Milibland for next Prime Minister?

[Upwind]

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/29/davidmiliband.labour

He says that
"Every member of the Labour party carries with them a simple guiding mission on the membership card: to put power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few. When debating public service reform, tax policies or constitutional changes, we apply those values to the latest challenges."

So why can't he explain why, over the past 11 years inequality has increased, concentrating power, power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the few, not the many. Is that just due to incompetence if it was not part of Labour's mission?

I am dissapointed in the article which is the usual politician's waffle, managing to say very little of substance with lots of words.

I think it is too simplistic to assert that inequality has increased over the past 11 years.

In 1997 inequality had reached unprecedented levels in modern history. The government's commitment to tackling social exclusion has been in contrast to its predecessors. It has set high-profile targets for cutting child poverty and geographical divides.

Where it has concentrated its efforts there is evidence of progress. Child poverty has been reduced, low-income families have increased spending on goods for children, as well as on food. For pensioners relative poverty has reduced since 1997. Recent years have also seen the lowest level of unemployment for three decades. In areas such a gay rights things are also alot more equal.

However I would agree that there have been gaps in the strategy. Poverty among adults without children has reached record levels. And with asylum seekers, policies have actively increased social exclusion.

Artichokes, but inequality has dramatically increased since 1997, no? There was a damning Rowntree foundation report a few months back, IIRC.

Agree that by some measures poverty has been reduced. However, unemployment is always low at the height of a boom.

inequality has indeed increased, there was a piece on Newsnight about this last night, particularly focusing on how we should not just think about helping those who are worse-off, but also bringing down those who are the richest by increasing their taxes.

if labour did this then the tories would have to say whether they would follow suit or side with the rich.

harriet harman - and most of the other deputy candidates - said they thought the time of fat cats should be over.

Aarrgh, never noticed the typo! Apologies, may have been Freudian!

I'm not impressed by Milliband and don't think he'd be much cop as PM.

Am horribly disappointed by 'new' Labour. They have tried to do some surreptitious redistribution, but it has been expensive in administrative terms because they were trying to keep it under the radar so money has been wasted that could have helped the poor. They may have had good aims, but inequality has grown, not reduced, particularly among people who don't have children who have been left to go to the wall.

The level of pandering to big business and the wealthy and privatisation of public services has been shameful esp. for people who call themselves Labour. The non-dom tax loophole, for instance. Running the whole economy in a way that made the rich richer and left the burden of taxation on the poor. The minimum wage has been something I suppose. But overall they aren't fit to shine the headstone on Keir Hardie's grave.

think Milliband is being a real opportunist, even adopting language of Obama.

however, wish him luck as can't see Brown winning the next election and I shudder at the thought of a Tory government

he is an environmentalist at heart and a very good one. BIL worked for him when he was environment secretary and was v. impressed - and it takes a lot to impress my BIL, as a seasoned whitehall consultant!

don't know what I think about him as a possible PM. I do like him though.

I think your slip-up in the title says it all Upwind.

Yet another bland politician with no opinions of their own (I could sell them some of mine before they irritate anyone else.)

What about that James Purnell? I thought he was the next golden boy.

Until I read that article - I actually liked Milliband. I don't know much about him but maybe that is because he has not stood out for his ignorance and awfulness as so many of his fellow ministers have.