´óÏó´«Ã½

´óÏó´«Ã½ BLOGS - Newsnight: Michael Crick
« Previous | Main | Next »

Ed Miliband criticises brother's "big money backing"

Michael Crick | 22:31 UK time, Tuesday, 17 August 2010

Ed Miliband has criticised his brother's "big money backing" in an appeal to supporters to give his campaign one final push.

"We are now within touching distance of winning this election," Ed Miliband claims, just two weeks before party members start receiving their ballot papers. "But we are still up against opponents with big money backing ...".

It's funny how he uses the word "opponents".

That's primarily his older brother David, of course, who is known to have received more than £324,000 in declared donations, much of it from the old Blair-ite types who used to fund New Labour.

Ed Balls, however, has received £131,000, including one gift of £100,000 from the novelist Ken Follett.

Ed Miliband, in contrast, has had barely £61,000 so far - less than a fifth of the total of his brother.

Ed Miliband claims to have 4,000 volunteers helping his campaign and to have received financial support from 700 people. His email appeal to every supporter to give him an extra £30 each states the hope that he can recruit another 7,000 donors.

And, in another clear dig at his brother, Ed Miliband writes:

"Clearly, for Labour to win again, we cannot simply settle for one more heave with the old dogmas and expect our lost voters to return to Labour as if the mistakes that drove them away in the first place had never been made. We cannot win those voters back with the same old New Labour tunes. We need to put values back at the heart of our party."

Comments

  • Comment number 1.



    "My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out"

    And so what is your point Michael? What have you found out?


  • Comment number 2.

    DEBT IS THE NEW LOYALTY

    Britain: land of debt and callow ruefulness. It speaks volumes of the Westminster Ethos that the competition comes down to money. By extension: votes are bought - the best money raiser (not 'man') wins. But at what cost in 'debts' incurred? If that is not a definition of corruption . . .

Ìý

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.