Is David Miliband’s attack on the City credible?


by Carl Packman    
1:39 pm - May 28th 2010

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

David Miliband is targeting ‘immoral’ city excesses.

There’s a few images come to mind when we think of what it means to be a Blairite; that it is a portion of New Labourism that promoted, and was happy to see, the super rich.

That it excused immaturity, ill-thought and unnecessary risk in the city so long as UK boom financed the public sector to an extent that we no longer have the privilege of maintaining.

I mostly agree with Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT and the gentle face of trade unionism, when she says that:

The Chancellor has failed to recognise that quangos are not all bad. Some of the organisations whose funding has today been slashed by the Chancellor are better placed than individual schools on their own to achieve the value for money the Government craves.

This is true, and ought to be a lesson for those who are keen to see services freed from the state; namely that big society is abandonment not freedom, and that some non departmental bodies can have a fuller view of services and finances, that perhaps devolution of power won’t properly achieve.

But this is not to clear the slate entirely. There has been wasteful spending and it is a product of boom, but reform should come from within the government departments themselves, so as to keep a sensible, non-boom, eye on financial matters.

It ought to be remembered that the Total Place programme was realised under Labour’s watch, and though some in the Labour camp have been sceptical, and some Tories have been favourable, it is not an insult to the Labour party as a whole to say that within that camp there were people who were not sensible with finances, and there were people who were themselves consumed by boom.

That is a Blairite to me.

So why is D. Miliband taking on the city now?

Like his now very anti-war brother and the other Ed in the leadership race, they seem to have realised the game: they’ve read the rules, it’s no surprise they are spinning the niceties.

But is it credible?

——————-
A longer version is at Raincoat Optimism

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Carl is a regular contributor. He is a policy and research analyst and he blogs at Though Cowards Flinch.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy ,Labour party ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. johnf

But is it credible?

About as credible as Richard Dawkins suddenly discovering God.

2. Alisdair Cameron

Short answer to the rhetorical question of the title: No

There are many,many good grounds for attacking the City, its constant ducking of effective reforms and regulation, and its prevailing norms which, if personified, border on the sociopathic. There are many,many good people well placed and with good standing to make those attacks.David Miliband is not one of them. His is the biggest U turn since the flat earth society admitted that perhaps the earth wasn’t so flat, and smacks so firmly of naked,careerist opportunism, it can be filed along with his other demonstrations of a lack of principle, from illegal renditions to the Chagossians. Just what does Miliband,D stand for, apart from neo-liberalism,and a presumptuous belief that he the has the right to power? He certainly doesn’t stand for his constituents, a good proportion of whom are suffering right now, but for whom he’s been a lousy MP.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Is David Miliband's attack on the City credible? http://bit.ly/aLiLcZ

  2. Sheryl Odlum

    RT @libcon: Is David Miliband's attack on the City credible? http://bit.ly/aLiLcZ

  3. Raincoat Optimism

    RT @libcon: Is David Miliband's attack on the City credible? http://bit.ly/aLiLcZ





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.