« | Home | »

Ditch the US!

Tags:

Let me join the irked multitude queuing to tell Ed Miliband what to say. Never mind the economy. Let the slashing of the NHS do its own injury to the people slashing it. And, above all, let him forget about his ‘vision’. Why do politicians, a this-worldly, nicely calculating, main-chance-surveying lot, keep talking as if they were kin to Bernadette Soubirous? Why, too, do they (and for that matter footballers) endlessly invoke ‘passion’? Better to concentrate quietly on guessing right.

To which end, I suggest that Miliband look at foreign policy, and specifically our relationship with the United States. The Labour leader who says – calmly, rationally – that American foreign policy is mistaken and unwise will soar in public esteem. Never mind the screams from the Sun (though probably none from the Daily Mail, which has also lately shown itself to be not the government’s friend on the question of tax avoidance). He will be saying what a great majority of British people, including battalions of Conservative voters, actually think.

Miliband won’t do it of course. Sound chaps everywhere are urging the upstart to legitimise himself by following the blazing folly of a received idea. Which he will. Pity.

Comments on “Ditch the US!”

  1. Geoff Roberts says:

    I agree in principle with your suggestion, and also agree that he won’t do it. When did a Labour Party leader criticise the US foreign policy publicly? Michael Foot? Harold Wilson? No way. The UK pms usually cosy up (Thatcher and Reagan, Blair and Bush) and I don’t think that Milliband has the bottle. What he should do of course is jump into the Euro League and set a few democratic balls rolling, if I’m not mixing my metaphors.

  2. lostlit says:

    I’d like to ditch the U.S. May I move to England? Didn’t think so…maybe I should move in illegally – seems the most expedient way to get on with life these days.

  3. John Perry says:

    This is an excellent idea and one which deserves the widest possible currency. When Obama was elected, there was some hope of a change in US foreign policy, but now it’s clear that Clinton is as good as it’s going to get. Which is pretty bad. Apart from the arms treaty with Russia, it’s difficult to think of a single aspect of US foreign policy that a progressive person (or even a sensible person) would support. Miliband need only make it clear that he will ally with the US when and if it’s appropriate. And to shape a different policy, he could make a start with the Middle East…

    • Geoff Roberts says:

      The ‘arms treaty’ as you call it, leaves both countries with 1500 nuclear weapons, and excludes the case-hardened shels used against Serbia by NATO, i.e. America. As for your suggestion to the fearless leader, I can only say that you have a very fine sense of irony.

      • pinhut says:

        Joe, did you look at the Wikileaks stories?

        One thing that looked intriguing was that the US may be funnelling their intelligence back into UK politics, in order to facilitate the ascent of particular politicians, ones amenable to the US position. Imagine trying to rise through the Labour Party when you have the US supplying your strategy and all your opponents’ plans. Wouldn’t be too hard.

        It’s not a conspiracy, but many things are too important to be left to chance. I don’t believe that any politician could seriously come anywhere near high office in the UK on a platform of implementing measures that the US would deem harmful to its interests.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement