The latest Miliband controversy — didn’t we already know?

At the end of this year’s Labour Party conference, Ed Miliband called for a return to socialism.

The Daily Mail explained this by writing that Ralph Miliband was a Marxist.

A great flap ensued.

Why?

Didn’t we already know this?

There have been a number of online references to Miliband ancestors for years.

Here are a few I found when David Miliband was Foreign Secretary, so pre-2010:

2007: One of Vladimir Putin’s aides, Gleb Pavlovsky, took David to task over the way he dealt with Alexander Litvinenko’s murder. N.B.: The Mail refutes Pavlovsky’s accusation that Samuel, Ralph’s father, fought with Leon Trotsky in the 1920s. That bit is in italics to show that the Mail is not reflexively anti-Miliband:

… an investigation by The Mail on Sunday has established that Samuel was never involved in the killing of Russians.

We have also discovered that far from being “Russian-haters”, one of the Miliband family actually fought with the Red Army.

And we have been told that Mr Pavlovsky’s comments – in a Russian newspaper – were simply an attempt to undermine Britain’s Foreign Secretary by highlighting his Jewish roots in a country where anti-Semitism is rife.

There is also a photo of Samuel and Ralph with more about their family history — interesting reading. The article adds:

Samuel died from cancer in 1966, by which time Ralph had established an international reputation as a Marxist academic and Left-wing political theorist.

2007: Did a Miliband family member — Elie — go to New York in 1905 with Leon Trotsky, alias Irska Bronstein? See the photo of the handwritten manifest of the passengers sailing from Southampton on the SS Philadelphia.

2007: Here is a brief genealogy of Ed and David Miliband’s family which states that Ralph was ‘a Marxist writer’.

2009: Ed met his last surviving relative in Russia, Sofia Davidovna Miliband, an elderly second-cousin twice removed. The Guardian explains that, once it was time for the family to leave Poland, Samuel (Ralph’s father) went to Belgium. Sofia’s family went to Russia.

2009: The Mail sheds light on the Milibands’ complex property ownership. Did David make a substantial profit over 12 years through a ‘series of legal manoeuvres’ involving Ed and mother Marion?

The British media are correct to vet our leaders for us, good and bad. Afterward, the public decide at the ballot box.

18 comments for “The latest Miliband controversy — didn’t we already know?

  1. Viscount Rectum
    October 3, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Yes, and I did read somewhere that Angela Merkel was Hitlers daughter,as we know German scientists are more advanced than most, you cannot trust these europeans

  2. mona
    October 3, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    Out of interest how many Jews and non Jewish Jews are in the Government, I know that Lord Freud and Grant Shapps are, the millionaires who dreamt up the Bedroom tax on the poor.

    • October 3, 2013 at 10:01 pm

      I don’t know, mona, but, for me, the important thing is the commonality of socialist / Marxist behaviours, for lack of a better word. Perhaps ‘values’ is better.

      One of the characteristics which ties the Milibands and France’s Francois Hollande together is the emphasis on property ownership.

      As far as I know, Hollande is French and Gentile, by the way. However, it came out in last year’s general election there that all his investments are in property. By contrast, Nicolas Sarkozy has very little property and put his savings into stocks and shares. Hollande has no stocks or shares at all.

      And what about Tony Blair’s eight houses?

      For me, this is a more interesting item to explore … why just property? Is it more Marxist? Is owning stocks and shares somehow inherently capitalist and, therefore, to be shunned?

      • October 5, 2013 at 3:23 am

        That’s an interesting one – into the very thing they wish to disband.

    • October 3, 2013 at 10:38 pm

      I think you will find that the Nürnberger Gesetze have been repealed and they never applied in the UK. You can thank Mr. Churchill for that.

  3. Radical Rodent
    October 3, 2013 at 11:27 pm

    Churchmouse, perhaps you are as puzzled as I; if Miliband snr was an avowed Marxist, how did his family become millionaires?

    • October 3, 2013 at 11:31 pm

      Precisely! I would be amazed to find out the wealth was on the back of his (highly specialised) book royalties alone.

      • Radical Rodent
        October 4, 2013 at 9:19 am

        As Miliband jnr has openly said that he wishes to achieve his father’s wishes, it is of interest to be told what his father’s aims were; he was a Marxist who hated and wanted to destroy many of the institutions of this country. Now, whether that can be translated as hating this country is moot but, for Ed to follow his father’s ideals, the conclusion has to be that he wants to wreck the social structure of Britain.

        Following my last comment, Wikipedia (ever trustful as it is) states that Miliband snr was a university lecturer. How does a Marxist lecturer create a millionaire family? Apart from a brief stint as a TV reporter, Ed’s entire career has been in politics (i.e. all his income comes from the tax-payer – you and I). Are all Ed’s millions inherited wealth? If so, how can he reconcile that with his Marxism?

  4. James Strong
    October 4, 2013 at 7:41 am

    By all means examine Ed Miliband’s policies and point out that they would not be good for the UK, but to write about his father is not rational politics, it is a smear.
    Unless you think the hereditary principle should hold.
    If you think that then I offer you the idea, put forward by a wiser mind than mine, of the absurdity of the idea of a hereditary mathematician.

    On a more topical note, perhaps Mia Farrow’s son was fathered by Frank Sinatra. So she’s an adulteress and Sinatra fucked another man’s wife.
    How much of that bad behavoiur passes down to the son?
    Answer: none of it.
    The same holds for Ed Miliband.
    What about the children of labourers who left school at the first opportunity? What if one of those goes on to get a First Class degree? Off to hod-carrying on a building site for him because of what his father did?
    There are enough opportunities to shred Miliband’s policies. For example, the policy of legislation to cap energy bills is an open goal for anyone who advocates the operation of the market. So go down that route instead of smearing a man by bringing out the ideas of his dead father.
    I’m not surprised to see irrational smear journalism from the Daily Mail, I am disappointed that it continues at a site ‘ 4 liberty’.

    • Fred
      October 4, 2013 at 8:27 am

      The environment you are bought up in influences if not shapes your own structures. That is why we have schools. If being influenced by the ideas of those around you has no effect we may as well scrap education as we know it.
      How many people vote Labour etc. because the family always have.
      Miliband is a left wing Commie, Cameron is a right wing Commie. Who gives a toss we need rid of the lot of them and start electing someone that will give England a fair deal. Not many in the Westminster pit of racists are of English decent.

      • mona
        October 4, 2013 at 12:33 pm

        Fred you are right about Cameron, to me a loathesome creature, a true political chameleon, he is protecting Blair by not releasing the Chilcot inqiry report into the Iraq war how long we put up with this I dont know ?, as for the the word “racist” it came from Trotsky I belive, so usefull a tool to poison a mind.

        • Fred
          October 4, 2013 at 2:06 pm

          I use the word racist because it has been the prime and most devastating weapon used by the rabid left. They use it to subdue anyone that shows a grain of English patriotism.
          The fact that is almost exclusively used against white English makes them racist. A racism that is considered by some to be motivated by ethnocidal intent.
          Their actions are racist and the sooner we start highlighting that the better.Live by the sword etc.

    • October 5, 2013 at 3:27 am

      It’s very much topical. It certainly applies to Obama – read The Audacity of Hope. He very much attributes and only a brief reflection shows that many follow in the parents’ footsteps, esp the fathers’.

      Interesting statement that for a citizen to point that out – and Obama is explicit about it – is a smear. If these people were private citizens, then fine, it should not be done but these people are public servants of us and therefore their backgrounds must be transparent.

      • October 7, 2013 at 9:59 am

        Absolutely. Also think of Obama’s Dreams of My Father, a man whom he barely knew, yet influenced him greatly.

  5. Furor Teutonicus
    October 4, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    XX Afterward, the public decide at the ballot box.XX

    That is the trouble. They do not!

    They vote on who has the best looking tie, or who will fix the pavement.

    They have no interest for the REAL issues.

    The voters are, in general, total idiots.

    • October 4, 2013 at 7:14 pm

      I’m not so sure.

      There have been quite a few comment threads on Yahoo! UK this year which show a surprising awareness of what is and has been going on in this country.

      Here’s one, which is rather apposite:

      http://uk.news.yahoo.com/miliband-steps-attack-titles-230807756.html#xqvAOJU

      Sample comment, one from Peter:

      ‘… you put yourself in a public position your private life becomes public. If you are a sensitive person then clearly Politics is not the correct job for you. I find this story is in the National interest unlike stories about Peter Andre and Katie Price.
      If we allow this to become a National outrage then we set a dangerous precedent and will stop other important stories coming to light …’

      • October 5, 2013 at 3:30 am

        With Furor on the profile of the voter. Hip pocket nerve needs to be mentioned too.

        • mikebravo
          October 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm

          Quite so. Most voters are fools.
          The election is no different from a beauty contest or talent show.
          People vote for who they like the look or sound of, (remember the Clegg bounce after the TV bullshit competition).
          They are either tribal, or vote blue to keep red from winning, yellow to stop blue or white to stop black.
          Other than that it is TV and pizza all the way.

Comments are closed.