The Ed Miliband leadership bid announced today is a welcome alternative to his brother’s attempt to drag us back into the Blairite cul-de-sac.   If there is one certain message from the election, it’s that New Labour is now not only dead but buried, and for an unabashed Blairite like David Miliband to propose to draft the course of Labour’s renewal when Blairism is the cause of its demise is absurd.   Ed however has to prove himself.   Ed earned himself points at his tenure at Environment through his opposition to the third runway, his handling of the Copenhagen climate change summit, and his introduction of the rather arcane but very important feed-in tariffs (though rather less so for his advocacy of a nuclear power revival).   But he has so far showed no indication of his stance on the major issues of political and economic contention.

He now has to do so, and not with the camouflage of progressive waffle with which his brother launched his bid.   There are several searching questions to be answered:

What is his position on Afghanistan, and more generally with the US?   Does he favour a more independent relationship which gives priority to Britain’s own interests?

Does he support a replacement to Trident, or a much stronger commitment to nuclear non-proliferation?

Will he support robust banking reform – splitting up the banks between their retail and investment arms, shrinking the City of London and expanding manufacturing, and introducing a UK Tobin tax?

Where does he stand on the balance between markets and the State?   Would he end the era of de-regulation and privatisation which inaugurated the financial crash and gravely weakened the UK economy?

Where does he stand on democracy – parliamentary reform, the re-democratisation of the Labour Party, and a greater partnership role for the unions in industry?

Would he reverse the New Labour march towards a more centralised, authoritarian State and instead strengthen again the foundation of our civil liberties?

How would he tackle the unprecedented polarisation of income, wealth and power in Britain  today, and how would he make Britain a more equal society again?

But the really big question is what line would he take on the coming public spending axe?   Would he succumb to the Tory-LibDem demand for ‘savage’ cutbacks in public expenditure, or would he argue for minimising these and prioritising instead economic recovery and growth plus fair (i.e. heavy) taxation of the super-rich both because of their flagrant self-enrichment and their major responsibility for the meltdown?

We need answers, Ed, and quickly.

Bookmark to: