ED’S SPEECH OF FAITH

“That is my faith. One nation: a country for all, with everyone playing their part. A Britain we rebuild together.”

You would have to be begrudging in the extreme not to acknowledge that Ed Miliband’s speech to the Labour Party Conference on Tuesday was not one of the most remarkable of modern times. He had to speak both to party and nation to convince them both he has what it takes to be Prime Minister. In an hour long speech, without notes or prompts, he delivered that message without a hitch.

During his discourse Ed mentioned another speech made 140 years ago in Manchester close to where he was speaking. It was Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s “One Nation” speech. “One Nation” conservatives believe societies exist and develop organically, and that members within them have obligations towards each other. In my formative years in the 1950s and 60s “One Nation” Tories were the norm.

Today that is not the case. When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said “we are all in this together” he wasn’t talking to the nation but his millionaire colleagues around the Cabinet table as he promised them a forty thousand pound tax rebate to be paid for by the country’s pensioners. In capturing the “One Nation” concept for Labour Ed has stolen the Conservatives’ clothes they wrap themselves in when wanting to deceive the voters in to believing they are not the “nasty party”.

However it is not the Disraeli speech I want to dwell on here but one delivered towards the end of the 2010 General Election campaign. I will quote from Rowenna Davis’ excellent book “Tangled Up in Blue”. Here she writes about Maurice Glasman who has been trying to persuade the Prime Minister Gordon Brown to address a London Citizens assembly shortly before polling day.

“In a moment of frenzied passion, Glasman wrote all the words he wished Brown would say. It was a speech grounded in the Citizens UK tradition – it was about Brown’s personal life, his motivation and his identity. It referenced his childhood and his upbringing. It went right through Brown’s campaign as a student to get a decent wage for university cleaners to the introduction of a minimum working wage during his time as chancellor. It talked about his role in pressuring authorities to disinvest in apartheid South Africa, and the power of the people. It was emotional, heartfelt and genuine. And it was sent directly from Glasman to Ed Miliband’s inbox three days before the assembly was due to take place.”

Well Glasman, with Ed Miliband’s help, did persuade Brown to make the speech and although some changes were made in essence it remained in the Citizens UK tradition. Such was the power of the speech that although Brown’s back was against the wall his popularity shot up six percent. Coincidently in the initial days after Miliband delivered his leader’s speech on Tuesday six percent more British voters believed he was prime ministerial than before.

At the time of writing Brown’s speech Glasman, who was not close to the Prime Minister, was associated with the “Blue Labour” movement. The title “Blue Labour” has now fallen by the way side but if the adherents to that philosophy had to choose a new name “One Nation” would do very nicely.

In contrast to Brown, Ed Miliband has remained close to Glasman and made him a Lord in February 2011. Hence the university political professor has become a professional politician but there are many voices crying out to be heard by the Labour Party leader and it isn’t always Glasman who has his ear.

However if there is one word in the Miliband speech de force that convinces me Glasman had some input it is the word “Faith”. Glasman was Director of London Metropolitan University’s “Faith and Citizenship programme”.  “Faith” is a word Miliband highlighted time and again.

“Hold on a minute” you might say, “Miliband is a confirmed atheist, as was his father, as is his brother. How can he have faith?”

I have long argued in print that atheists, as with people of religion who truly believe in their God, are all people of faith. The truth is until we die we do not know if God exists or not. The act of faith is to say when there is no certainty “there is no God”. Hence Miliband is fully entitled to speak of his faith and indeed he based his entire speech on it.

Here are just three examples: “But I do believe the best way me for to give back to Britain, the best way to be true to my faith, is through politics…..That is who I am. That is what I believe. That is my faith……And I know who I need to serve in Britain with my faith. It’s the people I’ve met on my journey as Leader of the Opposition.”

Rowenna Davis tells us that Glasman’s Brown speech was about his personal life, his motivation and his identity. It referenced his childhood and his upbringing. It was emotional, heartfelt and genuine.

Miliband in his speech said: “I want to tell you my story. I want to tell you who I am. What I believe. And why I have a deep conviction that together we can change this country. My conviction is rooted in my family’s story, a story that starts 1,000 miles from here, because the Miliband’s haven’t sat under the same oak tree for the last five hundred years.” He closed with: “That is my faith. One nation: a country for all, with everyone playing their part. A Britain we rebuild together.”

I am sure Rowenna Davis would use the exactly same words to describe Miliband’s speech as she did for Brown’s – and what’s more, they would be true.

PS: Benjamin Disraeli was Britain’s only Jewish Prime Minister. If Ed Miliband is elected to that high office he will be the second.

(The above article appeared in the London Progressive Journal on October 7 2012)

LIB DEMS: PAYING THE PRICE FOR POLITICAL DISHONESTY

At the last general election my niece, a young graduate, voted Lib Dem. Part perhaps caught up in Clegg-mania but more supporting a left of centre agenda that wasn’t Labour she had hopes of a bright new political world. Well of course the Lib Dems didn’t win but by entering a coalition with the Tories she has ended up with a government she didn’t vote for and found the manifesto she did vote for wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

Under the present electoral voting system, in normal times as in 2010, only two parties could have won the general election – the Conservatives or Labour. They could have won it in a number of ways – with an outright majority, as the largest party governing in minority or as a coalition. It was the Conservatives who in the end won the prize, but it could have been Labour. It was never going to be the Lib Dems.

Hence I would argue that the only party to present to the country a dishonest manifesto was the Lib Dems. The Labour party had to deliver a manifesto it could honour because as the party of government it knew what was possible and would not have been given the latitude of breaking its promises because it didn’t know what was going on.

The Conservatives would have had more lee-way here because the opposition party would always be in the dark on the state of the nation’s finances and other obligations the out going administration would have tied it in to. Yet it would have presented a programme for government which by and large it intended to follow.

The minor parties – yes even the BNP – would have presented honest manifestos because they knew that they would not form the next government or for many administrations to come. Their message would be of a Britain they wanted to see and if they had a chance of winning one seat what their MP would do for those constituents.

Yet it was only the Lib Dems, out of stupidity and vanity, presented a manifesto for government when there was never a snowballs chance in hell it would govern. Perhaps because it had been allowed a place in the TV debates the party felt it had to compete with Labour and the Tories. Indeed that has always been its stance – but in the past it had the safety of knowing it would never be elected so what promises it made would never have to be kept. It should also not be forgotten that although it is now a party of government the Clegg-mania election was a disaster for the Lib Dems with their seats dropping from 62 to 57.

As I write this the Home Secretary, Teresa May, has just been presenting to the House of Commons the changes to the rules governing the detention of terror suspects. This was a manifesto pledge by the Lib Dems to scrap these detentions but now in coalition with the Tories yet again they have had to go back on their pledge. One TV commentator said he did not believe this would harm the Lib Dems as they would argue, as so often in recent months, they were now in coalition so had to compromise on the issue. However he went on to say that the pledge was made because the Lib Dems never believed they would have to carry it out yet here they were in government seeing their election promises fall one by one.

When I recently attended the Fabian Society New Year Conference the key note speech was given by Ed Miliband in which he went out of his way to offer the hand of partnership to Lib Dems to form a progressive alliance in British politics. The offer was to disaffected Lib Dem voters who seem to be switching to Labour in their droves. It was also to those Lib Dem elected politicians who did not support the coalition with the Tories or the trashing of all the Lib Dems stand for.

There is a lot of anger in the Labour Party towards the Lib Dems. Not because they did not enter a coalition with Labour but because they did with the Tories - hence are supporting their policy of cut and burn and in the process disowning their manifesto.

Had the Lib Dems been honest at the last election they would have presented not the manifesto of dreams but manifestos for coalition. The party would have stated it knew it would not govern but believed it could be a party of government as has been the case. Therefore there would have been two manifestos, one for Labour and one for the Tories, which would have set out their terms of business. On that basis the two main parties would have known what a coalition with the Lib Dems meant – and more importantly the Lib Dems would have had a mandate from the voters for such a deal.

It is relevant because come the next general election the three main parties will again face each other. It is possible a Conservative-Lib Dem or a Labour – Lib Dem coalition could be the outcome if the Lib Dems survive as a meaningful political force.

The problem for the Lib Dems is come the next election their party could be in total disarray. Ed Miliband may have wooed the majority of their voters and Clegg and Co could preside over a mere rump. How many Lib Dem MPs will be ready to disown their discredited leadership and throw in their lot with or work alongside a resurgent Labour? In the meantime I hope the Lib Dem ministers enjoy their limos – because the price of their political dishonesty will be paid in full at the ballot box.

(A version of the above article appeared in The Morning Star on January 28 2011)