The Ed Miliband Story

To some extent, Ed Miliband has spent much of the first 40 years of his life in the shadow of his older, better-known brother David, the former foreign secretary.

He did the same course - Politics, Philosophy and Economics - at Oxford University, at the same college, and followed David into a similar backroom role in the Labour Party, albeit on different sides of the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown divide. The two even lived in a flat in the same building for a while.

They both sat in Gordon Brown's cabinet, with Ed filling the less high profile role of climate change and energy secretary.

Ed used to introduce himself at meetings as "the other Miliband".

His stunning victory in the Labour leadership contest, may mean David will soon have to start using that line.

We can only speculate about what effect this sudden upheaval in the fraternal pecking order will have on their relationship, which they never tired of telling us during the leadership election is "close".

But as he prepares to take on one of the biggest, most high profile, and difficult roles in British politics, how much do we actually know about Edward Samuel Miliband?

His supporters insisted during the leadership campaign that he was more "human", less aloof than David.

He is a self-confessed maths "geek" who was a secret Dallas fan as a boy - they are hardly Bobby and JR, but Ed had enough of a ruthless streak to challenge his brother for the job long thought to be his.

Marxist father

During the leadership contest, both Miliband brothers made much of the fact they went to an ordinary North London comprehensive school.

And while this is true, their childhood will probably have been a little more colourful, and certainly more intellectually stimulating, than that of the average North London schoolboy.

Their father, Ralph, a Polish Jew who fled the Nazi invasion of Belgium in 1940, was one of the leading Marxist theorists of his generation - and a fierce critic of the Labour Party. Their mother, Marion Kozak, is also a well-known figures on the British left.

Growing up, their Primrose Hill home played host to the leading intellectuals and Labour politicians of the age, with dinner guests including Ken Livingstone and Tariq Ali.

The family's basement dining room was the scene of high-minded and often heated debates between major figures on the Left.

The young Milibands were always encouraged to chip into the debate with their own opinions and, apparently, Tony Benn was even known to have given the brothers a few pointers with their homework.

"[They were] very, very fresh lively, intelligent… and I must admit Ed amazed me by being able to do the Rubik's Cube... in one minute 20 seconds and, as I recall, just with one hand too," remembers socialist academic Robin Blackburn, a close friend of Ralph's.

Ed recently told The Daily Mirror how he bonded with his father when he accompanied him on trips to the United States where Ralph worked as a lecturer.

Campaigning mother

But although he is sometimes said to be politically closer to Ralph than his brother, in truth the two Miliband brothers are worlds away from his brand of socialism.

Although no lover of Soviet-style one-party rule or violent revolution, he had abandoned the Labour Party long before his sons were born, believing socialism could never be achieved through Parliamentary means.

He died in 1994, a few weeks before Tony Blair became Labour leader, but had viewed with unease his sons' part in creating what would become known as New Labour.

Their mother Marion, an early CND activists and human rights campaigner, who is a leading member of the Jews for Justice for Palestinians group, and who, unlike Ralph, remained in the Labour Party, is thought to have been a greater influence on their political development.

"There's no doubt that Ed got a lot of his drive from Marion and a lot of his feel for nitty-gritty grassroots politics from Marion too," says Dr Marc Stears, politics fellow at the University of Oxford.

Friends say the contest between the boys this summer has been a huge "strain" for Marion. She has even told people it would have been much easier had they simply become academics rather than politicians.

David and Ed's background helped speed their way into Labour politics - Ed spent the summer after his O-levels doing work experience for Tony Benn, then a senior Labour left-winger. Mr Benn would reward him years later by backing his leadership campaign.

By their teenage years, both brothers were fully fledged campaigners for Labour. Ed was never part of the "cool" set at school, although he has joked that he did not get beaten up too often.

Student activism

Both brothers have said the experience of seeing equally bright pupils, from less privileged backgrounds, failing to reach their potential had a profound impact on their politics and outlook.

The more academically gifted of the two, Ed did better than David in his A-levels, following his brother to Corpus Christi College in Oxford, where he became involved in student activism.

"My best four weeks at university were when we had a rent dispute with the college," he told The Guardian in an interview recently.

"I wasn't particularly bookish; what really got me going was student activism, and mobilising people. It was quite a hard thing to recognise if you come from an academic family, but, if I'm honest, it's true. Politics always motivated me more than academia."

At the time, he was described as being less opinionated than his brother, who had a reputation as fiercely bright but rather socially inept.

After briefly working as a television journalist, Ed was taken on by current deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman, then a shadow minister, as a speech writer and researcher.

His number-crunching skills soon brought him to the attention of the then shadow chancellor.

Gordon Brown "burgled him off Harriet", said Charlie Whelan, Mr Brown's former spin doctor has said.

'Not tribal'

When Labour came to power, Ed was pitched into the never-ending turf wars between the Treasury and Downing Street, coming to be seen as one of Mr Brown's key backroom allies.

He gained a reputation as something of a diplomat, whose skill at defusing rows was reportedly much in demand in the escalating battle between Brownites and Blairites.

It is said that Ed would often be despatched from the Brown camp to make peace with Downing Street, where David worked as head of Blair's policy unit.

"I was the one who tried to bridge some of the nonsense that there was," is how he now describes his role.

But he baulks at the usual description of himself as a "Brownite", claiming to be one of the least "tribal" of MPs.

In 2003, he spent a year's sabbatical at Harvard University, to study and lecture at Harvard's Centre for European Studies, before becoming an MP for the safe seat of Doncaster North in 2005. Like his brother, he belongs to the generation of Labour politicians who, until recently, had known nothing but power

He lives in Primrose Hill, the same fashionable North London district where he grew up, with partner Justine and their young son. Another son is on the way in November.

Although essentially cast from the same centrist, New Labour mould, he positioned himself firmly to the left of his brother during the leadership race, campaigning for a "living wage" higher than the minimum wage and a High Pay Commission to control top salaries.

Iraq war

He has won support from the left by calling for the retention of the 50p tax rate and opposing a third runway at Heathrow Airport and he was widely praised by green activists during his time as climate change secretary.

Also, despite being credited with writing it, he was far more critical than David of Labour's 2010 election manifesto, telling his brother at one hustings: "How can you possibly say you're going to stand on every aspect of our manifesto? We lost the election."

The brothers have also disagreed on Iraq - with Ed calling the 2003 invasion a "tragic error" and saying he would have voted to give weapons inspectors more time had he been an MP at the time.

Responding to accusations that he was simply saying what Labour activists wanted to hear with his appeals to the left wing, Ed told a Westminster press lunch "we cannot define ourselves in opposition to our party" and argued that the "centre ground should be shaped from the left".

There were no public rows with David during the seemingly never-ending series of leadership hustings around the country, but as the contest reached its climax and it became increasingly clear that it was a straight fight between the two Milibands, tensions began to surface.

In one particularly telling exchange, David warned Labour against retreating into its left wing "comfort zone". Within minutes, Ed had responded by warning the party not to retreat into its New Labour "comfort zone".

Despite being endlessly talked up by his supporters as the more affable and approachable of the two, who is more adept at working the Commons tea room as well as dealing with ordinary voters, his relaxed demeanour is said by some commentators to mask a true killer instinct.

Some worry that he was schooled in the dark arts of negative briefing during his years in the Treasury. He insists the main attribute he learned from Gordon Brown was "toughness".

Union backing

Apart from having sharp enough elbows to challenge his better-known brother for Labour's top job, he has also shown chutzpah on the campaign trail.

He raised eyebrows at early hustings meetings by arriving with his own band of placard-waving supporters.

But while David received the backing of the New Labour establishment, including Peter Mandelson, who warned against an Ed victory, Ed successfully managed to portray himself as the "change" candidate without alienating the party's mainstream.

Major figures from the party's past, such as former leader Lord Kinnock and his former deputy Lord Hattersley, were sufficiently impressed to lend him their backing.

But his real coup was to secure the backing of three of the four Britain's biggest trade unions - GMB, Unison and Unite.

The latter was a bitter blow to his former Treasury colleague and leadership rival Ed Balls, who had been banking on Unite's support.

Unite was even accused of breaking the rules of the contest by including a leaflet pledging its support for Ed Miliband along with the ballot papers for the contest it sent to its 950,000 members eligible to vote.

"He understands the Labour Party needs to change and he is the best candidate to reconnect Labour with the concerns of ordinary working people," Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, Unite's joint general secretaries, say in the leaflet.

GMB leader Paul Kenny threatened to withdraw funding from the Labour Party if Ed Miliband did not win, amid talk of a union plot to prevent David Miliband, seen as the more Blairite of the two, and therefore committed to public service reform, from taking the leadership.

Ed he was installed as favourite at the bookmakers for the first time, as counting in the ballot got under way, speaking of the need "to unite as a party and move forward and be a credible opposition".

He also has spoken of the need to move beyond the Blair/Brown era, calling for an end to the "factionalism and psychodramas" of Labour's past.

Some have already begun to speculate on what new psychodramas might emerge now that Ed has usurped what was assumed to be the natural order of things by beating David to the top job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11316855

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Seems to me he is going to try to be an everyman. I can't see myself voting for Labour any time soon under his leadership. But then I don't think any of them would have enamoured me enough to vote for Labour.

TexasBlue wrote:I guess you guys bring up a good point. I was merely making a case of someone who wouldn't pander to either side but give way to things each side believes in. But then, the more i think about it, you probably end up pissing off the whole country in the end.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:I guess you guys bring up a good point. I was merely making a case of someone who wouldn't pander to either side but give way to things each side believes in. But then, the more i think about it, you probably end up pissing off the whole country in the end.

Your point was perfectly relevant and I can understand that sometimes it helps to be an everyman but when a politicians takes it to such a level that nobody knows what they stand for, it isn't good.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:I guess you guys bring up a good point. I was merely making a case of someone who wouldn't pander to either side but give way to things each side believes in. But then, the more i think about it, you probably end up pissing off the whole country in the end.

Your point was perfectly relevant and I can understand that sometimes it helps to be an everyman but when a politicians takes it to such a level that nobody knows what they stand for, it isn't good.

But you have to wonder how Ronald Reagan did it. There was a term over here known as Reagan Democrats (back in the 80s). He was very effective in that regard and he had a Democrat House of Reps to deal with for his 8 yr term.

dblboggie wrote:To be fair, because the Democrats ruled the House, Reagan had to compromise on many of his objectives to push through his most important priorities, defense and tax cuts. It was this compromise that created rising deficit spending, because while the tax cuts did increase federal revenues, these were squandered on programs that Reagan had actually wanted to cut.

dblboggie wrote:As for how he did it, remember that Reagan was a masterful communicator and that he had a very clear and optimistic outlook on the greatness of America and the promise she offered to countless millions. I think the people were about ready for some optimism after the Carter years. I certainly know I was. I voted for him both times.

dblboggie wrote:In fact, as I recall, I actually voted for Carter (I was a kid okay), and that was the last time I ever voted for a Democrat for President. After his four years I had learned my lesson.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:To be fair, because the Democrats ruled the House, Reagan had to compromise on many of his objectives to push through his most important priorities, defense and tax cuts. It was this compromise that created rising deficit spending, because while the tax cuts did increase federal revenues, these were squandered on programs that Reagan had actually wanted to cut.

Yeah, it was a figure of speech (my reply above). But your point is one i always bring up when people say he brought on a deficit. Partly true but he had help from the House Dems since they control the purse strings.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:As for how he did it, remember that Reagan was a masterful communicator and that he had a very clear and optimistic outlook on the greatness of America and the promise she offered to countless millions. I think the people were about ready for some optimism after the Carter years. I certainly know I was. I voted for him both times.

Yeah, i remember him like it was yesterday. A guy (or woman) like him is exactly what the GOP needs if they really want to make some headway in the coming years.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:In fact, as I recall, I actually voted for Carter (I was a kid okay), and that was the last time I ever voted for a Democrat for President. After his four years I had learned my lesson.

Shame, shame, shame. <------new emoticon.... Poke!

TexasBlue wrote:Don't feel bad. I voted for two Dems last election cycle (not for Obummer though). Makes me want to go to the right and vote straight ticket this year.

TexasBlue wrote:My representative is Colin Peterson (D-Minn) and he's about as centrist as they get. He's a good guy. His record is pretty decent. But he voted for a few things i can't forgive, one being cap & trade.

My state rep is a Dem (retiring) and also a woman. She's even more centrist than my fed rep. But she's out this election. There's an independent guy running who looks like a winner around here on the state level.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:"Red Ed" portrays himself as a centrist and claims he will stick up for the middle classes while claiming that the age of New Labour is over. Something very familiar about all this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11413125

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:He has been given the nickname "Red Ed" because of his father's Marxist views in early life, a view that never seems to have been shared by his brother David (who also ran for Labour leadership).

My use of "portrays" and "claims" is really that I see him as a grade A Blairite and these words, despite claiming that New Labour was dead, only confirms my suspicions. His brother David was a lot clearer about the need to get away from the Blair and Brown philosophy.

Either way, I cannot see myself voting for Labour at the next election no matter who of those five were leader. It will probably be a long time before I vote for that party again.

dblboggie wrote:Interesting. I not sure as to what being a "grade A Blairite" means.

dblboggie wrote:It is obviously a very bad thing, but why?

dblboggie wrote:What positions or traits of Blair do you find objectionable? And what positions of Labour do you most disagree with?

dblboggie wrote:I hope you don't mind the questions, I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of the political scene there.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Interesting. I not sure as to what being a "grade A Blairite" means.

In theory... The Blairite philosophy is a form of quasisocialism that is pro welfare state but actively encouraging social mobility out of the lowest wages group. It is not about wealth redistribution but invests a lot of government money in social programmes and government aid. An apparent strong emphasis on education where everybody gets an equal opportunity and money is no barrier to the best education. It champions an international market with a global outlook. You could call it a form of free market socialism.

In practice... Tony Blair's philosophy to the Labour party was to force everybody into university regardless of ability. It created an underclass that relied on state benefits and actually decreased social mobility while those people going to university found themselves with mountains of debt and not enough jobs to go around. It was a government of slogans, of awareness campaigns, of presentation and soundbites that built on economy on letting the banks do as they pleased and encouraging personal debt.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:It is obviously a very bad thing, but why?

It wasn't always bad. I feel that they did a lot of good but ultimately, it was a disaster for this country. The plus points for me was the government funded IT skills training that in 1997 we had a massive shortfall. Businesses were going mad for computers and networks and found that few people had even the most basic skills. Of course, they trained their own staff but that would take time. We needed people with IT skills and fast and they dealt with the shortfall quickly and effectively.

Secondly, they way the changes to the heritage sector have been phenomenal on the last 13 years. Many museums and art galleries and other places of interest have stopped charging entrance fees and actually seen in increase in revenue through new initiatives that government helped to set up. Private investors, encouraging local groups to take an interest in helping out at these museums, to set up societies around them and encourage donation and local activity. For those who do charge an entrance fee, they were permitted to set up something called "Gift Aid". That means they can register as a charity and claim back the tax that I myself would have been permitted to claim back against my income tax. Most people don't bother, too much hassle I imagine so we give permission for these heritage charities to claim the tax back on our behalf and keep it for themselves. That was a loophole that they created.

The worst thing about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is that they rewarded spending, ignored savers and thought they could build an economy on encouraging people to keep buying stuff and keep lowering interest rates to the point that they could no longer afford it. To me, that was false growth.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:What positions or traits of Blair do you find objectionable? And what positions of Labour do you most disagree with?

His insincerity most of all. His soundbites and lack of substance second and his champagne socialism third. I don't have a problem with socialists, but as I said I prefer people to be true to what they are if only that I can make an informed opinion on how I feel about them as a person and a politician. As I also said, I have no idea why Tony Blair ever joined Labour.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I hope you don't mind the questions, I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of the political scene there.

No problem at all. It also helps me to formulate it for myself. On the whole, Ed Miliband is too similar to Blair and Brown for me to consider voting for him. It was the same with the Tories in 2005 when they chose Michael Howard to take them into the election.

dblboggie wrote:But on that underlined bit, and I mean nothing negative or derogatory by this, isn't taking tax money from citizens and then using that money to fund social programs and government aid (i.e., programs that would be used by those in a lower financial bracket, without their spending their own money on these programs and aid) the very definition of the redistribution of wealth?

dblboggie wrote:I'm not familiar with the system of taxation in the UK (sadly, I need to do my research), but don't you have a progressive system of some sort, as we do here? Because even this could be rightly deemed a redistribution of wealth. I'm just trying to get at your thinking on this term.

dblboggie wrote:I would agree that ignoring savers (whose savings expand the money supply, which subsequently helps those seeking loans for business expansion, etc.) is a real folly for governments. Sadly, our government also ignores (and even penalizes) savers.

dblboggie wrote:Fair enough, I think insincerity and lack of substance are universally loathed traits in politicians. But you gotta give me the 411 on "champagne socialism." I have not hear this term before.

dblboggie wrote:Hmm... can you give me the scoop on Howard?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But on that underlined bit, and I mean nothing negative or derogatory by this, isn't taking tax money from citizens and then using that money to fund social programs and government aid (i.e., programs that would be used by those in a lower financial bracket, without their spending their own money on these programs and aid) the very definition of the redistribution of wealth?

Going back to the IT training example I gave, that social programme benefited everybody and everybody was entitled to the free training schools and colleges and universities provided. It benefited everybody. Do you object to that programme in principle? I'd be surprised if you did, seeing as it was money being spent on helping the employability of everybody... an opportunity if you like. I truly feel that the money spent on that helped fuel the IT boom.

Over here, people do not object to such government initiatives, especially so if it is seen as money well spent. We are more resentful of people who do not take such an opportunity to learn something new and thereby benefit everybody. The burden then, is on people to take these opportunities so they have no excuse for not having a job or any level of education.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I'm not familiar with the system of taxation in the UK (sadly, I need to do my research), but don't you have a progressive system of some sort, as we do here? Because even this could be rightly deemed a redistribution of wealth. I'm just trying to get at your thinking on this term.

How do you mean, the more people earn the higher percentage of tax they pay? Yes, but it is more complicated than that. Our threshold for paying income tax at all has just been raised to £7500. Everybody gets that and the more thresholds you go over, the more you pay but you only pay the higher tax rate above that threshold. If that is confusing, you can either choose to blame my piss-poor explanation or the complicated tax system, your choice.

All joking aside, there was a furore about the 50% tax band a year ago for people earning over £100,000 a year. Technically, such people are not paying 50% tax, they are paying 50% on what they earn OVER the £100,000. So, somebody earning £101,000 will pay nothing up to £7,500 and a sliding scale right up to £100,000 so they will only pay 50% tax on the £1000.

We are not opposed to paying tax, but we are resentful when money is wasted or not spent wisely.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I would agree that ignoring savers (whose savings expand the money supply, which subsequently helps those seeking loans for business expansion, etc.) is a real folly for governments. Sadly, our government also ignores (and even penalizes) savers.

Unfortunately, Labour preferred to build the economy on spending rather than saving. Doesn't take a financial genius to see it could not be sustained forever.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Fair enough, I think insincerity and lack of substance are universally loathed traits in politicians. But you gotta give me the 411 on "champagne socialism." I have not hear this term before.

Haha, ok. Two countries divided by a common language. "Champagne socialism" is a disparaging term used to describe rich people who preach socialism but do not practice it.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Hmm... can you give me the scoop on Howard?

Michael Howard was a throwback to the Thatcherite movement. One of the old guard in a country that had decided that your brand of conservatism was not for us. He was responsible for the Community Charge Tax (that was hastily nicknamed The Poll Tax - a term that has very negative connotations in our history) that led to riots and public disorder the likes of which I'd never seen and haven't seen since.

To be honest, the Tories had nobody else after hounding out two previous leaders - one of whom never actually took them into an election and neither were bad leaders or bad people - and they were the masters of their own undoing in choosing him and losing the 2005 election. They should have won and Labour won with a small majority after losing many seats to the Tories... but it was a majority nonetheless. Half the problem was too much focus on immigration. People backed him on the mess that Labour had made of it but he went too far and focussed on it too much in the campaign. The only neutrals who voted for him were the "anyone but Blair" brigade which is no way to win an election, being marginally less as bad as the other guy.