Tag Archives: socialism

Thatcherism: The Ideology that Broke Britain.

Posted on by

margaretthatcher

The passing of Margaret Thatcher, who died on Monday aged 87, isn’t a time for rejoicing – even for those of us on the left, writes Tim Austin.  It’s a time for reflection and action.

While there can be an understandable feeling of jubilation in the communities that suffered horrendous poverty, persecution and unemployment as the result of the policies enacted by Maggie, I feel that celebrating her passing would do far more harm than good.

Quite beyond the crass tastelessness of finding joy the death of a frail old lady with Alzheimer’s (and I honestly believe that we should show compassion, even to our enemies), there is a danger of handing a moral “high ground” to those people who still see her as a saint.  It’d be a Thatcherite tabloid field day:  open season on the “loony left” and the “wet liberal mob”.

As someone who honestly detests the failed ideology of those currently holding the reins, it is not a backlash that I’d welcome – especially if we’re to get this country back on its feet.

So what should our response be?  Should we remain silent, contrite and “well behaved”?

Not quite.

For the right wing media are already playing a game that I find equally distasteful: the attempted deification of the “Iron Lady” and a shameless astro-turfing the social damage she did.  And I don’t think that this should stand.

David Cameron has already come out swinging, harping on about how Thatcher “Saved Britain”, a cry that has been welcomed as some kind of biblical truth by writers at the Daily Mail.

Now, while the country was certainly in a fairly poor state in 1979 and many of her policies (the privatisation of heavy industry and the winding down of the coal pits) were, with hindsight, inevitable, it was her callous disregard of the social consequences that will always stick in my mind.

A little careful planning, an injection of cash into areas set to be decimated, and a longer-term approach to the winding down of those industries, giving time for communities to adjust and survive, would’ve made all the difference.  But her ideology – the ruthless, black and white, survival of the fittest ideal – wouldn’t allow it.  The resultant devastation and social upheaval is still being felt today:  the underclass of benefits dependency, the ghettoised communities, one of Europe’s worst levels of social mobility and a general feeling of desperation in areas that were once hard-working and proud.

The people who live with Thatcher’s ruthless and callous legacy wouldn’t agree that she “Saved Britain” – she certainly didn’t save it for them.

And let’s not forget the further ideology that she introduced: Thatcherism – the creed of greed.

With the wholesale deregulation of the financial sector and the selling off of social housing stock, she created a credit bubble that taught the nation that it was their inalienable right to have whatever they wanted, without consequence.  And rather than recognising that this was unsustainable, as we’ve now painfully discovered, she spurred it on, lauding the rich and promoting an ideal that money, in of itself, was the new measure of wealth.  No longer would wealth be measured by happiness or community or self respect or the care you show to your fellow man – it’d be measured in greed.

After all “There’s no such thing as society”, right?

And even now, after being hit by 3 harsh recessions when boom crashed down into the inevitable bust, it is still this ideal that politicians continue to follow – growth comes from consumption, growth will make you happy, it is your duty to make yourself richer and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably a commie.  I see these sentiments daily in political sound-bites and the right wing media opinion-pieces.  Thatcherism is still very much alive and kicking.

And has it worked?  No.  We’ve now got some of the worst working wages in the developed world, as the more selfish among us follow through on the Thatcherite ideal – profit first, people second, make me rich and that’s all that matters.  We’ve seen the financial services gamble with pension funds and crush entire currencies, throwing tens of millions of honest working people into poverty. And worse, we’ve seen the victimisation of the poor in society as “scroungers” and “cheats”, because clearly they’re just not trying hard enough, are they?

We’ve become a far more cynical, more selfish, more divided and less compassionate nation than we were before the Thatcherite social experiment began.  If our society is “broken”, as the Tories delight in reminding us, it’s because Thatcherism broke it – and more Thatcherism sure ain’t going to fix it!

So maybe now isn’t the time to celebrate in Thatcher’s death but we cannot let her mistakes pass history by.

If you agree with me, make your voices heard.  Take this time to argue the case for a progressive alternative.  Remind everyone who holds Margaret Thatcher up as an icon, that her policies, rhetoric and ideology, while making them and their rich friends vast fortunes, have, ultimately, left this nation a much, much poorer place to live.

Just show a little class while you’re at it, eh?

THE DAREDEVIL SOCIALIST

Posted on by

By Frank Huzur in Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh-India)

With elections to India’s most populous province coming to a close this week, the rise and rise of young socialist politician Akhilesh Yadav has upset the applecart of Gandhi scion Rahul Gandhi and also sparked the hopes of revival of hitherto moribund Socialist Party. Come 6 March 2012 the people of India would know who rules Lucknow and stakes claim for more share in New Delhi.

He is only 38 years old. For the minefield of Indian politics, any age below 40 could be a gawky position to start the race. Worse for dark and stormy politics of Uttar Pradesh, it could be like having two left feet and two left hands. This is the heart of India, where six Prime Ministers have sharpened their political grammar skills and polished their realpolitik positions. In the spring of 2012, he is nimble-footing the pedal of bicycle of Indian socialism. The young warhorse talks softly and walks briskly. His hello on mobile phone is heavy with scent of honey-jar happy expression. Any punctuation in conversation is dotted with solemn, quick-wit humour and big smile. The smile shorn of scowl, sneer and smirk! Happy expression falls in torrents when he appears in the crowd. In the midst of mammoth public rally, his right hand rises in gentle whip to greet each of the expectant eyes. His strong personal charm lifts the spirit of the crowds when his left hand joins the right hand to offer a salute of delight and dignity. The red socialist cap, sitting prettily on his sheaf of cropped black hair, puff up the picture of pride and joy. When he rides his cycle, he shuffles his blackberry between his right and left hands like a trapeze artist, shooting messages to socialist cadre through facebook statuses and tweets. His statuses on facebook are mission statement. He tweets to tease the tweeple. Fcebook and twitter are his gravy train. Akhilesh considers internet as a strong force of democracy. The tech-socialist is an adventurer in his own rights. Undoubtedly, he is the politician who takes risk.

He steers the wheel on shiny stations of virtual world as ingeniously as he rides bumpy roads of villages and towns. A swelling army of socialist cadre dotes on him. They address him by many affectionate titles, Bhaiya (dear brother), chhote Netaji (veiled reference to his father, socialist patriarch who is hailed as Netaji, dear leader) and samajwaadi yuvraj (the socialist heir apparent). This is Akhilesh Yadav, the state president of Socialist Party of India, Samajwadi Party, and a man of the moment in the battleground UP elections for more than one reason.

So, what violent gust of wind has propelled a shy, simple and smooth talking young socialist politician into the centre of national and international attention? Six months ago when he was bracing for the big battle on snazzy red motor chariot of revolution (Kraanti Rath), Indian media was guarded in its judgment. Far from being a toast of mocktail discourses in neon-lit salon of New Delhi and Bombay, he was dismissed by heavy list of opinion makers and mediaratti as ‘son of his father’s socialist palace which was pockmarked with un-sophistication and complex legacy. The blue bars of corporate Indian media didn’t give him a notch above the ‘darling dynast of Gandhi family,’ Rahul Gandhi, the 42 year-old man billed as the original heir apparent. In bewildering contrast, the arc-light on Akhilesh wavered and he was just a naïve member of Parliament, unschooled in guile and stratagem of power politics though remembered and acclaimed in certain political quarters for his guileless, artless and unaffected manners.

Rahul Gandhi had proved cynics in 2009 General Elections that he was not a Peter Pan. Only three springs later, he began to belie the expectations. In Uttar Pradesh election campaign, he was an angry man, rolling his sleeves beyond the elbow in fit of rage-fight. Quite a bunch of youngsters applauded his desperate act when he tore into a piece of paper, claiming he was tearing the list of promises of Opposition parties but media camera zoomed in to expose he was tearing the paper bearing the name of Congress party members. The young socialist Akilesh had the last laugh when he quipped on his campaign trails that Rahul might jump off the stage by the time electioneering comes to a close. Humour is the high point of Akhilesh’s electoral campaign. Rahul’s antic was ridiculed as a public stunt. He is spontaneous and spot on. Little wonder, his comments drew nation-wide attention.

Rahul’s each public appearance was a television spectacle whereas Akhilesh’s toiling on his cycle and chariot in villages and towns was a blank grain on the television screens. Akhilesh was, however, austere in his resolve. He was stirring a quiet revolution in hearts and minds of hungry eyes and broken hearts of rural hinterland. There was a long road to walk before he could accomplish his starry dreams. His party so assiduously crafted in homes and hearths of 200 million people of Uttar Pradesh by his father Mulayam Singh was in shambles in the summer of 2007. The party was badly mauled at the husting. Its reputation hit rock bottom for some monstrous allegations of hooliganism, retrogressive public policies, such as anti-English and anti-Computer public posturing, not to speak the mounting assault on socialist charter of the party from left, right and centre. Gerrymandering was the constant refrain from the vast swathe of opponents. English has been used to target Indian socialsits in the past. Mulayam, the socialist stalwart, himself was an English teacher at school. Nonetheless, Akhilesh busted the myth by releasing party advertisements in English on English dailies and questioned crown prince of the Congress Party, Rahul Gandhi’s ridicule by saying why doesn’t he canvass in English when he had raised the issue of Akhilesh’s command of English and provoked voters by saying that Mulayam doesn’t want them to learn English while he has got his son Akhilesh to learn English. Akhilesh was pumped up the next morning to give a befitting reply. He told the national press, “The Socialists are not anti-English. They want people to learn English as contact language. But the software is available in vernacular languages, Hindi and Urdu, so they can make most of it. In China, France and Spain, people are proud of their mother tongue. Why should we feel inferior about our mother tongue?”
The Amar Singh phenomenon had created a wedge among several socialist stalwarts, including Azam Khan, a firebrand Muslim leader and others. Only to burn more holes in the socialist bandwagon, Akhilesh was shaken with the unexpected defeat of his better half, Dimple, in October 2009 bye-elections in his own bastion, Firozabad, the city of bangles. The defeat at hands of Rahul Gandhi’s Congress party left socialist ship sailing in the sunset of its confidence. The fiasco of Firozabad was a personal tragedy. Akhilesh was badly afflicted with Rahul’s decision to campaign during elections. For the man who may not be a deity dancer, it was an act of god. Hereafter he drew the battle line and resolved deep within to set on the silent voyage of recovery that would surprise people and pundits alike over the next couple of years.

The challenges before the young socialist were herculean. He was hoisted in the office of state presidency by his father and told in no uncertain terms to reverse the setback. Debacle, actually, was a blessing in disguise for Akhilesh. When I met him in 2009, he was on the ball with arrows of assault. He told me, “I’ve known defeat, suffering, struggle, loss and have found my way out of the depths. Come what may socialism will not die in India. I will meet people with fresh set of ideas and programmes and reinvent socialism to wipe out their fears and despairs.”

The way he toiled in the past three years has left political observers in India with their foot in the mouth. An environment engineer by degree and training from Mysore and Sydney, he set the ball rolling by launching mass engagement with young and old on the social network sites. No other Indian politician could connect with so much felicity and fruition as Akhilesh did. Indians are crazy about their fortune stars. Being a son of ex-defense minister of India as well as three times chief minister of Uttar Pradesh had its head-start as well as hiccups but he shed the cloak of being a socialist patriarch’s son and began to communicate with netizens in their lexicon. Even when he was smelling the scent of mustard flower and sugar plantations in the green fields of farmers as well as courtyard of peasants in Bundelkhand who are trapped in sinkhole of debt, drought and distress, he kept parity with learning and unlearning lessons. Slowly and steadily, he was marking out the path of his revolution in neat details. He had eyes on everything, from recording of socialist jingles to the designing of poster, bill, bunting and flags of the party. He would quip sometimes to me, “The devil is in the detail. Socialism is not only about economic equality and caste and class-free society. It is also about smart dressing and physical drills. I am a fitness fanatic. So I want every single person to work as much on fitness regimen as on his economic and social responsibilities. Flags are first stop. They are as good as the face of leader.” Like a polymath, he handles everything from designing of posters to mapping the path of his political journey on tablets.

I recall an interesting commentary of Imran Khan about Rahul Gandhi in summer of 2008. During my visit to Pakistan I was interviewing legendary cricketer-turned-politician for his biography. Imran had read in Pakistani papers about Rahul Gandhi’s visit to a Dalit home where the Gandhi scion spent the night on the stringing cot under the dark Sun. Imran was infatuated with the taste of Rahul. He told me that Bilawal Bhutto should learn politics from Rahul Gandhi. Today when I look at Akhilesh’s political pilgrimage, I wonder whether Imran would exercise discretion in branding the banal value of political histrionics. Akhilesh has been eating his meals cooked by a Dalit for years but he never advertised the identity of his kitchen inspector. Especially in Uttar Pradesh, where identity politics trumps merit of all hues, the young socialist could have chosen to scream from the rooftop but it was quite a non-issue to him. He wonders, “Why should a Dalit home and meal become an issue? It is about the intentions. Somewhere intentions of advertisers of having slept and taken food of a Dalit are suspect. Dalit are as much human as anybody else. Why make a political capital out of eating at a Dalit’s home? I have been eating Dalit-cooked meal for a decade.” Dalit, the black-skinned aboriginal, are the untouchable in the Hindu-caste pyramid. They constitute around 25 per cent of Indian population but have been subjected to social discrimination on the lines of apartheid in Africa. Socialists forged an alliance with Dalit icons Kanshi Ram in 1993 and stormed to power with two-third majority but the marriage couldn’t last beyond eighteen months. The endgame was a chess game at the altar of exigencies of politics which only harmed the greater interests of Untouchables and socially and economic backward people of India. Socialists are only political block who ruminates to transcend the caste pyramid. Akhilesh volunteered to award tickets to some bright and promising candidates from both upper and lower castes, including Cambridge alumni Abhishek Mishra and host of others. He has broken out with the stigma of Yadava-Muslim caucus with much success. Besides, he also built solid bridge with Muslims by inducting vivacious young, educated Muslim faces like Naved Siddique, a radio jockey and others like Nafis Ahmed. His father has lived with the epithet of ‘Maulana Mulayam’ (Cleric Mulayam) for decades. The son is least perturbed.

I was running around with Akhilesh in the first two rounds of revolutionary chariot race in middle of September, 2011. His father had launched his maiden chariot journey in November of 1987 from Jalaun in Bundelkhand, which catapulted him into power corridor two years later. What actually struck me during the chariot journey was the ever-swelling surge of privileged and underprivileged to steal a glimpse of him wherever he stopped for the brief address. He was not a star of Bollywood or Indian cricket world. Yet, his drawing power was spectacular and it had astonishing influence. His address would be brief and on the boil, “I will give employment allowance to every single unemployed. Our last government gave special allowance to girl who coveted higher education. I will finish the cycle of unemployed father in the age of inflation and price hike. Let us bring back pride and glory of socialism.”

The chariot would run and stop as and where scheduled stops were determined. Akhilesh would rise on the top of the chariot with the hydraulic lift and address the surging crowd in simplicity and sincerity. Once inside the chariot he would continue to look beyond the window and wave in revolutionary spirit imbued with smile and self-gratification. Just as his gaze would fall on a struggling worker fighting for his attention, he would ask the assistant for grinding halt of the chariot and immediately order his acolyte to bring that particular surging worker in the crowd to the chariot. There were countless occasions in Unnao, Kanpur, Rae Bareli, Jalaun, Laliltpur, Jhanshi and other areas of Bundelkhand where Akhilesh ordered unscheduled stops of the chariot to mingle with starry-eyed populace. He not only asked after their welfare, but he also promised them resolution of their knotty issues.

Akhilesh is not a demonstrative politician. I can quietly agrue he is the most reading politician. For the past few years he has been quietly reading about Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, communism, state ownership and host of socialist stalwarts. Albert Einstein intrigues him as much as Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. In his view, Einstein was one of the towering socialists. Einstein picture with his bicycle thrills Tipu like a child is thrilled with his desirable toys. Tipu is the nickname of Akhilesh. Behind the red curtain, he was learning about the levers of social security, social Darwinism, social hierarchy, social psychology, social distortion and social health wellness while he was comparing communism, capitalism and socialism. It is true that one of India’s top brass billionaires Anil Ambani is a family friend of Akhilesh. And, he knows that capitalism is an economic system where all business, production, and distribution are owned by private individuals or corporations who then use the profit earned to reinvest in their companies to promote the fundamentals of free market systems. However, Akhilesh believes in command system where both socialism and communism mingles to set the stage where government owns all property rights and also makes all the decisions. In a way, he wants the government to own all of the business firms and produce what the government deemed necessary, especially where peasantry welfare is concerned. And, India is an agricultural country and the socialists draw maximum support from the farmlands. There are skeptics who argue equal opportunity society is not conceivable under socialistic umbrella because there are not enough tax revenue to pay for the large number of social programmes, especially pro-young men and women policies.

When Akhilesh began his most coveted political journey six months ago, his socialist party, Samajwadi Party, was an antiquated and archaic organisation. He was determined not to let the party stay in the closet. With the onset of the spring, he has achieved a turnaround even his bitterest baiters didn’t conceive. Whether he wins or loses, he has registered his presence in emphatic way. The environmental engineer has astutely revived the socialist campaign in India’s most populous province, which is reputed for paving the way for coronation in New Delhi. The man who could engineer the u-turn in the fortune of Socialist party can as well impact the fortune of New Delhi throne in 2014. He is the original heir apparent of the Socialist bandwagon and radiates the promise and potential to rule not only a province but the country in future. Akhilesh is the daredevil socialist.

(Frank Huzur is biographer of Imran Khan. Imran Versus Imran-The Untold Story. He is also finishing writing the biography of India’s socialist patriarch, Mulayam Singh Yadav. The Socialist is the title, expected for April release. www.mulayamsinghyadav.co.uk and www.frankhuzur.com )

The Look from the left: GORDON! Back in a flash to save every lefty one of us!

Posted on by

A Look from the Left at the muddle in the middle by Richard Wright

Week 2: GORDON! Back in a flash to save every lefty one of us!

This week the commons saw the return of Gordon Brown to public life. Oh how we have missed thee. And just in time for the upcoming release of the final Shrek film on DVD and Blu-Ray. Former PM Brown used his speech to support the two aircraft carriers and if there is anyone who knows about taking over a sinking ship its Gordon. I’ve missed Gordon I really have. Sure he looks like a living toby jug and has, roughly speaking, the same personality as one. But you knew where you stood with Gordon. He wasn’t a horrible political clone. He was unique. There will never be another Prime Minister like him. Half of me is saddened by that but sadly that half is being drowned about by the party that’s going on in my other half. As it always has been Gordon stands defeated by show over substance. And no, that’s not a fat joke.

But Mr Ed if you are reading this, and you’re not, Gordon may have a broken leg politically speaking but that’s no reason to put him down. Did you the like the horse metaphor? And the Mr Ed thing? That was intentional. That’s right I’m a classy writer. For this writers money Gordon can still be very useful. The coalition government is lacking a little experience and that could well play into Labours hands in the long run. Well lacking experience if you don’t count Teresa May who is old as Medusa and similar looking into the bargain. And there goes the class out of the window. Also the truthfulness of the piece because as an A-level political student she was the closest thing I could find to attractive at Westminster. But at the time I thought Nicola Sturgeon wasn’t bad looking so I question my sanity there a little. This was all in 1999 and that was quite some time ago. I might be sliding off topic slightly. Back on point: Gordon Brown – party statesman. The Ken Clarke of the Labour Party if you will. Only far less annoying and pointless.

The problem was Gordon Brown is fundamentally unlikeable. However as a Labour Party elder statesman, a background player, a consultant he could be very useful indeed. The man was in the two most important positions in British Political life and that has to count for something. Much like Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was a super sub for Man Utd so Gordon could play a blinder from the back bench. He could create a role for himself that augments and strengthens Labours agenda. After last week’s spending review the Labour Party has taken a lead over the Government in two separate polls. Now I am a massive sceptic when it comes to polling data as the only real poll that matters is a general election. And Labour is, to be fair, a good way off winning one of those. However polls do help shape public perception at least a little and this in encouraging for Mr Ed. The joy for Mr Ed is that because Gordon was such a failure as Prime Minister he really doesn’t have to do that much to look impressive. Basically look like he has a pulse and the battle is half won. But that should also lessen the intimidation factor. Yes Mr Ed I get it, you want to create a new Labour to replace New Labour but Gordon was never New Labour so why not make him a part of your new Labour. It’s getting complicated again.

I think Gordon Brown would be excellent as some kind of Party Chairman, something akin to the way they work in America only with less power. A Howard Dean for the Labour Party. Gordon if you’re reading this, and you’re not, then your party needs you still. I know it’s like watching your girlfriend making out with another bloke but forget it Gordon she left you. Leave it she’s not worth it Gordon she was never the right one for you. And that’s not actually a bad analogy. Gordon Brown and being leader of the Labour Party was like a relationship that was destined to never work. It’s the girl you long for, the girl you wish was yours and when it finally happens it’s not the way it should have been. It’s like Ross and Rachel on Friends.

The public waited a long time for them to get it together and the public waited a long time for Gordon Brown to be PM. But imagine if you had waited all that time on Ross Gellar and Rachel Greene kissing and then after the kiss Ross developed erectile dysfunction and Rachel decided she was really a nun. This happened to Gordon. Sort of. I hope you get what I am trying to say with this cause I’m not even sure I do. Gordon the relationship is over. You’ve moved on, she’s moved on and we’ve moved on. But Gordon there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it’s called political experience. You might lack any gravitas, emotional or charismatic authority and you may look an awful lot like Shrek but you can still play a role. Mr Ed is going to need all the help he can get and I’m sorry but Harriet Harman, Ed Balls and the grumpy old umpire of the front bench aren’t gonna be enough. Gordon – your party needs you. Sort of. You can indeed save everyone one of us. Sort of.

A Look from the Left at the muddle in the middle. By Richard Wright

Posted on by

Week 1: Change – so simple yet I don’t understand it

I speak to you as an observer of the left wing of British Politics. I am the voice of the loony left of Britain as certain elements of this fine publication would call it. And I sit in anticipation of what will happen to The Labour Party. The grand design to sweep Labour back into office? Change. Labour. A new generation for change. This is indeed a very lucrative if dangerous road to go for The Labour Party.

Recent political shenanigans in American politics should warn the Labour Party of such danger. Barack Obama swept his underdog Presidential campaign all the way to the white house taking Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats with him on a platform of change. Now, in the 2010 mid terms elections to both house and senate; the Republicans are on a mighty surge with a manifesto of, you guessed it, change. Labour be warned: preaching change sometimes gives people such a taste for change that when it’s not instant they look for it again. Much like a coffee hit first thing in the morning. And sometimes once you’ve had that first hit of caffeine it’s simply not enough and you need another one. It’s not the greatest analogy in the world but I haven’t had enough tea today. And I don’t want to have to think of a new one. That’s a potential Slogan for Ed Miliband to think about “Labour – it’ll do”. Maybe not.

The cynic in me says “change? You’re barely out of office surely you’d be changing what the previous Labour government was responsible for?” Well to put a convoluted and fence sitting answer to that – yes and no. As with all political theory it’s not really that simple. Take for example this little issue called simply “no it was your fault”. Well that’s what I call it anyway. As any good Labour supporter knows, and if you watch Allan Johnson speak in parliament are still constantly reminded, any failing of the previous administration was really a result of the previous administration to that which is ultimately all the fault of Thatcher. Basically to put it in political caveman talk – Labour made good thing but bad thing was that lot before us. Not me. Nope. We did good thing. Bad thing not us. Bad thing them. Anyway getting away from the translated rhetoric of the finest political minds this country has to offer we are left with this question – what I just said, right, that’s correct surely? Well…yes and no. Again it’s really not as simple as that. I wish I had better answers to these questions but I’m a socialist – answers aren’t my job okay, questions are.

Now, saying that Labour might have needed rebranding after the disaster that was Gordon Brown is probably about as big an understatement as saying the movie Avatar made a nice few quid. They needed re-branding. Oh how they needed re-branding. They needed dynamic leadership, a new energy, a new approach and…..oh dear. What we got was a new leader who looks like the work experience boy from a Wallace and Gromit movie and a shadow Chancellor who looks like a cross between former cricket umpire Dickie Bird and that old uncle you hope doesn’t come at Christmas cause his flatulence and racist jokes are annoying. As for Harriet Harman, well, she’s fine. I’m not saying anything negative about a lady who looks like she could knock me into the middle of next week and then somehow still be there to tell me all about the news I missed out on.

My concern is this – Is the Labour Party devoid of genuinely inspiring Leadership? Well, as much as I hate fence sitting, yes and no. The simple fact is that the entire Labour Party is slap bang in the middle of change. There’s that word again. Change. Mr Miliband is a different type of politician. In as much as he is very much like David Cameron and Nick Clegg. But he’s very different for the Labour Party. In as much as he’s not all that far removed from Tony Blair c.1994. It’s all very confusing. Change. No one really likes change because well it’s different. It’s something we haven’t had before. It’s new, New Labour. But not New Labour. Just a new Labour Party. But not The New Labour Party. Just the Labour Party but a bit different. And more new…but not in that way.

I may have to get back to you on this one.