Friday, August 16, 2013

Ed Miliband. Why?

I don't quite know how I've become so hooked on Ed Miliband, but probably after so many years of Blairs, Mandelsons and Obamas when a fluffy teddy bear (literally as it goes) of little brain finds himself elevated to the second highest position in the country, the leader of the opposition, it is a great oasis in the dirty mire of 21st century politics. But in a way he also represents 21st century politics, an empty, hollow shell of meaningless words and dangerous actions the majority (as they vote the bastards in) believe are in our best interests.

So Ed Miliband has become the figurehead for world politics, a sort of rejected Obama, one who neither knows nor cares about their country but is employed by others to do what they ask in return for unlimited power and money for the rest of their lives. He of course hasn't quite made it, and I would say never could, as it looks to me his appointment was an accident, as he can't deliver a pint of milk, let alone deliver us from evil as a prime minister. But his ineptitude, lack of actual knowledge or principle, and willingness to follow whatever his elders and better endowed intellectually tell him to say and do do perfectly represent the current state of world politics, but just minus the personal qualities required to carry them out in practice.

I probably became interested in politics when our local MP gave a speech at school, was part of the old generation of decent and honest genuine people, and got me into the idea of joining myself at the age of 13. I quickly picked up libertarianism, then shared between the Tory right and the less political wing of the old Liberal party. I clearly saw the Common Market were no different from the impositions Germany wanted to put on us had they won the war, only gradually and without military action as they'd only keep losing. I paraded outside Chelsea Town Hall the day we had the vote to leave, purely by coincidence as I was taking an exam there, and the very polling station used by Margaret Thatcher, although I was locked away writing when she arrived. I took the first ever A level Government and Politics exam in Britain in 1978, allowing me to designate terms to particular sets of views and know the difference between fascism and Nazism, and socialism and anarchism. I also studied sociology up to degree level as a minor topic, adding the start of a masters I sadly had to quit through overwork finishing me off. Combined with the law degree and three years studying counselling since I can see how and why laws are written and the psychology behind those who follow and support those law makers.

Ed Miliband (it's becoming an obsession) does not fit the mould then or now. It is the same as had Mr Bean gone through the Oxbridge system but still been Mr Bean (as Private Eye also present him way after I'd noticed the uncanny similarities) and somehow by accident (as always happens in his life) become leader of the Labour Party, quite probably as someone spilled water over the ink over which Miliband's name was in front of the surname, so everyone voted for him instead of his brother by mistake. I know just enough of his political record before his sudden rise to obscurity to know he has absolutely no capabilities to lead a crocodile of primary school children without even needing to cross a main road, and imagine the party now letting him speak and act as leader while twenty other people under him actually carry out his duties, probably without him even realising or noticing. It's similar to any impostor spending time with the enemy until they slip up in a small way an expert can spot, and know a genuine German/British soldier/spy would never do it. If he slips up at all all he can do is slip up, as that is his entire foundation. He makes it up as he goes along once instructed, doesn't understand what he's talking about, and when left to his own devices is only able to respond with childish put downs.

He is every other party's greatest asset if he remains leader at election time, and will be utterly amazed if he does as everyone else can see exactly what I can. Even without noticing the few policies he's mentioned (which can also change from time to time and he probably can't even remember) he's just wrong. I expect they'd find a way of saving face one way or another dumping him before the start of the campaign, but hope to goodness they feel it would be even worse to admit defeat and let him go than the embarrassment of confirming what everyone else was already thinking.

Now in America some blame Sarah Palin for ruining the Republican's chances of winning the previous election, but the difference there was although she was totally naïve and unprepared for anything (how she made senator I will never know, she could never have managed it here in Britain) her policies were as they needed to be for their purposes, just not her apparent level of education and sophistication. But had she been as lacking in political knowledge as general knowledge and presentation she would then have been a lot closer to who we actually have now. In the same way a three year old is harmless you still wouldn't want them in a room on their own with an open fire or matches, so regardless of Ed's apparent total innocence, that also means ignorance and can be manipulated and exploited by every bugger in his name, so if it goes tits up he's the only one who gets the blame. Maybe that's exactly the reason, like Obama, he's been put up as the front man, but the difference is Obama is too electable as a person, like a gold covered turd, while Miliband is just a donkey. You wouldn't be scared of a donkey but wouldn't vote for it as leader of the country either. So maybe the policies they want to bring in can actually be carried out simply within Labour itself as opposition, kick him out in time, and then get a real leader in to take over who would ever have allowed such rubbish while they were in charge.

I think I may have cracked it.

No comments: