Cameron versus Miliband: who would you choose?

Cameron at least has one special skill – to hold together an ungovernable party which is irrevocably split.   He does not appear to have an ultimate belief in anything – only to sustain his own position and his party at whatever cost to the country at large.   That explains his early embrace of driving an anti-climate change sleigh and hugging a hoodies to de-nastify the Nasty Party, only to be unceremoniously junked as soon as he got to No.10.   It explains his latest gyrations over the EU and immigration, promising what he can’t deliver in order to deflect the UKIP rampage, putting Britain at risk of real isolation to score points for personal and party advantage, and alienating the whole of the EU (and the US too, behind the scenes) for the sake of short-term electoral gain.   When tasked about this at PMQs he never answers any questions, but uses the occasion (and his unique privilege in having the last word) to smother his opponents with clouds of party political rhetoric and partisan propaganda.   His Bullingdon Club toff self-confidence (or overweening arrogance whichever way you look at it) is well-suited to this abuse of parliamentary procedure.

But the current chatter isn’t about Cameron because the Tory tabloids (whatever they really think about Cameron, which is often unprintable) are remorselessly determined to retain power for the Tories at all costs.   The talk is about Miliband because the Labour Party is less resolute under fire and, in some quarters at least, panics quickly at the potential loss of their own seats.   The real problem for Labour at this time isn’t Miliband.   It’s Labour’s bizarre economic policy, promising austerity and spending cuts all the way to 2020, exactly the same as the Tories, which is counter-productive and a massive voter turn-off.   What Labour voters need, and indeed the whole country, is HOPE when at present they feel only insecurity, abandonment, alienation.   What is needed is not idle and destructive chatter about a change of Leader (which is frankly inconceivable anyway), but focusing relentlessly on a commanding narrative – restoration of the NHS, reversing austerity via public investment in sustainable economic expansion, Living Wage plus a relentless assault on inequality and tax avoidance, rebuilding public services, restoration of collective bargaining and trade union rights, etc.

Miliband himself has some priceless qualities which his party should be talking up, not bad-mouthing in dark corners.   He has integrity, honesty and vision, none of which Cameron has, and he has courage – he took on Murdoch over BSkyB, the Tory tabloids over Leveson, and Cameron over a missile onslaught on Syria and yet another Middle East War, and won in each case, which no previous leader of Labour in Opposition has ever achieved – certainly not Blair.   The sooner Labour members recognise and promulgate the assets of their leader, the quicker

they might learn to stop throwing the election away.

5 thoughts on “Cameron versus Miliband: who would you choose?

  1. My answer is definitely Miliband. I have two graduate children working in supermarkets and still with no home of their own. I was last year in dire need of the NHS (which saved my life), and frankly, I find another five years of the Tories terrifying.
    However, it is a potential tragedy for the people, especially the young that the neo-Thatcherite Progress Party seem to be calling all of the shots.
    When looked at from an economists point of view, austerity is crazy, and from a moral view it is reprehensible.
    To capitulate to the wealthy and the finance industry by allowing them to bid up debt for profit, on housing, cut the state creation of money by achieving a surplus, will deflate the real economy and will make people ever more dependent on borrowing. It will create poverty and unemployment and decrease tax receipts further. Ed Balls knows all this, so why is he stating what he knows to be wrong? Is he thinking maybe of creating money? That would be the only way to pay down debt and achieve a surplus without creating deflation. Or is he a Osbourne like state shrinker? No One knows, but because he sounds like the latter, not enough people are interested in voting Labour.
    What is needed is government created debt free money poured into job creation, house building and green energy projects.

  2. ed b is just another little tory who was left behind by tb but ridden himself of these people isn’t just about survival of labour party its needed otherwise its just another little tory party who wont win votes jeff3

  3. Yes, not just HOPE but also CHOICE. One thing I hear is “they’re all the same.” Certainly, the country needs convincing that austerity isn’t working and that an alternative has already been proven to work, (in the last couple of years when Labour were in government, as you’ve previously informed us). This should go a long way towards gaining votes (provided Labour comes round and denounces austerity).

    So yes, it’s essential that Labour announce a good economics policy that will put the country back on it’s feet; people into work and get the whole economy going again, for the benefit of everyone and not just those at the top. (I’m hoping they’re holding back until nearer the election, to stop the other parties pinching their ideas)!

    The perpetual myth that the Tories are good with finances and that Labour aren’t, needs to be thoroughly destroyed, as I suspect that’s the main reason why better off people would hesitate to vote Labour. This and saving the NHS, which is dear to us all, should go a long way towards winning this election.

    One would hope that the deciding factor of something as important as a General Election would not rest mainly on the personalities of the party leaders. However, unfortunately, in this day and age we cannot be certain of this, so Labour has to work really hard on other factors.

    You’ve listed Miliband’s “priceless qualities” of “integrity, honesty, vision and courage”; all extremely valuable qualities for a politician, in the eyes of the electorate, especially after the disasters of recent years which have lost people’s trust in them. You’ve also listed his achievements, saying that he “won in each case, which no previous Labour leader in Opposition has ever achieved.”

    Well I, and no doubt millions of others, hadn’t realised this, so it needs to be broadcast far and wide, and used to counteract the stupid campaign centered on how he eats burgers!! This should be a doddle and what Labour should be concentrating on, rather than all this destructive infighting.

    You also mentioned that Cameron has none of these qualities, as clearly demonstrated today by him and Osborne pulling the wool over people’s eyes by trying to con us into thinking they’ve negotiated with the EU and halved the £1.7b payment due (whereas I gather they’ve only achieved this by losing the rebate from the EU which was worth half this amount).

    Politicians have lost people’s trust, so Labour needs to show that they and their leader CAN be trusted, and they also need to show the Tories for what they really are.

    There’s an article in this weeks’ Radio Times on a Channel 4 programme, which will be shown on Monday 10th November “How Rich Are You?” with Richard Bacon who wants a debate on inequality saying “the UK’s five richest families are wealthier than the poorest 12.5 million combined.”
    I thought you might be interested; perhaps you’d like to get together!?

  4. Arguably, Ed Balls won the leadership election. If every policy has to conform to his neokeynesian views (which aren’t Keynesian and aren’t new), Ed Balls dominates both the electoral and future narrative offered to the electorate. Ed Miliband seems to be leader in name only.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *