New Labour is dead, the Iraq War was a mistake, and Labour were wrong to say they had ended boom and bust! Since Saturday’s leadership election result Ed Miliband has been quick to distance himself from the shaky legacy of New Labour but what are we to make of this new, Trade Union sponsored, left leaning Leader of the Labour Party?

In my opinion Ed is playing a risky game by attempting to brush the era of New Labour under the carpet without taking responsibility for the numerous mistake which were made. Hoping that he can dismiss the past and create this new image for the Labour Party completely separate from the New Labour era – Ed the British public are not the fools you take them for! Let us not forget that Ed was a Treasury adviser to Gordon Brown during the 90s and the early 2000s, yet he criticises Brown’s economic policy (a policy he influenced). He must take responsibility for the role he played in creating this economic mess, as an adviser, a cabinet minister and now Leader of the Party responsible.

Should we be worried about Red-Ed? I think the whole country should be concerned about the second largest party in British politics being lead by a man who was put in power by a Trade Union coup, ballot papers sent to union members with Red-Ed propaganda, is this really the new politics we want? No thanks Ed! He claims to be his own man but with the majority of MPs backing his brother during the election and shadow ministers torn between loyalty to their new Leader and the reputation of their ministerial record. When the time comes will Ed really be able to stand up to the Unions the source of his support base and his narrow 1.3% election victory.

“I get it” I don’t think you do Red-Ed, as he was making his less than inspiring speech, the IMF were complimenting the Coalition Government’s strategy of deficit reduction. The IMF described the deficit reduction plan as “essential” in supporting the UK’s debt position, and said it “supported a balanced recovery”. Moreover, this morning Business leaders and the Insitute of Directors have expressed their concerns about the damage Red-Ed’s Living wage and higher bank levy would have on enterprise. So Ed, I don’t think you do get it, you represent a Labour Party with its head in the clouds, no Fiscal credibility and not an ounce of responsibility.

Ed claims the Party is optimistic, lets bring them back down to reality. They lost the election, they lost 100 seats and 5 million voters since 1997! He wants this to be a one term government, to do that he would have to pull off a landslide of the same scale Blair achieved in 1997, and Tony Blair he isn’t!

Tim Hasker

BUCF VP External


11 thoughts on “RED-ED!

  1. “put in power by a Trade Union coup,”, well hardly. The 3rd electoral college in the leadership election is actually “affiliated organisations” which yes includes Trade Unions but also LGBTQ Labour, Labour Solicitors (yes there actually is one, even to my surprise), Young Labour and Labour Students. Given the turnout from Unions were so astronomically low (9%) it’d be more accurate to say that the likes of Labour Students put him there.

    And yes, the IMF supports the coalitions actions but I remember them saying almost the same things to the Irish government two years ago, sign of things to come me thinks.

  2. In terms of membership votes, David beat Ed by a bigger margin than Blair beat Major. (44% to 29%). It IS as a result of union propagandising and bullying MPs who they fund that David was beaten.

    A terrible advert for AV and Labour’s voting system.

  3. “…to do that he would have to pull off a landslide of the same scale Blair achieved in 1997, and Tony Blair he isn’t!”

    There was a time when I thought the bucf was economically illiterate but now I see that it’s a more general problem with anything remotely mathematical.

  4. “…5 million voters since 1997!”

    And how many voters have you gained? (1.1 million) While the Lib Dems have gained 1.6 million and the BNP 0.6 million. There are of course places where the Tory vote is now considerably lower than it was in 1997.

  5. *should be 0.5 million for the BNP. (Although with only 326 candidates at the last election the European election figure of + 0.8 million might be more useful.)

  6. “Even if we accepted that Jack…”

    Well I hope you do accept that because it’s a fact.

    You are comparing 2010 with a Labour landslide. It’s fairly obvious that from 1997, our only way was down (although IDS tried very hard to prevent that). You may as well say that since 1992, you’ve lost 3.3 million voters or that you’ve lost 2.3 million voters since 1983. Tim Hasker refers to 1997 as if labour needs to regain those 5 million votes, but with more people turning to smaller parties, it doesn’t work like that.

  7. “the IMF were complimenting the Coalition Government’s strategy of deficit reduction.” and also while getting the call on Ireland wrong, any idea that IMF really knows what they are talking about was destroyed on tonights Question Time

  8. I completely agree with Jack Matthew. It seems as if Mr Hasker is completely ignorant to the reality of the statistics.

    Before the 1992 election the Tories had 376 seats. 18 years later they only have 306 down 70. In that election which was one by Major against all odds his party received 14 million votes. 18 years later they only got 10 million, down by a massive 4!.

    The claim that Ed needs to win a landslide on the same scale as Blair is stupid to put it mildly. Does Tim not realise that Labour only need 30 seats to become the largest party in the UK? Does Tim also not realise that Labour have almost 100 seats more than the Tories had in 1997?

    I suggest that in future before he posts a blog without having a clue what he’s talking about he should at the very least do some research so his ludicrous post has some credibility to it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s