War of Words heats up between Ed Miliband and the Daily Mail

It started this past Saturday in the UK Daily Mail with Geoffrey Levy writing a piece on the father of Britain’s Labour Party leader who is also the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. The title of the story got straight to the point making it sound more like an opening statement in a court of law.

The title read: “The man who hated Britain: Red Ed's pledge to bring back socialism is a homage to his Marxist father. So what did Miliband Snr really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country.” Ralph Miliband was a Jewish immigrant to Britain who had fled from Belgium to avoid the holocaust. He changed his name from Adolphe and initially helped his father in the rather entrepreneurial field of rescuing furniture from bombed houses during the blitzkrieg. His Marxist leanings surfaced early and never left. At age 17 he wrote "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation."

---

Such pointed philosophy is hardly uncommon amongst the young and reminds me of the venerable American writer Charles Krauthammer who once said on Fox News that anything politicians say and do before the age of 25 should be discounted. But in Ralph Miliband’s case the views didn’t change. He never took to liking England the way it was and one could speculate that his serving in the Royal Navy for 3 years was more about defeating Hitler. At least aristocratic Britain wasn’t trying to exterminate him. He described Labour’s post-war (World War II) election victory as 'the country's capture from its traditional rulers'. (the same rulers who had engineered victory over the Nazi’s). In 1969 he wrote “Advanced capitalism is all but synonymous with giant enterprise; and nothing about the economic organisation of these countries is more basically important than the increasing domination of key sectors ... industrial, financial and commercial ... by a relatively small number of giant firms, often interlinked.” In other words classic lefty indoctrination talk! In between he had two sons, former politician David and current party leader Ed, who defeated his brother for the leadership. David was always more moderate telling his father before the publication of his last book “whether you are restating a case that has been traduced in theory or practice, or whether you are advancing a new case. I think that the book reads like the former ”. Levy speculates that the younger Ed was driven by that perspective to defeat David and preserve his father’s legacy. It seems he embraces this in a literal sense and the vitriolic response he has given suggests that part of his identity is contained in the idea that his father was a good man. Unlike his brother he is unable to separate family love from the idea that disagreement is permissible and acceptable. Ed Miliband hit back in no uncertain terms saying "My dad loved Britain, he served in the Royal Navy and I am not prepared to allow his good name to be denigrated in this way," – a curious statement considering his father most likely would embrace most everything written about him in the article. Much more likely is that Ed Miliband agrees in principle with many of the Marxist principles of his father but also realizes that being successfully branded a communist will bring about the rapid demise of his political career. Moving forward to October 1st – 3 days after the original Mail article and the paper agrees to allow Miliband’s response to be printed. However they are sticking to their guns on what they originally said with The Deputy Editor , Jon Steafel, appearing on BBC's Newsnight defending the paper's view that Ralph Miliband hated Britain. Miliband cited his father’s service in the Royal Navy, and also wrote – “Saturday’s article referred to a single diary entry by my father, written as a 17-year-old, describing the suspicion he found of the Continent and the French when he arrived here.” The problem is that the Mail story didn’t come close to relying on one entry in a diary. Miliband also writes “he was determined to be part of the fight against the Nazis and to help his family hidden in Belgium. He was fighting for Britain.” But as I’ve stated earlier it may well be less about fighting for Britain than about joining anyone who would oppose Hitler. Miliband then makes a telling statement in trying to differentiate himself from his father. “I want to make capitalism work for working people, not destroy it.” The reality is that capitalism does work for working people. He sits in his £1.6 million townhouse and ponders how everyone can live like he does. It remains interesting how he and his Barrister wife attained this wealth with Miliband being a young TV journalist (for 1 year) and a Labour Party researcher before being elected to office. When people work, like his father and grandfather rescuing furniture from bombed out buildings, they generally attain financial success. In some cases people’s success is not financial but nevertheless they spend time attaining the things they most want. Miliband’s thinking though is that people who don’t want to take risks, don’t want to go the extra mile but just want to clock in and out, should enjoy the same benefits. Socialist thinking takes the drive out of society. He wants to guarantee outcomes but that lack of incentive causes most people to grow underdeveloped. His idea of capitalism working for all will simply lead to more government regulation to try and achieve it, until the free market is unrecognizable because it is largely dictated by the government. This is exactly the path Ralph Miliband travelled down. He was shown that some enjoyed success and not others and it was declared an injustice to him. The embrace of that concept comes from an immaturity and insecurity akin to a child throwing a tantrum and saying ‘I want it I want it’, as they stomp their feet up and down. The child though has to learn the hard way that they can’t get stuff by just demanding it. If they don’t some of them grow up to start political movements that guarantee that they will all get everything, regardless of any deserving measure in existence. Surprises, surprise, the political elites from the other Party’s have leaped to Miliband’s defence. Prime Minister David Cameron saying "All I know is that if anyone had a go at my father, I would want to respond very vigorously. There's not a day goes by that you don't think about your dad and all that he meant to you, so I completely understand why Ed would want to get his own point of view across." The funny thing here is that the article, again, is stating written and well acknowledged beliefs of Ralph Miliband. What the article is saying is that Ed Miliband secretly harbours his father’s beliefs. Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg tweeted: "I support @Ed--Miliband defending his dad. Politics should be about playing the ball, not the man, certainly not the man's family." – In the same way as Cameron, Clegg misses the point. You can rely on progressive leaders to circle around one another when the truths that could expose them all surface. Those of us who have faced who our families are and made peace with it can honestly and gracefully accept these things. Those who have spent a lifetime on the run from themselves will be quick to pull up the covers, even for others, rather than risk an exposure which would bring their own denial into question.