RE: Spending Review, FWD: Banks, Business, and Rich Guys

OPINION by Patrick English

"Today, the Government put forward a highly progressive left-wing spending review with some of the harshest taxation on the rich seen since war time. Large businesses and banks will bear the brunt of tax, with the upper threshold for income tax set to raise to 65%. Bankers bonuses will also be receiving a tax in order to appease the public's anger at their role in bringing about the financial crisis, and raise extra funds vital for paying off the large budget deficit. A bank levy will come into force this year, along with raises to Corporation Tax."

Of course, such a spending review was not announced today, with much of what George Osbourne presented being more of a blanket cutting and taxing as opposed to targeting the rich or banking industry; but what if Osbourne had come up to the dispatch box today an announced that the rich were going to pay through the nose for the recession? What could be implemented to make those with more, pay more? What could we do to ensure that the banks will pay for the damage they caused, especially those which are now under public ownership? And most importantly, would it all work?


To start with, how much of the cuts and taxes will be directly affecting the better off, banks, and businesses? Osbourne announced today that the Bank Levy due to be implemented will become permanent, he expects it to raise around 2.5 billion pounds a year directly from the industry.A bank levy on such levels works out at around 0.06% of each bank's balance sheet over the 3 years, it will affect all major banks but not building societies or smaller banks. Foreign banks with UK operations will pay the levy from the business they do in the country. Numerically it seems a fair enough contribution, but there are two reasons why perhaps the banks have gotten off lightly and should have paid more. Firstly, they received a total of around 850 billion pounds, according to The Independent article citing the National Audit Office, in bailout funds during the recession. This creates a rather odd situation and some confusing maths; the taxpayer actually now owns much of Lloyds TSB and RBS, as well as having significant shares in other high street banks and their subsidies. The banks will be chipping in around 2.5 billion pounds to help reduce the deficit, when 850 billion was spent on them as part of said deficit. On top of this is the overall cost of the recession, which cannot even be pinned down past the immediate cost of what the Labour Government had to do; the maths does not really add up. Secondly, the taxpayer is seeing a rise of 2.5% on their spending from the VAT rise, and similar rises on state pensions contributions, meaning around 5% of their income is being taken from them to help pay for the deficit reduction scheme. The banks' contribution, as previously pointed out, works out at around 0.05%. Surely we should ask them to pay more? Surely we should set a levy at around 0.2% in order to get a fair contribution from the banks that cost us so much? Such a levy would increase the revenue for the treasury to around 10 billion pounds annually.



The idea is good, the taxpayer can now should less of a burden with the banks providing providing more money for the deficit reduction. Large businesses too could also be hit harder, Corporation tax could be raised on exceedingly high profits. Richer members of society could also extend a hand by paying a 60 or 70% top rate of income tax. The problem with a spending review of such a nature is thus; Osbourne pointed out that when making legislation and taxes for banks and large businesses, that the Government had to try and find a balance:

"We neither want to let banks off making their fair contribution, nor do we want to drive them abroad,"

The point is a very important one; across the world countries are operating business favouring economies, so much so that large businesses and banks have operational branches right across the world. Capitalist countries world-wide are offering low corporation tax and business friendly structure in attempts to encourage MultiNational Companies to invest or base their operations in their economy. At any moment a British based company could move headquaters to another state and thus effectively end their tax contributions here. The same goes for banks and richer members of society; if you try to take enough money away from them, they will simply move out and shut up shop. Inward (foreign) Investment is vital for the service and financial based British economy, and if we tax banks and companies on ridiculous levels, the foreign based investors and owners will simply cease or limit operations here costing countless jobs and tax revenue.


As goes banks and their contribution however, consider this as a potential idea to increase fairness without demanding hefty sums from the banking industry. we could have a system where the 0.05% levy applies to all major banks, and a further levy of say 0.05% is charged equal to the proportion of shares of the bank which the public owns. For instance, Lloyds TSB's Balance Sheet from last year claims income of 46,972,000,000 pounds, an initial blanket levy of 0.05% will raise around 23 million pounds. The government has a 41% share in the bank, so a further levy of 0.05% on 41% of their income would raise a further 9.6 million pounds. The total contribution from Lloyds TSB will therefore be around 32.6 million pounds. The contribution is more, the sums reflect better the level of public ownership in the banks. An idea worth considering, perhaps.




In the end, as a nation we have a choice; do we ask for a numerically large but proportionally small contribution from banks and businesses in order to keep money coming in from them through the tax system, or do we raise taxes and levies to create a surge of tax revenue but run the risk of eventually getting little or no tax from those sources as they move abroad. As much as it pains my left-wing economic leanings to say, I think I prefer the former.

Murdoch and the Power of the Media - A Critical Study

OPINION by Ben Mackay

Rupert Murdoch has developed semi-mythical status, an enigmatic figure with tentacles of influence extending all over the globe. He has immense power in Australia, the USA and of course Britain. Just a simple outline of the newspapers his company News International owns, reveals a staggering level of media control: the Sun, the News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. The Sun is the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK and the Times is the second highest selling broadsheet. Between these titles is 37% of newspaper circulation in the UK. He also owns 39.1% of BskyB, and hopes to take full control, meaning that he would dominate the pay-per-view TV market. Now this article is not arguing that there is anything wrong with owning national newspapers or even a business like BskyB, but there is something wrong when one man owns so much. The media has an influence over people and this can be used to damage both democracy and individual liberty. The media has the ability to shed light on truth and to fight for just causes but it can also be a weapon in manipulating mindsets, ruining reputations and spreading falsehoods.


It may be a truism, but the media is powerful. When it is put like that the sentence comes across as pointless, but in fact people underestimate how much they are swayed by what they read. We can appreciate that newspapers influence opinion, but often we forget how it influences our own minds. A newspaper can frame the way world is seen by allowing publication of some articles rather than others and also by the way it news events are described. The Sun – a supporter of the Conservatives – describes George Osborne’s plan to cut £83 billion pounds in public spending as “bold” and highlights how

“Mr Osborne has made the intelligence services and their fight against terror one of his highest priorities.”

Then in a childishly written paragraph:

“The Chancellor also unveiled a three-pronged new clampdown on benefit fraud, which costs £1.5billion a year under which EVERY false claim, no matter how minor, will mean an immediate £50 fine, WELFARE cheats caught for the third time will have their handouts stopped for as long as four years, as long as they don't have any dependents - and HIT SQUADS will target hotspots where work-shy fraudsters exploit the system.”

The array of emphatic and emotive language like “three-pronged”, “clampdown” and “work-shy fraudsters” are interspersed with words in bold and in capitals. The Sun is drawing attention to what their readers would like to see, an attack on people who wrongly claim benefits. Only passing mention is made of how:

“some departments - including the Ministry of Justice - will see their money slashed by about 30 PER CENT” 

No mention is made of economists who are worried by Osborne’s moves. Now, the Sun is not the only newspaper that styles news coverage in an opinionated way, and it can be equally said that when newspapers like the Guardian are drawing attention to the dangers of public sector cuts, they are being equally biased. The problem is not so much bias, but that the bias contained within the Sun, the News of the World, the Times, the Sunday Times and Sky News are largely Murdoch’s bias. Murdoch’s own political views, which includes opposition to the EU, dislike of the BBC and support for business deregulation, are fed into his newspapers.In the 2010 General Election, Murdoch’s papers decided to switch support to the Conservatives, and coverage since the announcement involved countless attacks on Gordon Brown and the Labour government. When this bias is combined with a fierce determination to weaken the largely independent and impartial BBC, then we are in a position whereby one party has a lot of support in the media and it is very difficult to get at the facts or to avoid overt bias.


Another problem is the control News International has over the governments of the day and the power his organisations hold over MP’s. There have been allegations that News International put pressure on MPs not to call the then Sun editor Rebekah Wade to be questioned over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Adam Price, an MP on the select committee investigating the scandal, says thus;

“I was told by a senior Conservative member of the committee, who I knew was in direct contact with executives at News International, that if we went for her, they would go for us – effectively that they would delve into our personal lives in order to punish them.” 

This is an astonishing claim and if true, pinpoints the incredible power of the media. Similarly, Labour MP Tom Watson said he was threatened when he called for Tony Blair to resign in 2006; 

[was informed by ] “a very senior News International journalist… that Rebekah would never forgive me for what I did and that she would pursue me through parliament for the rest of my time as an MP". 

These two examples show that the media is becoming a force that has few checks – the body that is meant to be sovereign is being pushed away from doing it’s job, because it fears what the media can do.


It is clear that Murdoch and News International have too much power and influence. This can be seen not only in their ownership of a large proportion of news circulation, but also how this is used to push forward an agenda beneficial to News International. Furtherly when News International journalists have committed illegal and intrusive acts there are allegations that MPs were blocked from investigating this fully. All of this emphasises how there should be a limit on the number of publications owned by one company and there should be a thorough investigation into News of the World phone hacking scandal. Within a democratic nation we must be vigilant and prevent concentrations of power whether it is in Parliament, in the Civil Service, in big business or in trade unions, and also when it is in the media.



References:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/03/phone-hacking-scandal-andy-coulson
http://www.slate.com/id/2268073/
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/murdochs_threat_to_democracy.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/03/phone-hacking-scandal-andy-coulson

THINK TANK: Ed Miliband's Labour Party

by The Comment Think Tank

Ed Miliband has re-shuffled the Labour Cabinet, made his opening pitches to the electorate as the new leader, and high-profile members from the old regime have stepped down from the firing line. What of it? THINK TANK has put together an in depth analysis into exactly who the Cabinet really are, what Ed Miliband has been saying, and the implications of various career moves that the old guard of New Labour have taken for the future of the party. Some of it has already been explored in previous articles, but for a full analysis into what we have learnt so far since Ed Miliband's appointment and what we can expect from the party in the near future, this is your one stop shop. To assist, the BBC's rather wonderful transcript and video article of the conference are at hand, as is their article on the composition of Miliband's first cabinet, respectively;

Ed Miliband's Conference Speech

Ed Miliband's Cabinet in Detail

Upon Ed Miliband's victory, THINK TANK premised two different routes that the Labour party could swing down which would keep most of the party in support, and keep the party realistically electable within the boundaries mainstream British politics;

Premise One: Miliband could tighten his relationship with the Unions, give a large portion of top cabinet jobs to left wing thinkers, and present the party to the electorate as a new, pragmatic and respectable, left wing force in politics, just in time for everyone kicking and screaming for benefits and welfare after the Lib-Tory axe slices public spending.

Premise Two: Miliband could hand top jobs to Brown's (and therefore his) old allies and re-brand what some labelled 'Brownite' Labour Policy as his own, with a few personal touches of course. As a key member of Brown's policy unit, Miliband must certainly have a few soft spots for Brownite policy, and for the vision for the party that Brown had.

As such, this analysis is based on categorising every development thus far in Miliband and the Labour Party's recent moves into either one of these categories, according to which one most suits as an ideological explanation for said move.




We begin with his first speech as leader at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester on 28th September. This was really his first public appearance since the leadership race concluded in the same week. His opening line was thus:

"Conference, I stand here today ready to lead: a new generation now leading Labour."

Score one for 'premise one' from a blatant and open swiping away of what had gone before; not just a new generation, but now belonging to 'Labour', note a distinct lack of the word 'new' just before. Surely then, we could bet a mortgage or two on the rest of the speech being a wash out of New Labour, to introduce 'Ed Labour' onto the party. More of the same came;

"We must not blame the electorate for ending up with a government we don't like, we should blame ourselves.We have to understand why people felt they couldn't support us."

"This country faces some tough choices. And so do we. And we need to change.
You remember. We began as restless and radical. Remember the spirit of 1997, but by the end of our time in office we had lost our way."

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair must have been turning in their political graves, doubling the 'premise one' score. However, as we read on, suddenly, Ed Miliband switches from trying to create a new image for him and the party, to systematically running through a lengthy list of New Labour Policy and defending it. The list included: de-regulating the banks and businesses, the changing of Clause 4, and the criminal policy of Brown and Blair. Some of New Labour's most controversial and right wing moves were now apparently being endorsed and defended by the candidate whom all claimed was the 'left wing option' from the front-runners. Score one for 'premise two'. 

This apparent swing towards New Labour didn't stop there; even when criticising some of what New Labour did, his language was not very convincing of a man trying to create his own, fresh, Labour party. What we noticed has been highlighted below within the transcript of his speech:

"too often we seemed casual about them.

Like the idea of locking someone away for 90 days - nearly three months in prison - without charging them with a crime."

"You saw the worst financial crisis in a generation, and I understand your anger that Labour hadn't changed the old ways in the City of deregulation."

"And I understand also that the promise of new politics of 1997 came to look incredibly hollow after the scandal of MPs' expenses. And we came to look like a new establishment in the company we kept, the style of our politics and our remoteness from people."

The fact of the matter is, that there is absolutely no conviction in what Ed Miliband said when he spoke of what many regard as New Labour mistakes. He 'understands', he does not 'agree'. It 'seemed', he does not believe that they 'in fact were'. They 'came to look like', but he feels that in fact they were not. He addressed the flaws that disillusioned voters pointed to as if they were minor concerns that somehow accumulated to create a loss of 5 million votes for the party since Blair first ran in 1997. At least he seemed to make a move away from the New Labour approach of "if you don't like it or agree with it, you're wrong", and towards a more considerate, listening government that he proposes in the rest of his speech. However, there is no open condemnation of any of New Labour's track record, particularly the Brown legacy, throughout the entire speech. Tick the 'premise two' column again.

However, this is with one, quite significant, exception. The Iraq War. Although in the same section defending to the teeth other areas of New Labour's foreign policy such as the 'special relationship' with the USA, Miliband here casts a shunning blow onto the reputations of Brown and Blair:

"But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that.
Wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations."

A sudden change in his previously wishy-washy and unsure language, chalk one up for 'premise one'; Miliband here finally calls time on the Labour Party's defence of a war that's legality is still disputed. Whether the rest of his party agree or not, this is now likely to be the view of the Labour front bench and key players, as they look to 'please the boss'. Overall, the speech seems to be, rather confused. From what may be inferred, Miliband 'understands' why voters abandoned the party and wants to make a fresh Labour party in his own ideological image, but he 'seemed' to then go on to defend most of New Labour's legacy, and present little alternative or his own views when citing mistakes made. 

With the speech fully picked apart, we move on to the general persona of Ed Miliband, in particular, his relationship with the Unions that make up the Labour Party. So labelled, 'Red Ed' by the media and the coalition, Ed Miliband could have moved two ways with this in his continued self portrayal; he could have championed it, presented himself as an indeed more left wing candidate in readiness for the coming cries for welfare and benefits in the 'post cut period', or he could have dismissed it as rubbish in a bid to present himself clearly as his own man with his own agenda.

Almost instantly, Miliband came out and rubbished claims that he was somehow 'left wing' or that he was under the thumb of the Unions. He made it clear that he was his own man, with his own agenda, not to be led by anyone. His own agenda maybe, but by rejecting any 'leftite' tendencies, what room did that leave him on the Labour Party political spectrum; argue as you will the possibility of him going further left than supporting the Unions by somehow becoming Communist, the only plausible direction is right, back towards Blair and Brown. Another cross in the 'premise two' box.



Most recently, Ed Miliband picked his top team in his Cabinet post selections. Although the Labour Party voted as a whole to select the shadow cabinet members, it was directly up to Ed Miliband to select the successful applicant's positions within the shadow cabinet. The list below is a collection of what are considered the 'top jobs' and of these, those who held cabinet posts in Brown's cabinet are highlighted:

Shadow Chancellor - Alan Johnson

Shadow Home Secretary - Ed Balls

Shadow Foreign Secretary - Yvette Cooper

Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and International Development Secretary - Harriet Harman

Shadow Education Secretary - Andy Burnham

Shadow Health Secretary - John Healey

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary - Douglas Alexander 

Interesting, and perhaps we can aid our look at just how Brownite Miliband might be feeling by noting who else from Gordon Brown's inner circle he has kept around his own cabinet table. Hilary Benn was an ally of Brown throughout his premiership, and also supported Ed Miliband in the leadership campaign, he gets the Shadow Leader of the House spot. Tessa Jowell has been appointed to shadow the developments in the progress of the run-up to the Olympic games in 2012. She is a true stalwart of New Labour, who served as a minister to both Blair and Brown.

Brown's legacy in Miliband's first cabinet is much, much stronger than Blair's was in Brown's first. Could this be because Miliband is banking on the experience of Johnson and the effectiveness of Ed Balls in uncertain times, or is he simply keeping like-minded ex-Brownites around him to help pursue a similar direction to that which Brown left them? Either way, to qualify for a shout up to the 'premise one' scorekeeper, Miliband would have to have appointed more Labour Party members like Andy Burnham, a clear break from New Labour, to top posts. Another 'premise two' move so it would seem.

What precisely then is Ed Miliband's thinking and direction? There is no clear winner on our scorecards, we have tallied up points for both the "New Labour" and the "N'Ed Labour" sides, and a fair few of the goings on could be taken either way, depending on personal bias or differing viewpoints on the context in which Ed Miliband finds himself.

More has been linked from the analysis to 'premise two', suggesting that Miliband is favouring keeping away from the days of the 'loony left' and following more of a variation of what New Labour had already started. However, he blatantly did not agree with everything that Brown and Blair did, particularly Iraq, but at the same time refuses, even now, to openly and fully criticise specific policy which has gone before, even when so much of it was the cause of the mass desertion of floating voters from the party over the past 13 years. That aside, Miliband is desperately trying to make clear to the masses that he is his own man, his rather surprise appointment of Alan Johnson to the Shadow Chancellor job over the heads of Balls and Cooper demonstrates this nicely. Perhaps indeed he is following a very clear path in his mind, he certainly has an aura of a man following a dream about him, but THINK TANK believes it's a lot closer to Brown's vision and direction than many realise.

The First Test of the Coalition - University 'F(r)ee For All'

ANALYSIS by Sam Naegus

The relationship between the two government parties, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was put under new strain today after it was leaked that the Browne report on reforming higher education has recommended that the cap on tuition fees (currently £3,290) should be lifted and British Universities should let the markets govern the level of tuition fees. The two parties have sworn governmental allegence and promised to compromise with each other in all areas possible, but with the budget defecit firmly in mind, it seems the Conservative party are asking the Lib Dems for a complete 'bow-to-the-will". Is it workable, or is this crack in the sufarce fastly turning into the first faultline across planet Lib-Tory?

The prospect of unlimited fees has proved to be a great dilemma for many Lib Dem MPs who have signed a pledge, both before and after May’s election that they would oppose an increase in fees at university, and if the cap is raised, it would have a hugely detrimental effect on Clegg’s parties’ reputation as the student party: and it is certainly true that many students who voted for the party in May would willingly abandon the Lib Dems if they fail to prevent a reform on higher education fees.

In a move that many political commentators believe to be one of a party under immense pressure and nerves, the party hierarchy has refused to comment, or allow MPs to speak to the press until they have been briefed by Vince Cable, the Business Secretary.

Higher education reform has been hotly debated in the last couple of weeks, and these new proposals come just days after Cable ruled out a pure graduate tax on the basis that it was simply unfair. There seems to be consensus among the Conservative Party as well: the Prime Minister stating that “a graduate tax pure and simple doesn’t work, it will actually raise the budget deficit”.

It would only be certain places that would be able to set their own fees: the elite ‘Russell Group’ of the top twenty research intensive Universities, where places are extremely competitive, are keen to be able to set their own fees, which could have a damning effect on the most academically able pupils seeking entrance to establishments such as The University of Sheffield, where there are over eight applications per place.

Whilst such competitive Universities might relish the prospect of setting their own fees, it certainly needs to be taken into consideration that many Universities would struggle to cover the costs of courses if high education spending was cut amidst far reaching reforms which aim to improve the huge budget deficit.

Newly elected Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, has reiterated his support for the replacement of tuition fees with a graduate tax, and has even attempted to provoke a Lib Dem rebellion by promising to work with progressive MPs to prevent a major raise in tuition fees.

The Think Tank, Policy Exchange, who have worked closely with the government are aware that low earners will be entirely unaffected by a reform in the repayment of student loans, some element of fairness that the Lib Dems may cling to. However, they have also recommended that the top graduate earners make extra repayments, thus they would end up paying around 120% of their original loan, something that many see as unfair, and yet another way of punishing high achievers.

If the two coalition parties fail to resolve their differing ideologies on such an issue, it can cause great resentment and also affect the long-term relationship between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. On one hand, the Conservatives are keen to claw back the budget deficit left to them by the out-going Labour government and are pushing the agenda hard, whilst the Lib Dems must decide whether it is within themselves to compromise on raising fees, something that they have long campaigned and lobbied against. This issue will certainly be one of the first major tests of strength and will on the government. Considering it would appear the parties are glued together until 2015, it might be in their best interests to find a workable solution, and fast.

Just How Much of a Threat to Obama is the TEA Party Movement?

OPINION: by Sam Neagus

Despite the fact that just a matter of months ago, the Tea Party was dismissed as extreme conservatives with little chance of gaining a nationwide profile in the States’, the so called rebels have scored a stunning poll breakthrough which has evoked fear and amazement within the political elite in Washington.

The ‘Tea Party’ movement (that’s Taxed Enough Already, or named, rather aptly after the Bostonians who protested against British taxation by dumping tea in the city’s harbour in 1773) want to purify their party and country, returning America to the Founding Fathers’ aim of small government and minimal intervention. Seeing as it big government is often the result of excessive taxation, these grass-root protestors believe the best way to ‘starve the beast’ (in this case big government) is by reducing taxes. By their own account, the Tea Party rebels, who reject the current tax and spend system in place in the USA are ‘mad as hell’.

Nonetheless the Tea Party phenomenon poses a serious threat. The surge certainly came after the victory of Scott Brown, the Republican Senator who beat off Democrat competition to claim Teddy Kennedy’s once safe Democrat seat, which has caused a problem for President Obama, as his party have lost their filibuster-proof sixty Senator seats, thus any member of the Republican Party can, in theory block his legislation.

In one of the least expected results in the primary season (in preparation for the Congressional mid-terms in November) Christine O’Donnell, a Republican dissident who has been backed by Tea Party activists managed to secure nomination despite a supposedly strong moderate rival. What’s worse is that the seat up for election in Vice President Joe Biden’s once liberal home state of Delaware.
O’Donnell has been backed by former VP candidate Sarah Palin, and has been praised by the conservative heartland of America for her promotion of celibacy before marriage and her fiercely pro-gun and anti-big government beliefs.

Perhaps evidence therefore points to the fact that the Tea Party is emerging as a dominant faction of US politics; and in many ways that would be an accurate assumption, seeing as the movement claims to have 17 million followers, many of whom are ‘white, bright and right’.

Yet as we enter into this crucial built up to the Congressional mid-term elections, which could certainly make or break Obama’s Presidential administration, I’m not so confident this phenomenon can last. As history shows, America maintains a two party system, which the GOP (Republicans) and Democrats often absorbing other fringe parties and their policies (for example the Democrats and the Green Party), therefore there is certainly a chance that the same happens with the Tea Party movement.

My message is clear: Obama, no need to run scared just yet. His party have healthy majorities in both chambers of Congress, and defeating such a majority will certainly take a lot. Quite frankly, I can’t see the Tea Party activists being up for the job.

Ed Miliband: Where the Man May Be Headed

ANALYSIS by Ben Mackay

Ed Miliband has won the leadership of the Labour in peculiar circumstances. Backed largely by the trade unions that make up a third of Labour’s voting population, Ed Miliband only edged ahead of his leadership rival and older brother, David Miliband, in the last round of voting. Younger brother Ed was nicknamed ‘Red Ed’ by some in the media and this perception was not helped by the manner of his election. Immediately upon winning he announced that he was ‘his own man’, and in his debut Leader’s speech he distanced himself from the Trade Unions by saying he had ‘no truck, with overblown rhetoric about waves of irresponsible strikes’. He wants a divide between him and the ‘Red Ed’ tag, but also as a young politician and from a different generation to Labour’s previous leaders he has committed the difficult act of both praising and criticising his predecessors. He has said that they were ‘wrong’ on Iraq and also hinted at a future Labour party more committed to civil liberties, saying that ‘too often we seemed casual’ about ‘British liberties … hard fought and won over hundreds of years’. Ed Miliband is trying to make clear that he is not owned by any one group or section of the party and is not stuck in the past. By assessing what he has said and his voting record this essay will examine where Ed Miliband will likely lead Labour.

It does seem that Ed is on the left of the party. Of course the idea that he especially left wing, some sort of communist ready to create Soviet UK, is ridiculous. He is just slightly further to the left of his brother, David. This can be seen from his support for a living wage, which would increase the minimum wage to around seven pounds an hour. Although inevitably unpopular with business this is a policy which could prove popular with many low paid workers and displays his social democratic credentials. However Ed Miliband’s approach on the deficit is very mainstream; there was debate over whether he would follow Alastair Darling’s plan to halve the deficit in five years or if he’d side with the other Ed, Mr Balls, and his argument for less cuts over a longer period of time. Miliband has gone with the former, showing that he does not want to appear delusional about the size of the deficit, something the Tories could pin on him if he isn’t firm enough about how to bring down the public debt. This is one sign that Miliband is placing himself on the crowded middle ground. He wants to be a mainstream politician and get away from charges that he is too socialist for Britain.

Ed is also at least hinting at pursuing concerns of people who were put off by Labour’s perceived authoritarianism. This a sign that he wants to reclaim voters who left Labour for the Liberal Democats, many of whom were disturbed by the previous government’s approach to freedom. Miliband has announced that ‘I won't let the Tories or the Liberals take ownership of the British tradition of liberty’ and criticised Labour’s use of 90 days detention without charge and also using anti-terrorism measures for other purposes. However Miliband’s liberal credentials have been questioned. Charlotte Gore writes,

‘Look at the detail. A telling part of Miliband's speech was the word "seemed", as in "we seemed too casual about [civil liberties]". Are we to understand the problem was one of presentation, not substance? As an unequivocal condemnation of New Labour's authoritarian thuggery, it leaves a lot to be desired.’

Furthermore a look at Miliband’s own voting record shows that he has supported measures which sit uncomfortably with liberals. For example he supported ID cards and also agrees with both the increase in use of CCTV and the DNA database. Miliband’s condemnation of Labour’s history with liberty leaves a lot to be desired.

One of the most controversial parts of the Labour conference was when Ed Miliband denounced the war on Iraq, when David Miliband was seen to angrily say to Harriet Harman, ‘you voted for it. Why are you clapping?’. Ed Miliband said that the war was wrong, as:

‘war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations’ and then he goes on to say ‘America has drawn a line under Iraq and so must we’. 

It is much easier for Ed Miliband to criticise the war because he was not an MP at the time and his insistence that they need to ‘draw a line’ under Iraq might suggest that his denouncement has primarily political motives – does anyone remember Ed Miliband criticising the war before the leadership contest? Although it must be said that it is a relief to see a Labour leader criticising how the war came about and also his support for a foreign policy which embraces countries other than just America.

Overall Ed Miliband seems, on early evidence, to be determined to keep Labour on the centre ground albeit on the left of the mainstream, a party committed to a credible deficit reduction plan and moderate economic reforms helping middle and low income people. It is also obvious that he wants to see the return of voters who were horrified by the Iraq war and Labour’s encroachments on civil liberties, however with the latter it is unlikely that he is to embark on a very different approach to his predecessors.