Saturday, 25 September 2010

Ed Miliband a safe pair of hands for the US

So, Miliband Minor gets the job. No surprises there considering he's been falling over himself to prove that he's as much in the US's pockets as Tony Blair was.

The whole filial conflict in the Labour Party leadership contest has been one big pantomime to me with Ed rebranding himself as a lefty to mop up the votes generated by a nation wanting real progressive politics and who would never stomach Blair Mk II. To paraphrase the hippies, whoever you voted for, a Miliband was always getting in to continue business as usual. Just how left do you think Ed will be when he's in Number Ten?

There's an interesting blogpost I half agree with at Liam Macuaid's.
Any Daily Telegraph readers worried that Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party means that it’s likely to move sharply left will be reassured by his performance at last year’s climate change talks in Copenhagen. Obama had flown in and demanded that a last minute deal be forced through which he’d stitched up with China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Many of the countries of the global south were opposed, rightly saying that it was a charter for richer nations to carry on pumping carbon into the atmosphere. Miliband stomped into the room where they were meeting at 4am and ranted that if they didn’t sign up they’d be denied access to a putative $30bn fund. The high drama of this bit of blackmail was lessened slightly by the fact that he was in his pyjamas at the time. It’s hard to be a moral titan in your jimjams but it’s easy to be the message boy of the rich and powerful.

Almost. As I commented at the time, the Danish Text produced in secret by the rich nations led by the US at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit last year was in OPPOSITION to the position of China, India, et al. It would have left the US producing carbon emissions at four times per capita that of the Chinese.

But Liam is right in that Ed made his bones and proved himself a safe pair of hands just when the scandal of the Danish Text was about to hit the headlines. Ed yelled, "Look over there" and blamed the Chinese for wrecking the talks.

Meanwhile, there's been no proper debate about green technology and renewables so that, for example, while Britain invented carbon capture technology for coal powered stations, we have built precisely zero while China has built a slew of 44% carbon capture stations, as well as revolutionising green energy technology. F'rinstance, although outstripping the rest of the world in the use of those big expensive wind turbines, China is developing smaller machines using far more efficient electro-magnetic energy. Plus an entire city has its domestic appliances powered by solar energy. And China is reforesting areas the size of Wales. But young Ed, minister for such affairs, shied away from these facts and avoided the debate, saving Obama's hide at Copenhagen.

I'm taking to them thar hills and wish to live as a Maroon, rifle in hand, a jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou, whoever'll join me. Who's up for it?

My hate is pure at B&T

Harpy Marx on Mister Ed, who says: "strikes must be a last resort". Oh, right. Never knew that.

Paul Mason on the economics of Ed's leadership with Balls as Shadow Chancellor.



Unknown said...

I feel depressed now, very depressed

Anonymous said...

Also, his "strikes are a sign of desperation" should also make ordinary trade unionists who gave a 1st or 2nd pref to Mister Ed that he won't be there when the cuts bite, loss of employment and so on. He is also clueless on the nature of industrial action, I mean, you only have to look at the Vestas occupation (not a strike) where he sold those workers out. Strikes are a sign of defiance and determination and Mister Ed should know that if he ever took any notice of his dad!

I think too many people on the left have illusions in Mister Ed, ideologically he is not massively different than big bro'. People should not be putting their expectations in someone like him, he's not even pursuing a social democratic agenda. He's weak, his policies diluted.

People will only succeed based on the self-organisation of the working class, the only thing that will defend you as opposed to relying on Mister Ed who is not the 'real deal" by any stretch of the imagination. People have got to face that reality.

Unknown said...

You're probably right about Ed, and your second commenter defo right- only self-organisation will get us anywhere. Messiahs are pants!

I intereviewed Mr Ed in February, when he was on one of his periodic tours of the provinces...