News of David Miliband’s political death is greatly exaggerated!
Posted on October 4th, 2010

Ajit Randeniya

 The news that the former British foreign minister David Miliband has quit ‘frontline politics’, signifying his ‘political death’ may be a great exaggeration, along the lines of reports of Mark Twain’s real death!

 Familiarity with the Zionist maneuverings of the two so-called ‘western democracies’, dare I say of the ‘first’ world, suggests that all news relating to the recently concluded leadership ‘battle’ between brothers Miliband (Tweedledum and Tweedledee?), presented as an emotionally draining sibling psychodrama, needs to be received with a considerably large dose of skepticism.

 We are being told that David Miliband is ‘sore’ about the way his brother took the leadership, due to the brother’s non-disclosure of the fact that he was going to stand before he announced his candidature publicly in May. David miliband’s supporters also believe that he has showed his finest qualities in defeat.

 The similarities of background between the two brothers, as well as the recent conspiracies the Labour Party has been subjected to, however, suggests that there is more to this story.

 After all, David and Ed Miliband are brothers: their father, Ralph, a Polish Jew who fled the Nazi invasion of Belgium in 1940, was a Marxist theorists and a fierce critic of the Labour Party. Their mother, Marion Kozak, is also a well-known leftist.

 The leftist upbringing of the two brothers is reflected in the fact that they both attended the state run Haverstock Comprehensive School, of north London (now rebranded as Haverstock School, Business and Enterprise College); they did not attend a prestigious ‘public’ school like David Cameron – Eton, Nick Clegg –Westminster, or Tony Blair – Fettes). Both did the same course – Philosophy, Politics and Economics – at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

 Despite this leftist upbringing including schooling, they both ended up in the Labour Party, playing similar backroom roles, albeit on different sides of the Tony Blair-Gordon Brown divide. They both sat in Gordon Brown’s cabinet.

 The two brothers regularly express their love for one another and following his defeat at the leadership ballot, David Miliband urged the party to rally round his brother. After all, blood is thicker than water, as they say.

 Against this background, it needs to be noted that David Miliband’s announcement is qualified; he will only stand down from the party’s internal party elections for the 19 member leadership team, and he will stay in parliament. Secondly, his brother, the new Labour leader Ed Miliband told the BBC, “I don’t think we have heard the last of David in terms of the role he is going to play in British politics”.

 A closer look at the Zionist ‘plans’ that undermined the Labour side of British politics over the last several decades clearly shows that David Miliband’s ‘resignation’ is merely a ‘strategic retreat’ designed to preserve him for the position he has been anointed for, the prime ministership of Britain, after the next election.

 The story of the plan goes back to the last British election and beyond; those who are familiar with Labour Party politics privately express the view that the much larger than expected public backlash against Tony Blair’s autocratic commitment of British troops to the illegal Zionist invasion of Iraq necessitated a similarly committed ‘replacement’ for Blair (who had been ‘planted’ within Labour during the early stages of planning of the Iraqi conspiracy), after seeing off the almost farcical leadership ambitions of Gordon Brown. The stage was prepared following the May election.

 David Miliband, who has never believed that ambition needs to be matched by ability, offered himself for party leadership almost the day after the election defeat that ended 13 years of Labour rule and Gordon Brown’s leadership. His bid was backed by large funds and an impressive number of Labour MPs.

 The possibility of the Blairite David Miliband grabbing leadership looked so real that Gordon Brown’s supporters in the party started a “stop David” campaign, promoting Ed Balls, the shadow schools secretary who had been Brown’s most trusted aide and backer as their preferred candidate.

 The ‘elders’ saw the need to intervene in order to strategically manage the situation: David Miliband has been a long time protégé of Tony Blair who voted in favour of the Iraqi invasion, and is seen in the party and in Britain in general as a US stooge as big as Blair himself; electing David Leader while the wounds in the minds of the British public are still fresh and oozing would expose the New Labour, Blairite cell of the Party; a trustworthy ‘caretaker’ opposition leader was needed until the public has had enough time to forget the past. Also, Ed Balls, who had not demonstrated enough commitment to Israel needed to be eliminated from the race, in order to offer a Hobson’s choice to the party.

 David’s younger brother Ed Miliband was seen a good choice for the caretaker position, less because of who he is, than what he’s not; he was not a member of parliament at the time Blair committed Britain to the Iraqi war (though he never publicly voiced opposition to the war before his leadership campaign).

 There was one hitch: Ed Miliband had little or no support among the party and parliamentary membership of the electoral college.

 Opportunity for Zionists appeared in the form of Charley Whelan, a former union official who had criticised supporters of Tony Blair in the wake of election defeat, (rightly) claiming that Blair’s minder Peter Mandelson was more concerned with furthering the leadership ambitions of David Miliband (by loosing the election), rather than fighting a proper election campaign. Ed Balls, Whelan and Ed Miliband had all worked extremely closely under Gordon Brown.

 The first job was to ensure that Ed Miliband got bit more time, so that he could build up a support base. This they achieved with the help of the unions (through Whelan) by postponing the leadership ballot scheduled for July to late September.

 Meanwhile, key ‘Brownites’ such as Douglas Alexander, the former international development secretary, who had supported Ed Ball’s campaign began to desert him and join David Miliband’s team! Former leader Tony Benn, and Peter Hain, the former Welsh secretary, became key elder advisers of Ed Miliband.

 Next, just as it happened in Australia in June 2010, five union leaders representing the Trades Union Congress, including Whelan, met in secret at London’s Commonwealth Club and decided to recommend their levy-paying members, who represented a third of Labour’s electoral college, to vote for Ed Miliband, rendering Ed Balls’ campaign dead in the water. Mission accomplished!

 In the event, despite loosing on party and parliamentary member votes, and despite the low -less than 10 per cent- turnout of levy-payer union members at the ballot , Ed Miliband won leadership through their support. The complex voting system in which one person dropped out in each round with their second-choice votes redistributed ensured Ed Miliband’s narrow margin (1.3%) over his brother.

 For Ed Miliband, the challenge of uniting the party will be greater than many had imagined. He told the party’s annual conference Labour had been wrong to back the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, but avoided making a detailed broader statement on the middle east or the Israel-Palestine situation.

 Public response to Ed’s election as Labour leader has been lukewarm: a letter to the editor of the regional newspaper News & Star (North Cumbria) summed up public indignation: “In choosing Ed Miliband as their next leader, the Labour Party will be in the political wilderness for years to come. Both the brothers were in the forefront of the last Labour government’s disastrous policies including two wars costing countless lives; The Miliband brothers have never done a real day’s work in their lives.”

 Even though the idea of bankers voting for Miliband Jr is comparable to turkeys voting for Christmas, in a poll of City bankers carried out by Financial News, “Red” Ed scored a 74 per cent of the vote, while David received just 13 per cent. This is despite Ed’s ‘promise’ to keep the 50p income-tax rate, and to add another bonus tax, a new bank levy and a transactions tax, if he were in power. Such are the intricacies of the British (and Australian, and American) democracy!

 Those who assumed they had heard the last of David Miliband’s idiotic political stunts need to spend some time wondering as to what might happen if his younger brother fails to perform in opinion polls toward the months leading to the next election, or if he survives until then and fails to lead Labour to victory at the election.

 Could David then step in?

 A wager on this eventuality is sure to be a good investment!

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2017 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress