to a resource-based economy with value placed in what we have not in future commodities created out of thin air. How can this be so difficult for people to understand? If it is not fixed by radical measures now, it will collapse of its own accord in a more devastating ways very soon. I would not wish that on my worst enemy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s