Ed miliband

Ed Miliband’s new investment vs cuts battleground

Ed Miliband certainly isn't one for holding back, is he?  In an interview with today's Guardian he discusses what we might expect from the Labour manifesto, and there's some pretty noteworthy stuff in there: a People's Bank based around the network of Post Offices; an increase in the minimum wage; a reduction in the voting age to 16; things like that. But, as Sunder Katwala suggests over at Next Left, the most eye-catching passage is when Miliband discusses Free School Meals for all: "The manifesto could well include a pledge to provide free school meals for all children, Miliband says. 'I think a lot of people would like free school meals.

Oh no, the Tories are consulting Lord Stern

According to Laura Kuenssberg, Lord Stern is not an official advisor but confirms that he is consulting with the Tories on their climate change policy. As Iain Martin notes, what bizarre timing. The UEA and IPCC scandals simmer and Ed Miliband recently declared war on reason – which has almost certainly reduced James Delingpole to tears of fear. Even more extraordinary, The Sunday Telegraph reported that findings in the Stern report, which defined climate change policy, were “severely edited” before publication. ‘But it can be revealed that when the report was printed by Cambridge University Press in January 2007, some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.

It’s war!

Politicians have to shout to be heard over the lurid tale of John Terry's bordello, but Ed Miliband’s fervour for climate change is sufficiently shrill. He has declared “war” on “sceptics”, who have been rather jaunty of late. As Fraser noted yesterday, the press’ climate change narrative is shifting – scepticism, in its proper sense, is replacing blind subscription. In this context, Miliband’s comments are extraordinary. His intellectual complacency is irritating, his sanctimony nauseating and his hypocrisy palpable. “It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there.

Strange and Getting Stranger

It is just plain bizarre that Gordon Brown has announced that he will serve a full term if Labour wins the next election. He should be playing down his role in the forthcoming election (difficult I know, when he is Prime Minister) not reminding people that he will be around for another four years. It is also strange that he has written off the Hewitt-Hoon coup attempt as silly. This is the one thing it is not. It may have been unwise, badly organised and poorly timed. But the idea of giving the Parliamentary Labour Party the opportunity to save Gordon or the party was perfectly sound. Indeed, they were giving him the chance to give himself a partial mandate.

What’s Ed Miliband playing at?

There's that prism I mentioned: Ed Miliband writes an article for the Observer, which ostensibly backs Gordon Brown in the first paragraph, and it's written up as the first, tentative step on his own leadership campaign.  Thing is, that's probably also true.  The clue is in how far he steps off his ministerial beat*, to deliver an overall prospectus for the Labour Party: "Let's start, as our manifesto will, with what the country needs in the coming five years. It can't be about business as usual. We need to rebuild our economy in a different way from the past, with more jobs in real engineering not just financial engineering.

Is this Labour’s election slogan?

I wouldn't be surprised if this Gordon Brown snippet gets deployed ad nauseam between now and the next election: "[Brown] described Labour as the party of 'prosperity not austerity'" If so, it's worth noting that it's a phrase that Ed Miliband used in several speeches last year (e.g. here, here and here).  But, whoever its author, it's hard to imagine it working for a governing party which has presided over one of the most spectacular busts in our history.

Are Big Ideas Back?

I can't quite decide whether there really is a return of ideas to British politics or whether the political columnists have just grown tired of writing yet another piece about just how bad things are for the Prime Minister this week.  Jackie Ashley's column in today's Guardian complements Janet Daley's in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday. From opposing political perspectives they say the same thing: the two major parties are beginning to develop distinct political visions, which will allow the British public to make a genuine choice at next year's general election. Ashley suggests that David Cameron's speech on the role of the state and Ed Miliband's grasping of the environmental nettle mean that we are beginning to see arguments of substance about the key political issues of the day.

Are we about to see a double-act?

It's Tuesday, so it's time to sift through Rachel Sylvester's column for juicy quotes.  In her latest, she saves the best for last: a Cabinet minister saying that "It’s up to the brotherhood now".  No, not that brotherhood – but the brothers Miliband, Ed and David.  The intimation being that they need to take over from Brown – and sharpish. There's been plenty of speculation about the Milibands recently, so this latest titbit shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.  But, to my mind, it's interesting how this minister packages Ed and David together – as the "brotherhood".  It has generally been assumed that one or the other wouldn't run for the leadership if the other one did.

Which Miliband’s star is ascending?

For the Kremlinologists among us, Andrew Grice has an insightful article in today's Independent on the growing support for Ed Miliband in the Labour Party.  He kicks it off by asking the pivotal question when it comes to the Brothers Miliband - "Will Ed Miliband eclipse brother David?" - and follows that up with some affirmative evidence: "...the word in Labour circles is that Ed is no longer trailing in his brother's wake. Indeed, some senior figures believe he has already overtaken him in the game that increasingly occupies Labour minds as the party appears to head for a general election defeat – its future leadership stakes... ...friends are quietly telling [Ed] that David will not be leader because he is seen as too Blairite.