He is playing a dangerous game, one that put paid to Neil Kinnock's chances of being PM almost 20 years ago. If Murdoch is fundamentally weakened then Miliband will get away with it. If his power remains he could find himself up against an insurmountable barrier of opposition from Murdoch.
Even before hackgate really kicked off in the last few weeks, is the Murdoch media empire as powerful as it once was? Politicians clearly think so. Given that Murdoch will continue to control a significant level of British media, across the newspaper titles, Sky News and BSkyB. He still matters whether we like it or not. Many of the British public might not like the hacking of murder victims' phones or the Queen's private details but I don't expect them to stop buying Murdoch products.
Miliband has grown during this crisis. He has been saying the right things and doing so with more gravitas. The media has also been keen to give him prominence. It is going to be interesting to see whether this translates into improved personal poll ratings for him as this impact has been lacking so far.
Miliband's future success depends largely on how strongly the government come down on media owners. Their presumption is to step away, which is being challenged by recent events. If the Tories revert to type as the brouhaha dies down it will strengthen their own position by strengthening Murdoch and knocking Miliband.
These are interesting times in British politics. The goalposts are shifting every time I look at the news. Will they shift enough to force the Tories to limit the size of a media market owned by one person? I'm not sure they will, which puts Miliband in a vulnerable position.
None of this will be worked out for some time. There are clearly more revelations to come, especially about how much David Cameron knew about Andy Coulson's involvement, about severe corruption in the police and about more people who were compromised by News International. Enquiries and police investigations will all take time too. Projecting forward I would not be surprised if this was still rumbling on in two years time or more . Just as we head towards another general election.
Will anybody care then who The Sun backs? Cameron will, Miliband has already shown he doesn't.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Friday, July 08, 2011
Cameron and Coulson: ticking time bomb
Peter Oborne has speculated this could be Cameron's black Wednesday. This story has a lot of legs left and will run. The longer it does the more Cameron's credibility will be damaged. Cameron has said that he is responsible personally for bringing Coulson into the centre of politics, therefore he has to take the blame.
Cameron won't quit so instead this issue will continue to be a distraction as Labour should continue to bring it up time and again. To paraphrase Oborne, this mud has stuck to Cameron and won't go away. Ever.
Thinking about hacking, my suspicion is that the police didn't open up or expose the full scale of the scandal because they had a vested interest in keeping it quiet. The focus to date has been on the newspaper and not on the police. I'm more worried about the police being corrupt than I am about journalists. The police are meant to be whiter than white as public guardians but have taken serious sums in bribes.
There is trouble ahead for the police and for David Cameron. I suspect he won't be able to safely defuse the ticking bomb.
Cameron won't quit so instead this issue will continue to be a distraction as Labour should continue to bring it up time and again. To paraphrase Oborne, this mud has stuck to Cameron and won't go away. Ever.
Thinking about hacking, my suspicion is that the police didn't open up or expose the full scale of the scandal because they had a vested interest in keeping it quiet. The focus to date has been on the newspaper and not on the police. I'm more worried about the police being corrupt than I am about journalists. The police are meant to be whiter than white as public guardians but have taken serious sums in bribes.
There is trouble ahead for the police and for David Cameron. I suspect he won't be able to safely defuse the ticking bomb.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Hacking: implications for Cameron
The ever more sickening News International phone hacking scandal is bringing several media regulatory and political issues to a head.
The government says it wants to reduce media regulation by abolishing or drastically cutting back Ofcom but at the same time is planning a raft of additional rules for advertising. This inconsistency shows that the government hasn't thought its proposals through, like much of the plans they have rowed back on in the face of opposition. Critically, can we really afford to cut back on regulation further when the phone hacking scandal shows us that self regulation of the press has failed so spectacularly?
The LSE's Damian Tambini suggests we need to go further. Many people will now agree. The only way big media owners follow is if there is insurmountable political and public pressure on them to accept this.
Labour can ratchet up the pressure on the Tories to announce a full public enquiry out of which a more robust regulatory regime needs to emergy. Labour has little to lose in attacking what has happened because it has almost no support at News International at present. I'd love to hear what Ed Miliband's press chief Tom Baldwain, ex of The Times, has to say about this. At the moment there is no evidence to suggest that hacking was happening organisation wide, rather than just at one NI title.
Six months ago when Andy Coulson quit, after a sustained drip feed of suggestins that he knew more than he admitted to about this, serious questions have been raised about David Cameron's judgement in appointing the News of the World's former editor.
If a journalist comes to the editor of a newspaper with a new, exclusive story the first question their boss will ask is "what is your evidence?" I can't believe that Coulson and Rebekah Brooks didn't know about this. How else will they have been able to explain the source of exclusive after exclusive to their legal team?
If we assume they did know then Cameron should have been aware too. He must have done some sort of due diligence on Coulson before appointing him and should have been aware that doing so opened him up to risks of association. If he didn't do his research, why not? Either way, his judgement has been shown to be poor.
I suspect Cameron was too desperate to gain a poll lead to worry about this. It is unlikely he was aware how sickeningly deep this scandal actually went. Coulson's tabloid friendly leadership helped to get the Tories into power, even though it wasn't enough to win them the election.
Cameron is deeply implicated in this. He can wriggle his way out by announcing a full public enquiry and putting a stop to a culture of self regulation, collusion and acceptance of dreadful malpractice.He might not because to do so would mean an admittance of the scale of the problem, that he is himself implicated in.
The government says it wants to reduce media regulation by abolishing or drastically cutting back Ofcom but at the same time is planning a raft of additional rules for advertising. This inconsistency shows that the government hasn't thought its proposals through, like much of the plans they have rowed back on in the face of opposition. Critically, can we really afford to cut back on regulation further when the phone hacking scandal shows us that self regulation of the press has failed so spectacularly?
The LSE's Damian Tambini suggests we need to go further. Many people will now agree. The only way big media owners follow is if there is insurmountable political and public pressure on them to accept this.
Labour can ratchet up the pressure on the Tories to announce a full public enquiry out of which a more robust regulatory regime needs to emergy. Labour has little to lose in attacking what has happened because it has almost no support at News International at present. I'd love to hear what Ed Miliband's press chief Tom Baldwain, ex of The Times, has to say about this. At the moment there is no evidence to suggest that hacking was happening organisation wide, rather than just at one NI title.
Six months ago when Andy Coulson quit, after a sustained drip feed of suggestins that he knew more than he admitted to about this, serious questions have been raised about David Cameron's judgement in appointing the News of the World's former editor.
If a journalist comes to the editor of a newspaper with a new, exclusive story the first question their boss will ask is "what is your evidence?" I can't believe that Coulson and Rebekah Brooks didn't know about this. How else will they have been able to explain the source of exclusive after exclusive to their legal team?
If we assume they did know then Cameron should have been aware too. He must have done some sort of due diligence on Coulson before appointing him and should have been aware that doing so opened him up to risks of association. If he didn't do his research, why not? Either way, his judgement has been shown to be poor.
I suspect Cameron was too desperate to gain a poll lead to worry about this. It is unlikely he was aware how sickeningly deep this scandal actually went. Coulson's tabloid friendly leadership helped to get the Tories into power, even though it wasn't enough to win them the election.
Cameron is deeply implicated in this. He can wriggle his way out by announcing a full public enquiry and putting a stop to a culture of self regulation, collusion and acceptance of dreadful malpractice.He might not because to do so would mean an admittance of the scale of the problem, that he is himself implicated in.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Mandelson meddling again?
Peter Mandelson's speech to Progress yesterday was a predictable, right and honest appraisal of the Labour Party's current predicament.
It isn't news that Labour needs to make a bigger impact on voters after a natural period of reflection following defeat a year ago. It isn't news that Labour is skint either, but how exactly the party is going to fund itself is a rather large, unaswered question. At the moment the reliance on trade union funding is stark and quite worrying. A return to the days of big business donations is also unlikely as a party of opposition is far less attractive a proposition.
His lesson is that what Labour learnt in the 1980s and 1990s - that it must focus on appealing to voters first and last is as true today. That is why the real lesson of New Labour, which is about having an honest centre left appeal to people that is based on an understanding of what people actually want, stands as true today as it did in 1994.
Personalities may change but the principle should remain exactly the same.
Changes do need to be made to the wording. Party structure and policies need to change to reflect that we are not in 1994, 1997 or 2005 any more. The game has changed and will have done so further after at least five years of Tory destruction. The relationship between state and individual will be completely different in 2015 to the one Labour left behind.
As Ed Miliband said in one of his first speeches as leader, we need to be the optimists. Labour need to show the country that we can improve public services and offer better value for money. We also need to stand up for services that improve people's lives, protect the environment, enhance opportunity and create opportunities for business. The Tories are pessimists who don't believe it is even worth trying to achieve many of these goals. Labour needs to show that things can be different.
Mandelson's speech demonstrates there is a lot of work to be done to get Labour into a winning position again. He also shows that by sticking to the principles that made the party so successful not that long ago, it doesn't have to be that difficult.
It isn't news that Labour needs to make a bigger impact on voters after a natural period of reflection following defeat a year ago. It isn't news that Labour is skint either, but how exactly the party is going to fund itself is a rather large, unaswered question. At the moment the reliance on trade union funding is stark and quite worrying. A return to the days of big business donations is also unlikely as a party of opposition is far less attractive a proposition.
His lesson is that what Labour learnt in the 1980s and 1990s - that it must focus on appealing to voters first and last is as true today. That is why the real lesson of New Labour, which is about having an honest centre left appeal to people that is based on an understanding of what people actually want, stands as true today as it did in 1994.
Personalities may change but the principle should remain exactly the same.
Changes do need to be made to the wording. Party structure and policies need to change to reflect that we are not in 1994, 1997 or 2005 any more. The game has changed and will have done so further after at least five years of Tory destruction. The relationship between state and individual will be completely different in 2015 to the one Labour left behind.
As Ed Miliband said in one of his first speeches as leader, we need to be the optimists. Labour need to show the country that we can improve public services and offer better value for money. We also need to stand up for services that improve people's lives, protect the environment, enhance opportunity and create opportunities for business. The Tories are pessimists who don't believe it is even worth trying to achieve many of these goals. Labour needs to show that things can be different.
Mandelson's speech demonstrates there is a lot of work to be done to get Labour into a winning position again. He also shows that by sticking to the principles that made the party so successful not that long ago, it doesn't have to be that difficult.
Friday, June 17, 2011
A poor week for all the parties
It is popular to remark that the Tories are undergoing a series of policy and political retreats. It is also popular to opine that this is a result of the Lib Dems restreating to their lefty safe territory after their local election wipe out.
Some of this is true. We wouldn't have had the NHS reform listening exercise or the changes to the programme if there wasn't something different about it. The real difference isn't in the policy changes that may or may not happen, I expect wholesale changes to the NHS to happen anyway.
What this all demonstrates is that the Tories feel politically weak. They are allowing both the Lib Dems and the risk of unpopularity with the electorate to force their hand. The Tories should feel stronger than they do because even if the Lib Dems want to flex their muscles, they too are week and facing oblivion.
The Tories know that the NHS is an historic weakness. People don't trust them with it so they can't take the risk losing whatever credibility they have with the health service. This also demonstrates political naiivity. Properly researched and planned before being announced, these changes could have met the needs of the health service in the first place and avoided talk of u-turns and retreats. This suggests that in the quest for taking power the coalition partners didn't work their way through all the detail. If the Lib Dems really were so opposed to all of this why didn't they say so when they had real power - at the coalition negoatiation phase.
This will be presented as a Lib Dem victory. The danger is that this will appeal to some of the Lib Dems lost voters but will further antagonise their coalition partners and masters, the Tories.
Nick Clegg needs to be very careful, while Cameron has more political strength than he realises. Ed Miliband should do everything to exploit a Clegg clinging on for life and a Cameron who is weak and reactiving the poltical environment rather than shaping it.
Some of this is true. We wouldn't have had the NHS reform listening exercise or the changes to the programme if there wasn't something different about it. The real difference isn't in the policy changes that may or may not happen, I expect wholesale changes to the NHS to happen anyway.
What this all demonstrates is that the Tories feel politically weak. They are allowing both the Lib Dems and the risk of unpopularity with the electorate to force their hand. The Tories should feel stronger than they do because even if the Lib Dems want to flex their muscles, they too are week and facing oblivion.
The Tories know that the NHS is an historic weakness. People don't trust them with it so they can't take the risk losing whatever credibility they have with the health service. This also demonstrates political naiivity. Properly researched and planned before being announced, these changes could have met the needs of the health service in the first place and avoided talk of u-turns and retreats. This suggests that in the quest for taking power the coalition partners didn't work their way through all the detail. If the Lib Dems really were so opposed to all of this why didn't they say so when they had real power - at the coalition negoatiation phase.
This will be presented as a Lib Dem victory. The danger is that this will appeal to some of the Lib Dems lost voters but will further antagonise their coalition partners and masters, the Tories.
Nick Clegg needs to be very careful, while Cameron has more political strength than he realises. Ed Miliband should do everything to exploit a Clegg clinging on for life and a Cameron who is weak and reactiving the poltical environment rather than shaping it.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Where now for Ed?
It is too early to properly judge Ed Miliband’s leadership of the Labour Party after only eight months. He still has time to prove his doubters wrong because there won’t be another general election for four years. Unfortunately the minds of many in the party and media have already been made up. Ed was on the back foot from the moment he was elected. First he had to defend himself from the “Red Ed” tags and has since been fending off a succession of polls that show he hasn’t yet convinced voters to back him.
Given that he hasn’t made the most convincing start but still has time, how can Ed show people he really is leadership material? He needs to have a plan for the country and needs to communicate that. His vision must be clear and show that he understands that the country doesn’t want a lurch to the left but does want Labour to offer them protection against the rising cost of living and understands their concerns about crime and immigration.
The plan needs to come quickly to enable Ed to gain positive momentum in time for party conference in September. He has to convince a sceptical party he can get them back into government. Will he? I hope so, though that depends on whether he gives himself the chance.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Does the Archbishop of Canterbury really matter?
There has been a lot of brouhaha about the Archbishop of Canterbury's political comments today. It has been the leading story on most news sites. Does this mean anything and does it show that the Church of England is still important socially and politically?
I don't think it does. I think the level of news space given to Rowan Williams' comments owes everything to the media desire to open up a political debate rather than the status of the church. Clearly the church has some status, otherwise Williams' comments would have passed us all by and they didn't.
Williams' comments have held the government to account to some extent. First Vince Cable and now David Cameron have defended their government's record.
I remember the then Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie criticising Margaret Thatcher’s (lack of ) social policy in the late 1980s. Then as now it will do nothing unless the attack resonates with enough ordinary people to create political change. If the church really had status it could do that. As much as I agree with Williams, I don't expect that to happen.
The church getting involved in politics reminds me of Prince Charles commenting on modern architecture. It triggers a debate but a few days later everyone settles down again and forgets all about it.
I don't think it does. I think the level of news space given to Rowan Williams' comments owes everything to the media desire to open up a political debate rather than the status of the church. Clearly the church has some status, otherwise Williams' comments would have passed us all by and they didn't.
Williams' comments have held the government to account to some extent. First Vince Cable and now David Cameron have defended their government's record.
I remember the then Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie criticising Margaret Thatcher’s (lack of ) social policy in the late 1980s. Then as now it will do nothing unless the attack resonates with enough ordinary people to create political change. If the church really had status it could do that. As much as I agree with Williams, I don't expect that to happen.
The church getting involved in politics reminds me of Prince Charles commenting on modern architecture. It triggers a debate but a few days later everyone settles down again and forgets all about it.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Can Ed Miliband succeed where Tony Blair failed?
The Labour Party has surveyed voters' views as part of the major policy review. This has shown that voters want Labour to be strong on immigration, protect British interests first in Europe and international affairs, propose welfare reform and be tough on crime. This sounds remarkably like Tony Blair's rights and responsibilities policy agenda. It should surprise nobody.
This is no surprise because the country moved to the right at the last election. These are issues that are typically hard for Labour to campaign on as the party finds it easier to talk about subjects that matter to lefties. These leftie issues are unlikely to be enough to win Labour an election. However, these are the bread and butter working class issues and Ed Miliband needs to seize control of this agenda.
The Labour survey also showed that voters want the party to be tough on bankers and to soften the market. This is Miliband's natural territory. I don't think he'll find it easy to be talking about crime and immigration but it is an absolute must. That he hasn't yet can in part explain Labour's failure to secure first place in the English local elections.
Miliband's challenge is the tough, classic one faced by all Labour leaders. Talk tough on crime and immigration and lose support of the party and win votes, or do the opposite. If he can find a happy equilibrium he will strike gold.
This is no surprise because the country moved to the right at the last election. These are issues that are typically hard for Labour to campaign on as the party finds it easier to talk about subjects that matter to lefties. These leftie issues are unlikely to be enough to win Labour an election. However, these are the bread and butter working class issues and Ed Miliband needs to seize control of this agenda.
The Labour survey also showed that voters want the party to be tough on bankers and to soften the market. This is Miliband's natural territory. I don't think he'll find it easy to be talking about crime and immigration but it is an absolute must. That he hasn't yet can in part explain Labour's failure to secure first place in the English local elections.
Miliband's challenge is the tough, classic one faced by all Labour leaders. Talk tough on crime and immigration and lose support of the party and win votes, or do the opposite. If he can find a happy equilibrium he will strike gold.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
NHS reform will press ahead
After being criticised by GPs, doctors, nurses, trade unions, the lap-dog Lib-Dems and Labour, David Cameron today unveiled sweeping changes to NHS reforms. Is this a significant political moment as it shows that the coalition isn't quite steaming ahead with its agenda as it would have liked?
I'm not sure the changes are as big as Cameron makes out. The fundamental changes to the NHS will still happen, even if a bit later than planned. GPs will still take over the commissioning of services from primary care trusts. Greater competition will still take place with private sector providers. I accept that the plans have been watered down but the fundamentals remain.
The reform process is ill thought out and suggests a dogmatic wish to return to the John Major days of GP fund-holding. I don't really understand on what basis the Tories decided that GP commissioning would be the answer to the NHS ills. There is no reason at all for this form of service delivery to be more efficient. On the contrary, spending swathes of scarce cash on a major reorganisation at a time when funds are so scarce seems completely foolhardy. For a Tory party that is so bent on cutting public spending to do this now shows how committed they are to the changes and demonstrates an ideological commitment to them.
The delays and changes show how hard Cameron is finding it to run his party and get his legislation through. I expect him to overcome these obstacles and press ahead with an unnecessary and costly reorganisation of the NHS just when it needed it least.
I'm not sure the changes are as big as Cameron makes out. The fundamental changes to the NHS will still happen, even if a bit later than planned. GPs will still take over the commissioning of services from primary care trusts. Greater competition will still take place with private sector providers. I accept that the plans have been watered down but the fundamentals remain.
The reform process is ill thought out and suggests a dogmatic wish to return to the John Major days of GP fund-holding. I don't really understand on what basis the Tories decided that GP commissioning would be the answer to the NHS ills. There is no reason at all for this form of service delivery to be more efficient. On the contrary, spending swathes of scarce cash on a major reorganisation at a time when funds are so scarce seems completely foolhardy. For a Tory party that is so bent on cutting public spending to do this now shows how committed they are to the changes and demonstrates an ideological commitment to them.
The delays and changes show how hard Cameron is finding it to run his party and get his legislation through. I expect him to overcome these obstacles and press ahead with an unnecessary and costly reorganisation of the NHS just when it needed it least.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
What has Boris Johnson actually achieved?
Mayor Boris Johnson is in campaign mode and is wasting no time in telling us all about his achievements. Unfortunately his "achievements" are not that at all, as has been widely pointed out.
BJ is claiming credit for Crossrail, the tube upgrade and obviously the cycle hire scheme. All of these schemes were under way well before his election in 2008. He also claims credit for the Olympic park, again something that has been finished while he has been in power but was secured by the previous mayor, Ken Livingstone.
As the race for London (mayor) 2012 hots up I wonder how many more half truths BJ will be peddling? Quite why he tries to cling on to power so hard when he does nothing with it is beyond me. It all seems quite pointless, much like his mayoralty.
BJ is claiming credit for Crossrail, the tube upgrade and obviously the cycle hire scheme. All of these schemes were under way well before his election in 2008. He also claims credit for the Olympic park, again something that has been finished while he has been in power but was secured by the previous mayor, Ken Livingstone.
As the race for London (mayor) 2012 hots up I wonder how many more half truths BJ will be peddling? Quite why he tries to cling on to power so hard when he does nothing with it is beyond me. It all seems quite pointless, much like his mayoralty.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Party funding debate has be impartial
After last week's revealing of the party accounts showed Labour falling back on it's trade union partners and the Tories on wealthy individuals for support, today's newspapers report again that the Tories want to put a £50,000 cap on donations.
The Tories and Lib Dems claim such a move would remove big money from politics. It would also rip the historic heart out of the Labour Party. The party was formed from trade unions and ordinary working people have a say in the party as affiliated members. Taking that away would create an artificial imbalance in UK politics. I can't believe that the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life will settle for this.
Unfortunately I don't expect the committee to recommend the only radical change that would stop cash for favours on all sides, state funding.
The Tories always paint the union link to Labour as some sort of sinister connection. The union link makes Labour more democratic and representative of more ordinary people than the other UK parties.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
The Tories and Lib Dems claim such a move would remove big money from politics. It would also rip the historic heart out of the Labour Party. The party was formed from trade unions and ordinary working people have a say in the party as affiliated members. Taking that away would create an artificial imbalance in UK politics. I can't believe that the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life will settle for this.
Unfortunately I don't expect the committee to recommend the only radical change that would stop cash for favours on all sides, state funding.
The Tories always paint the union link to Labour as some sort of sinister connection. The union link makes Labour more democratic and representative of more ordinary people than the other UK parties.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The state of political party finances
This morning's newspapers were full of reports of who was funding our political parties. Labour, £10m in debt, is even more reliant on trade union funding than before. The Tories have continued to rely on wealthy businessmen. The Lib Dems didn't have that much at all.
I also read that Tory super-doner Lord Ashcroft has just been given responsibility for reviewing Britain's considerable military presence in Cyprus. The Lib Dems are not happy about that. Ashcroft has bought his influence.
That these two stories appeared on the same day further stoked the strong but little heard argument for state funding of political parties in the UK. While big business or trade unions bankroll politics there will always be the accusation that they buy influence. Cash for questions, cash for honours, Ashcroft. The list of suspicious political funding has a long history and won't stop any time soon.
The only argument I hear against state funding is that voters who don't like politicians will like paying for them even less. That doesn't wash. Voters hate dirty politics and if paying a small amount to fund political parties and election campaigns cleans it up, then it is a price worth paying.
I also read that Tory super-doner Lord Ashcroft has just been given responsibility for reviewing Britain's considerable military presence in Cyprus. The Lib Dems are not happy about that. Ashcroft has bought his influence.
That these two stories appeared on the same day further stoked the strong but little heard argument for state funding of political parties in the UK. While big business or trade unions bankroll politics there will always be the accusation that they buy influence. Cash for questions, cash for honours, Ashcroft. The list of suspicious political funding has a long history and won't stop any time soon.
The only argument I hear against state funding is that voters who don't like politicians will like paying for them even less. That doesn't wash. Voters hate dirty politics and if paying a small amount to fund political parties and election campaigns cleans it up, then it is a price worth paying.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Finding the Tory switchers
I wrote yesterday of how Labour needs to target Tory voters to stand any chance of winning power again. The reduction in the number of MPs will only strengthen the need to focus on this. It is only by winning seats from Tories that Labour will stand a chance.
As much as I and many others have revelled in the pitiful state of the Lib Dems, the real enemy has always been their Tory masters.
Caroline Flint wrote for Progress that Labour has "to reach out beyond our traditional heartlands" to create a real progressive majority. She points out that of the top 100 Labour target seats, 83 are currently Tory. Appealing to these Tory voters has to be the central plank of Labour policy and communications in the next couple of years. Looking at the recent English local election results it is clear that the party is not reaching these people currently.
Ed Miliband will have to blend to aspects as he attempts to drive Labour forward. They are often viewed as mutually exclusive, but I don't agree. Renewing the left of Britain and making Labour a party that rewards talent, is at the centre of our communities, campaigns (and doesn't just talk in dull meetings) can sit hand in hand with appealing to England's centre ground - being aspirational, fair on immigration and winning the economic argument back from the Tories.
Re-founding Labour is a good start but won't be enough as the party has to revitalise without and within.
As much as I and many others have revelled in the pitiful state of the Lib Dems, the real enemy has always been their Tory masters.
Caroline Flint wrote for Progress that Labour has "to reach out beyond our traditional heartlands" to create a real progressive majority. She points out that of the top 100 Labour target seats, 83 are currently Tory. Appealing to these Tory voters has to be the central plank of Labour policy and communications in the next couple of years. Looking at the recent English local election results it is clear that the party is not reaching these people currently.
Ed Miliband will have to blend to aspects as he attempts to drive Labour forward. They are often viewed as mutually exclusive, but I don't agree. Renewing the left of Britain and making Labour a party that rewards talent, is at the centre of our communities, campaigns (and doesn't just talk in dull meetings) can sit hand in hand with appealing to England's centre ground - being aspirational, fair on immigration and winning the economic argument back from the Tories.
Re-founding Labour is a good start but won't be enough as the party has to revitalise without and within.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Miliband to woo Tories?
I always find it interesting when someone suggests that the cure to all of the Labour Party's ills is to copy what Tony Blair did. This interests me because I generally agree but also because doing that is so difficult when finding a leader as talented as he is very difficult.
Aping Blair's style might not be right almost twenty years later but Dan Hodges is right that we would do well to heed political lessons from him. Quite simply people who vote Tory need to vote Labour instead. Wealthy people and those in the south. Picking up votes from disgruntled lefties will be insufficient and likely to end in a William Hague-esque core vote strategy. This is even more important if Labour can't win in Wales and Scotland, traditional suppliers of swathes of Labour MPs in Westminster.
How is this going to happen? Labour needs to be realistic about how it plans to win and smell the coffee. That will tell them that it needs to win in England and it needs to win over Tories, otherwise it is curtains.
Aping Blair's style might not be right almost twenty years later but Dan Hodges is right that we would do well to heed political lessons from him. Quite simply people who vote Tory need to vote Labour instead. Wealthy people and those in the south. Picking up votes from disgruntled lefties will be insufficient and likely to end in a William Hague-esque core vote strategy. This is even more important if Labour can't win in Wales and Scotland, traditional suppliers of swathes of Labour MPs in Westminster.
How is this going to happen? Labour needs to be realistic about how it plans to win and smell the coffee. That will tell them that it needs to win in England and it needs to win over Tories, otherwise it is curtains.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The NHS:The end of the public service ethos
The point of the NHS is that it is free at the point of use. Nobody is expected to pay directly for their healthcare, it is paid out of central taxation. Another central principle is that the NHS doesn't exist for profit. What we pay in taxes shouldn't be creamed off to pay dividends instead of patient care. This is the pubic service ethos. The Tories plans for the NHS eat away at this.
Today's reports that one of David Cameron's aides Mark Britnell would be a "big opportunity" for the private sector show that the government's (not publicly stated) aim is to chip away at the public service ethos in the NHS. It strikes me that the point in these reforms is to allow the private sector a greater role in NHS service provision. This makes it likely that the private sector will cream off the profitable parts and leave the state to pick up and pay for the rest. Chipping away at the public service ethos is also likely to chip away at the quality of care given to patients as the profit motive encourages the cutting of corners.
Politicallly Britnell's comments demonstrate an extreme naivety about how people feel about the NHS. It also suggests that Cameron's proclaimed "love" for the NHS isn't the same love shared by the rest of the country. Cameron's advisor's comments were not off guard, off the record or mis-quoted. They show what the Tories really want to do to the NHS. They want to part privatise it.
The "pause" in the NHS reforms were just that. Nothing will change, the same reforms will happen, just a little later. Politically the result will be the same. As the Mirror reports that 62% of people are against the reforms, added to all of the professional bodies, this is yet another unpopular and unnecessary Tory policy. How will the Lib Dems react? They won't be able to stop it no matter how vociferous their complaints. Cameron is ploughing on regardless.
At least today's comments showed the Tories' true intentions, nobody can say they didn't realise what they were planning to do when the NHS gets sold off.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
A year in Condemnation
The Liberal Demolition shows no sign of letting up. First there were the glory day(s) in the Rose garden at number ten. Then the betrayals, then the bickering, then the elections.
While repeated blows have landed on the Lib Dems and while they have been serious the victim is more likely to suffer a slow and drawn out death than a knock out punch. The Lib Dems will last to 2015 because whatever happens between now and the next election, like John Major's rebel turkeys, his disgruntled party can't risk a general election that would see them wiped out.
After founding of the coalition David Laws did his best to show that this wasn't "Cleggameron's" new politics as he thieved the taxpayer for several years for rent he didn't have to pay. That Clegg placed the his party's integrity at the behest of what he would have known would be a very unpopular Tory government shows how much he wanted to give his party their raison d'etre: electoral reform. He gambled everything for this. He lost. What has he got left? He has his party to save.
How can Clegg do this? Strong words in public but capitulations in private letting the Tories get their way will only weaken their cause. The real test is whether they can stem the Tory zeal for deep public spending cuts, especially as economic indicators worsen in the coming 12 months.
There is little Cameron will want to do to change the coalition. His government retains control of policy, the top jobs and the blame for anything bad always sits with the Lib Dems. After the initial disappointment of failing to get a majority at the general election a year ago, things could hardly be better for Cameron and his Tories.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Boris Johnson = trash
I find it somewhat odd that mayor Boris Johnson today praised the Transport for London management for negotiating an end to next week's planned tube strikes with the RMT.
Remember that this is the mayor which I liken to a boxer before a big bout. Great on the trash talk. Unfortunately for London, he failed to deliver on this. Remember that this is the mayor that promised to end strikes on the tube and has since been too politically pig headed to hold even a single meeting with any of the tube unions. Responsible governing means he should have done this, despite his political hatred of all the RMT stand for.
Today's statement from Johnson was just another load of trash from a mayor who has achieved nothing for London. He deserves to be knocked out in 2012.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Remember that this is the mayor which I liken to a boxer before a big bout. Great on the trash talk. Unfortunately for London, he failed to deliver on this. Remember that this is the mayor that promised to end strikes on the tube and has since been too politically pig headed to hold even a single meeting with any of the tube unions. Responsible governing means he should have done this, despite his political hatred of all the RMT stand for.
Today's statement from Johnson was just another load of trash from a mayor who has achieved nothing for London. He deserves to be knocked out in 2012.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Three Tory graphs
After yesterday's disappointing growth figures that showed the economy hasn't grown at all in the last six months, opinion polls continue to show Labour in the lead and strong disapproval for the government's work.
Courtesy of Mark Ferguson at Labour List
Courtesy of Mark Ferguson at Labour List
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
AV rows rumble on and I swing
Differences of opinion between the Tories and Lib Dems about AV continue to attract press attention. What was meant to be an apolitical issue has been fashioned into a party political affair. Peter Mandelson has suggested that Labour supporters should vote yes to hinder the Tories' potential electoral dominance. The no campaign have used Nick Clegg's unpopularity to encourage Labour supporters to vote no.
The recent sniping between the Lib Dems and Tories, plus interventions from Labour's heavyweights has added a little oomph to a rather dull and dry referendum campaign that will have passed most voters by.
The "row" has been the story rather than AV. That is much easier to report and shows a media appetite for tittle tattle over trying to educate the readership. There has been a great deal of nonsense thrown about by both sides. The no campaign have dubbed AV confusing, unfair and expensive. The yes campaign have dismissed the no campaign as the Tory old guard hanging onto the levers of power.
Both sides have tried to score party political points on the other. The no campaign calling on voters to deal a blow to Clegg, the yes campaign to David Cameron. If I'm going to be party political about the AV referendum, I'd like to deal a blow to both but voting for short term gain isn't necessarily going to deliver the best political outcome in the long term.
As usual Channel 4's Fact Check comes to the rescue bringing together the claims and demystifying the myths. AV won't be expensive and will ensure all MPs will be elected on some type of 50%+ support. AV wouldn't have altered many recent UK elections and would have exaggerated many recent results, like 1997.
I feel myself becoming a swing voter for the first time in my life. I've never approached an election and not been totally sure of how I would vote, but I am about AV. I want a fair system, a simple one and any change must be fair to all parties. Will AV be that change? I'm not convinced but it might be.
The recent sniping between the Lib Dems and Tories, plus interventions from Labour's heavyweights has added a little oomph to a rather dull and dry referendum campaign that will have passed most voters by.
The "row" has been the story rather than AV. That is much easier to report and shows a media appetite for tittle tattle over trying to educate the readership. There has been a great deal of nonsense thrown about by both sides. The no campaign have dubbed AV confusing, unfair and expensive. The yes campaign have dismissed the no campaign as the Tory old guard hanging onto the levers of power.
Both sides have tried to score party political points on the other. The no campaign calling on voters to deal a blow to Clegg, the yes campaign to David Cameron. If I'm going to be party political about the AV referendum, I'd like to deal a blow to both but voting for short term gain isn't necessarily going to deliver the best political outcome in the long term.
As usual Channel 4's Fact Check comes to the rescue bringing together the claims and demystifying the myths. AV won't be expensive and will ensure all MPs will be elected on some type of 50%+ support. AV wouldn't have altered many recent UK elections and would have exaggerated many recent results, like 1997.
I feel myself becoming a swing voter for the first time in my life. I've never approached an election and not been totally sure of how I would vote, but I am about AV. I want a fair system, a simple one and any change must be fair to all parties. Will AV be that change? I'm not convinced but it might be.
Monday, April 25, 2011
A coalition of convenience
The increasing tensions between the Tories and their coalition lap-dogs the Lib Dems over AV shows all is not as rosy as Dave and Nick like to make out.
'Leading' Lib Dems Chris Huhne and Vince Cable have both been playing to their gallery of party members and upset former voters by breaking ranks and criticising their big daddy. Under normal circumstances such behaviour would be met with a fell swoop of cabinet reshuffle. That isn't possible because the party has been guaranteed a certain number of cabinet posts. When there are only 57 MPs to choose from there isn't much choice. That Clegg himself is getting in on the act means cracks in the coalition will remain.
I still expect the coalition to last because both parties have a vested interest in making it. The Tories want to get their cuts programme through and the Lib Dems are desperate to cling on to whatever power they can. For Clegg needs to wait as long as possible in the hope that his party's plummeting poll ratings eventually reverse. I'm not site try will. They badly need AV to go through to show even a slight glimpse that the future might be even the slightest bit yellow.
Lib Dems won't be winning here for a while but that doesn't really matter as long as they continue to prop up the Tories.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
'Leading' Lib Dems Chris Huhne and Vince Cable have both been playing to their gallery of party members and upset former voters by breaking ranks and criticising their big daddy. Under normal circumstances such behaviour would be met with a fell swoop of cabinet reshuffle. That isn't possible because the party has been guaranteed a certain number of cabinet posts. When there are only 57 MPs to choose from there isn't much choice. That Clegg himself is getting in on the act means cracks in the coalition will remain.
I still expect the coalition to last because both parties have a vested interest in making it. The Tories want to get their cuts programme through and the Lib Dems are desperate to cling on to whatever power they can. For Clegg needs to wait as long as possible in the hope that his party's plummeting poll ratings eventually reverse. I'm not site try will. They badly need AV to go through to show even a slight glimpse that the future might be even the slightest bit yellow.
Lib Dems won't be winning here for a while but that doesn't really matter as long as they continue to prop up the Tories.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Vince Cable on the slide
Vince Cable is doing his best to get himself sacked from the cabinet. After calling David Cameron's immigration speech "unwise" today he added another feather to his Lib Dem Tory hating cap. The only problem is that he signed up to this in the first place. It is also a problem that the Lib Dems are guaranteed a specific number of cabinet posts and if old Vince is kicked out, who replaces him?
I agree with Vince. Capping immigration could be damaging for business, which needs to recruit the best people to get our economy going again. Setting an arbitrary cap means this might not happen.
His antics remind me of a Channel 4 comedy programme from a few years ago where two contestants, each starting a new job, had to get themselves sacked. The winner got a week's dole money. The only catch was that they were not allowed to do anything obvious, like swear, use violence, steal or not turn up. They had to be creative and provoke their boss to getting rid of them. The winner got sacked from his job in an expensive clothes shop after dressing up in fancy dress and juggling the shoes.
Vince is juggling with his career, I'm not sure he cares. Vince is looking good for his £67.50.
I agree with Vince. Capping immigration could be damaging for business, which needs to recruit the best people to get our economy going again. Setting an arbitrary cap means this might not happen.
His antics remind me of a Channel 4 comedy programme from a few years ago where two contestants, each starting a new job, had to get themselves sacked. The winner got a week's dole money. The only catch was that they were not allowed to do anything obvious, like swear, use violence, steal or not turn up. They had to be creative and provoke their boss to getting rid of them. The winner got sacked from his job in an expensive clothes shop after dressing up in fancy dress and juggling the shoes.
Vince is juggling with his career, I'm not sure he cares. Vince is looking good for his £67.50.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Lib Dems: the indefensible
Poor Warren Bradley has been here before. His outburst at Nick Clegg suggests a man clearly worried about his own future. He is apparently sick of "defending the indefensible" with the latter being the Lib Dem coalition with the Tories.
Is it the VAT rise his party campaigned against? Is it the rise in tuition fees his party campaigned against? Is it the public sector cuts his party campaigned against?
For some time the Tories have had no presence in the north of England, which his Lib Dems profited from. People won't vote Tory there but when Labour has deserved a bloody nose the nice little yellow party has been there to step in. Bradley ended up as leader of Liverpool council, while the party was also victorious in other traditionally Labour strongholds such as Sheffield and Leeds. Now that many voters see the Lib Dems and Tories as a single entity it is highly probable that the pockets of northern support for the Lib Dems will go the same way as that for the Tories.
At least Bradley has been consistent. He might care about his party or he might only care about his own future. Which doesn't really matter at this time. He was one of the first and more high profile members of his party to warn about the effect doing a deal with the Tories nationally might have on the party's future. Speaking in July, just after the coalition was formed he said "we’re in a weak coalition, that will deliver nothing to the Lib-Dems except total electoral decimation. I give you that absolute guarantee, we will be wiped out by Labour in the North and the Tories in the South." In three weeks we'll find out.
Bradleys's current analysis may be robust but he misses a key point that many voters who were fooled into thinking Bradley's Lib Dems were a left wing party. Across England they have repeatedly gone into coalition with the Tories whenever it has suited their ends, as Bradley's email to Clegg points out, to get power
Highlights of Tory-Lib Dem coalition include:
Is it the VAT rise his party campaigned against? Is it the rise in tuition fees his party campaigned against? Is it the public sector cuts his party campaigned against?
For some time the Tories have had no presence in the north of England, which his Lib Dems profited from. People won't vote Tory there but when Labour has deserved a bloody nose the nice little yellow party has been there to step in. Bradley ended up as leader of Liverpool council, while the party was also victorious in other traditionally Labour strongholds such as Sheffield and Leeds. Now that many voters see the Lib Dems and Tories as a single entity it is highly probable that the pockets of northern support for the Lib Dems will go the same way as that for the Tories.
At least Bradley has been consistent. He might care about his party or he might only care about his own future. Which doesn't really matter at this time. He was one of the first and more high profile members of his party to warn about the effect doing a deal with the Tories nationally might have on the party's future. Speaking in July, just after the coalition was formed he said "we’re in a weak coalition, that will deliver nothing to the Lib-Dems except total electoral decimation. I give you that absolute guarantee, we will be wiped out by Labour in the North and the Tories in the South." In three weeks we'll find out.
Bradleys's current analysis may be robust but he misses a key point that many voters who were fooled into thinking Bradley's Lib Dems were a left wing party. Across England they have repeatedly gone into coalition with the Tories whenever it has suited their ends, as Bradley's email to Clegg points out, to get power
Highlights of Tory-Lib Dem coalition include:
Bradley needs to look back a bit further into his party's recent history. Perhaps then he'd realise that the "indefensible" has been party policy for some time. Time for a new job Bradley?
Friday, April 08, 2011
Londoners suffer the most from the Tories cuts
As we head into an avoidable cost of living crisis caused by the Tories' tax rises and cuts, evidence shows that Londoners will lose badly. The poorest will be worse off than the wealthy. Yet more evidence that we're not "all in this together" after all, but its much more a case of "I'm alright Jack" from George Osborne.
The cost of living is so much higher in London than elsewhere in the UK that any hits to living standards will be harshly felt. As the graphic shows, Londoners get a raw deal from the cuts. Couples with children will lose 8% of their income by 2014/15. The poorest Londoners will be 7% worse off, the wealthiest only 5%.
Ed Miliband's job is to make this clear, in simple language to ordinary people. The cuts are not fair or even. The Tories hit those who can afford it least in the pocket.
The cost of living is so much higher in London than elsewhere in the UK that any hits to living standards will be harshly felt. As the graphic shows, Londoners get a raw deal from the cuts. Couples with children will lose 8% of their income by 2014/15. The poorest Londoners will be 7% worse off, the wealthiest only 5%.
Ed Miliband's job is to make this clear, in simple language to ordinary people. The cuts are not fair or even. The Tories hit those who can afford it least in the pocket.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Is Vince Cable a joke?
I don't quite know how Vince Cable can live with himself. He has been absent from the news recently after a series of gaffes relating to News International's attempt to buy back a bigger share of Sky.
Recently Cable was responsible for the trebling of tuition fees. He then has the cheek to suggest he will cut teaching grants to universities for poor performing universities that charge the highest fees, ignoring that he has cut the teaching grants meaning fees have to fill the gap. Universities have no choice but to levy maximum fees. They don't get any extra money for this, it just replaces lost central government funding. There are arguments on both sides about the demerits of the new student funding system that are best argued in a dedicated post.
His red tape challenge reminds me of John Major's cones hotline. Surely Cable can use his own scissors to cut business red tape? This is little more than a gimmick.
Cable was once the darling of the Lib Dems for his foresight in predicting the global financial crisis. He was all over their election leaflets as he was seen as more marketable than the then very popular Nick Clegg. How times change. He was given a deliberately difficult ministerial post by the Tories who clearly saw him as a threat. He is still the most likely Lib Dem to resign from the coalition.
Low paid workers are facing a two-pronged hit to their living standards after Cable announced that the minimum wage is increasing by a below inflation 15 pence an hour. Couple this with a 2.5% increase in VAT and the rise in personal income tax allowances will be completely wiped out. Even though food isn't included in VAT, the cost of fuel is meaning the cost of food and essential items increase anyway.
Recently Cable was responsible for the trebling of tuition fees. He then has the cheek to suggest he will cut teaching grants to universities for poor performing universities that charge the highest fees, ignoring that he has cut the teaching grants meaning fees have to fill the gap. Universities have no choice but to levy maximum fees. They don't get any extra money for this, it just replaces lost central government funding. There are arguments on both sides about the demerits of the new student funding system that are best argued in a dedicated post.
His red tape challenge reminds me of John Major's cones hotline. Surely Cable can use his own scissors to cut business red tape? This is little more than a gimmick.
Cable was once the darling of the Lib Dems for his foresight in predicting the global financial crisis. He was all over their election leaflets as he was seen as more marketable than the then very popular Nick Clegg. How times change. He was given a deliberately difficult ministerial post by the Tories who clearly saw him as a threat. He is still the most likely Lib Dem to resign from the coalition.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Labour by default
Labour's lead in opinion polls remains consistently at a minimum of five points over the Tories with the Lib Dems around or below 10%.
Looking back over the polls between Labour's disastrous 1983 election and resounding defeat in 1987 shows a similar pattern. A year after the election Labour were consistently ahead of the Tories but the failure of the party to earn the trust of voters saw this gradually eroded by the 1987 election day. The same thing happened again between 1987 and 1992. Until Ed Miliband starts to get a strong and positive recognition from voters I fear that 2015 may lead to a similar result as 1987 or 1992.
It feels a bit like the 1980s at the moment. An unpopular Tory government, cuts, protests and a dodgy economy. Miliband's job is easier than Kinnock's though as there is no major internal party strife to deal with. It is an opportunity and a crucial one for the country at a time when the Tories are getting cockier by the day with Climate Change minster Greg Barker saying the current government's cuts are what "Thatcher could only have dreamed of." That's very different to the official line and faux sombre faces of George Osborne and Danny Alexander every time they announce more cuts - this is sad and bad but necessary. Miliband needs to make people realise his feelings are real.
Looking back over the polls between Labour's disastrous 1983 election and resounding defeat in 1987 shows a similar pattern. A year after the election Labour were consistently ahead of the Tories but the failure of the party to earn the trust of voters saw this gradually eroded by the 1987 election day. The same thing happened again between 1987 and 1992. Until Ed Miliband starts to get a strong and positive recognition from voters I fear that 2015 may lead to a similar result as 1987 or 1992.
It feels a bit like the 1980s at the moment. An unpopular Tory government, cuts, protests and a dodgy economy. Miliband's job is easier than Kinnock's though as there is no major internal party strife to deal with. It is an opportunity and a crucial one for the country at a time when the Tories are getting cockier by the day with Climate Change minster Greg Barker saying the current government's cuts are what "Thatcher could only have dreamed of." That's very different to the official line and faux sombre faces of George Osborne and Danny Alexander every time they announce more cuts - this is sad and bad but necessary. Miliband needs to make people realise his feelings are real.
Monday, April 04, 2011
London's never had it so good
According to Mayor Boris Johnson London's never had it so good. The sun shines and everything is fine. He might think it is but I don't share his optimism. He belittled Ed Miliband's chief spin doctor Tom Baldwain for having to paint the world around him as in a "complete mess" whatever the circumstances.
Here are a few reasons why:
Perhaps Boris would like to do the honourable thing and add himself to the rising toll of jobless next year? After all, his pal George Osborne did say, "we're all in this together."
Here are a few reasons why:
- Living costs are going up
- Tax is going up
- Vital government services are being cut
- London tube and bus fares are going up
- Thousands of jobs are going to be lost, hurting families and the economy
Perhaps Boris would like to do the honourable thing and add himself to the rising toll of jobless next year? After all, his pal George Osborne did say, "we're all in this together."
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Poor to pay for the Tories
I love Channel 4's Fact Check. IT provides independent analysis of political rhetoric and gets behind the crap and tells it like it is. Like most politicians find it difficult to do.
Housing Minister Grant Schapps suggested a few weeks ago that councils that make the biggest cuts must be badly managed and those who cut less must be more inefficient. Tosh. What that ignores is that councils like Islington have to pay out more to those on benefits and get less tax in return from council tax payers (as there are fewer of them) than in a place like Richmond. Richer areas have more council tax payers and few benefit recipients. That means Richmond receives a smaller central government subsidy than somewhere like Islington. Thast is quite basic and something I learnt very early on at university.
Fact Checker sets this and Schapps straight. Councils like Islington and Manchester are facing far more cuts than just that to the main central government grant. This means they have no choice but to cut more severely than councils in better off areas. They say:
"it’s clear that deprived areas are worst affected.
"As a poor inner-city authority that gets more Government money than council tax, Manchester’s spending power is down 8.8 per cent in this financial year and 6.7 per cent in 2012/13. In Trafford it’s only 3.8 per cent this year and 3.4 next year."
The poorest pay most under the Tories. Despicable.
Housing Minister Grant Schapps suggested a few weeks ago that councils that make the biggest cuts must be badly managed and those who cut less must be more inefficient. Tosh. What that ignores is that councils like Islington have to pay out more to those on benefits and get less tax in return from council tax payers (as there are fewer of them) than in a place like Richmond. Richer areas have more council tax payers and few benefit recipients. That means Richmond receives a smaller central government subsidy than somewhere like Islington. Thast is quite basic and something I learnt very early on at university.
Fact Checker sets this and Schapps straight. Councils like Islington and Manchester are facing far more cuts than just that to the main central government grant. This means they have no choice but to cut more severely than councils in better off areas. They say:
"it’s clear that deprived areas are worst affected.
"As a poor inner-city authority that gets more Government money than council tax, Manchester’s spending power is down 8.8 per cent in this financial year and 6.7 per cent in 2012/13. In Trafford it’s only 3.8 per cent this year and 3.4 next year."
The poorest pay most under the Tories. Despicable.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
AV: We all dream of a team of Nick Cleggs
I've found the campaign for the alternative vote underwhelming. I really should care much more than I do. Growing up in the 1980s with a dominant Tory party governing on 40% of the vote like they had 100% I looked to a "fairer" voting system to stop that happening again. Labour wanted it, Labour won and no longer cared. I'm not caring that much. I probably should.
The vote presents us a with a critical juncture, to go with change and start to create a much vaunted "new politics" or stick with the status quo. In principle giving more people a little bit of what they want is a good thing. Making more parliamentary seats realistically contested is also a good thing.
On the downside, AV will mean Nick Clegg will always be in power even though he is the least popular of the three leaders Does he deserve to be kingmaker? Neither the Tories or Labour are likely to ever get more than 50% of the total vote ever again, which means the third party will always hold the balance of power. I don't like the idea of smaller parties holding others to ransom.
From a partisan political point of view I like the idea of the referendum failing because it will land a huge blow to the Lib Dems, who have staked their reputation on this single issue. Why do the Lib Dems care so much? Only because it suits their own partisan political ends. They would be the only winners from reform.
I'll vote no because I don't believe that Nick Clegg's desire for AV is one for genuine fairness. I believe it is for selfish political gain. We would be much better off with a full and proper review and the prospect of a truly fair voting system. AV isn't it. AV was a rushed compromise given to the Lib Dems by the Tories to bribe them into coalition.
Nick Clegg put it best himself when he dubbed AV a "miserable little compromise."
The vote presents us a with a critical juncture, to go with change and start to create a much vaunted "new politics" or stick with the status quo. In principle giving more people a little bit of what they want is a good thing. Making more parliamentary seats realistically contested is also a good thing.
On the downside, AV will mean Nick Clegg will always be in power even though he is the least popular of the three leaders Does he deserve to be kingmaker? Neither the Tories or Labour are likely to ever get more than 50% of the total vote ever again, which means the third party will always hold the balance of power. I don't like the idea of smaller parties holding others to ransom.
From a partisan political point of view I like the idea of the referendum failing because it will land a huge blow to the Lib Dems, who have staked their reputation on this single issue. Why do the Lib Dems care so much? Only because it suits their own partisan political ends. They would be the only winners from reform.
I'll vote no because I don't believe that Nick Clegg's desire for AV is one for genuine fairness. I believe it is for selfish political gain. We would be much better off with a full and proper review and the prospect of a truly fair voting system. AV isn't it. AV was a rushed compromise given to the Lib Dems by the Tories to bribe them into coalition.
Nick Clegg put it best himself when he dubbed AV a "miserable little compromise."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Policing of TUC march
Yesterday I gave my comments to the Sunday Times and praised the way that the Metropolitan Police managed Saturday's main TUC march. I know there are other issues regarding the UK Uncut protesters and how they were policed. One problem with the latter is that some people were committing crimes which gave the police an excuse to arrest many of them. Back on the main march there was a family, almost carnival, but serious, atmosphere.
The police clearly tried harder here than they did with previous protests. The Met also tried to embrace social media to give marchers the opportunity to feed back their views on how they were being policed. Commendable, but it didn't work as the survey that they tweeted went down on Saturday morning. It only went up again when the Sunday Times contacted the company running the survey.
The police have moved on and demonstrated willing by opening themselves up to feedback. However, when an organisation takes first steps into social media they have to do it properly. Now the Met have paint on their face, just like their officers, as their foray failed.
If you pay for The Times you can read the article. If you don't, here is what I said:
Labour blogger and social media expert Tim McLoughlin, who was on Saturday’s march and praised the way it was policed, said the Met had much to learn about using the internet to communicate with the public.
“As someone who helps companies embrace social media getting the police to use it to better communicate with the public is commendable. However it is only worth doing if you know how to use it and that the survey site was down at the weekend suggests a lack of thought went into the Met's efforts,” he said.
McLoughlin also criticised the nature of the survey, which is based around multiplechoice questions and offers no opportunity for written answers.
“The survey doesn't give much scope for people to deviate from the small number of set questions asked or to give other feedback. For that the traditional, non-social, channels are the only means to communicate this to the Met.”
The police have moved on and demonstrated willing by opening themselves up to feedback. However, when an organisation takes first steps into social media they have to do it properly. Now the Met have paint on their face, just like their officers, as their foray failed.
If you pay for The Times you can read the article. If you don't, here is what I said:
Labour blogger and social media expert Tim McLoughlin, who was on Saturday’s march and praised the way it was policed, said the Met had much to learn about using the internet to communicate with the public.
“As someone who helps companies embrace social media getting the police to use it to better communicate with the public is commendable. However it is only worth doing if you know how to use it and that the survey site was down at the weekend suggests a lack of thought went into the Met's efforts,” he said.
McLoughlin also criticised the nature of the survey, which is based around multiplechoice questions and offers no opportunity for written answers.
“The survey doesn't give much scope for people to deviate from the small number of set questions asked or to give other feedback. For that the traditional, non-social, channels are the only means to communicate this to the Met.”
Monday, March 28, 2011
Marching on together
I marched on Saturday for the first time in my life. I doubt anything will change, the Tories will hold their nerve and carry on cutting regardless. What Saturday did show was a great resolve and commitment to show that the country doesn't support what is happening.
Living standards are falling substantially. Taxes are going up, which will hit the poorest hardest. The government is putting thousands of people onto the dole. That won't help as taxpayers then become a burden on the state. It is clear that the burden of paying for the deficit to be reduced won't be borne by those with the "broadest shoulders". How can it be when VAT is up and the top rate of income tax will be cut?
I got the feeling that large numbers of the people marching on Saturday, like myself, were not natural protesters. There was a fantastic family atmosphere on the main march with lots of fancy dress and music. That belied the serious issues behind the march but showed that it was nothing like the previous student protests.
What now? There'll be more of the same from the Tories while Nick Clegg will continue to make himself unpopular. In an interview with the Financial Times today he says that a Liberal Democrat budget would have been "very close" to last week's. This hot on the tails of Clegg being caught on microphone saying that there is little for his party and their Tory chums to disagree on.
Labour needs to take advantage of the swell of support for an alternative to the government agenda. According to a YouGov survey the public backs the TUC and the march, with 52% in favour and 31% against. That shows a country divided but one in which the majority is against what is happening. The biggest question is whether this translates to election results in May. It probably will and the government will brush it off as mid-term blues and say they expected the result.
For the march and the elections to mean anything they have to be the start of consistent knock-backs for the government. If that happens their confidence might suffer and the next general election would be much more interesting. Protest was the easy part. The hardest part is keeping public confidence for an alternative and winning that support in the long term.
Living standards are falling substantially. Taxes are going up, which will hit the poorest hardest. The government is putting thousands of people onto the dole. That won't help as taxpayers then become a burden on the state. It is clear that the burden of paying for the deficit to be reduced won't be borne by those with the "broadest shoulders". How can it be when VAT is up and the top rate of income tax will be cut?
I got the feeling that large numbers of the people marching on Saturday, like myself, were not natural protesters. There was a fantastic family atmosphere on the main march with lots of fancy dress and music. That belied the serious issues behind the march but showed that it was nothing like the previous student protests.
What now? There'll be more of the same from the Tories while Nick Clegg will continue to make himself unpopular. In an interview with the Financial Times today he says that a Liberal Democrat budget would have been "very close" to last week's. This hot on the tails of Clegg being caught on microphone saying that there is little for his party and their Tory chums to disagree on.
Labour needs to take advantage of the swell of support for an alternative to the government agenda. According to a YouGov survey the public backs the TUC and the march, with 52% in favour and 31% against. That shows a country divided but one in which the majority is against what is happening. The biggest question is whether this translates to election results in May. It probably will and the government will brush it off as mid-term blues and say they expected the result.
For the march and the elections to mean anything they have to be the start of consistent knock-backs for the government. If that happens their confidence might suffer and the next general election would be much more interesting. Protest was the easy part. The hardest part is keeping public confidence for an alternative and winning that support in the long term.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Dirty Den Dover
The European Parliament gravy train hit the buffers with a huge bang today for disgraced Tory MEP Den Dover. He has stolen £345,000 from the taxpayer. That is fraud on a huge scale. Theft. Dover should be
locked up, though that will cost taxpayers even more money.
After being found guilty two years ago thief Dover refused to pay the money back. Of course he should pay it back. That isn't enough. I can't quite understand how officials, whether they are politicians or other public servants, can steal from the public purse and then just offer to pay it back. I'm quite sure most shoplifters get prosecuted when they get caught rather than just saying: "fair enough, you caught me, I'll just give all that stuff I nicked back and we'll call it quits." Somehow these people think that is OK. It isn't.
locked up, though that will cost taxpayers even more money.
After being found guilty two years ago thief Dover refused to pay the money back. Of course he should pay it back. That isn't enough. I can't quite understand how officials, whether they are politicians or other public servants, can steal from the public purse and then just offer to pay it back. I'm quite sure most shoplifters get prosecuted when they get caught rather than just saying: "fair enough, you caught me, I'll just give all that stuff I nicked back and we'll call it quits." Somehow these people think that is OK. It isn't.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Budget 2011: plus ca change
Today's budget has done little more than tinker around the edges of plans already announced by the Tories' emergency budget. The Tories are not about to change tack on the economy and today's budget demonstrated that. There was some window dressing, such as painting changes to personal and fuel tax as reductions when they are far from that. Tomorrow's newspapers with personal budget calculators will show that.
Pickpocket Gideon Osborne has some nerve. When he claims that moving personal allowances for tax will mean we will be better off. We're all paying more in VAT, higher fuel costs and the inflation it causes. Everyone pays VAT. VAT goes on fuel so even though some items like food are excluded the cost of food goes up as the fuel required to get food to consumers costs more. VAT on fuel means any tinkering with fuel duty is more than wiped out.
Ed Miliband's response highlighted the holes in the Tories' strategy. Their medicine is painful. Disposable income, earnings and living standards are falling while unemployment and inflation are rising. Gideon wants people to thank him once this aggressive treatment has worked. I'm not sure it will and whatever happens most people won't thank him for hitting them in the pocket.
If ever there was an example of why you can't afford the Tories, this is it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Lembit Opik is a joke
Lembit Opik's "Citizen Lem" video is meant to promote his bid to become London mayor next year. It is meant in jest but unfortunately the joke is on and not with Lem.
Citizen Lem from Mancha Productions on Vimeo.
The Lib Dems have never been serious contenders in any of the London mayoral elections and Lembit's "bid" symbolises a party lurching from disaster to laughing stock.
Mark Pack points out that no Lib Dem London assembly members, council leaders or MPs are backing the bid. That doesn't mean much though as there are only three Lib Dem assembly members, two council leaders and seven MPs after poor results for the party in 2010.
Before propping up the Tories nationally the Lib Dems already lost support across London. Before last year's election Lembit could have solicited support from eight council leaders. Give it another year after the regional elections on Soctland and Wales, locals in England and the London assembly elections and we'll see how much is left for the Lib Dems.
Poor Lembit. He makes great video, just not quite on topic.
Citizen Lem from Mancha Productions on Vimeo.
The Lib Dems have never been serious contenders in any of the London mayoral elections and Lembit's "bid" symbolises a party lurching from disaster to laughing stock.
Mark Pack points out that no Lib Dem London assembly members, council leaders or MPs are backing the bid. That doesn't mean much though as there are only three Lib Dem assembly members, two council leaders and seven MPs after poor results for the party in 2010.
Before propping up the Tories nationally the Lib Dems already lost support across London. Before last year's election Lembit could have solicited support from eight council leaders. Give it another year after the regional elections on Soctland and Wales, locals in England and the London assembly elections and we'll see how much is left for the Lib Dems.
Poor Lembit. He makes great video, just not quite on topic.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Do problems lurk for Labour?
Which Ed will succeed in making Labour credible again? Ed Miliband is continuing to grow into leadership and fight for his status while Ed Balls is carrying Labour's fight to the Tories.
Last week saw discussion about whether Miliband's lack of support will damage Labour's chances of success under him. The jury is still out. It is clear that the media will continue to paint Miliband fatal to the party's chances of success. This early into the job and with so many unknowns ahead it is hard to say. There is the reduction in the number of MPs, the AV referendum and the risk of a double-dip recession. It is certain the political landscape will change dramatically over the next two to three years. Many paint this is a huge threat to Labour but Miliband should see this as a huge opportunity.
Much of Tim Montgomerie's weekend Telegraph article resonated with me. Yes, he writes for the Telegraph and runs Conservativehome. Yes, he is also right even though he is a Tory. He highlighted several issues that Labour needs to address to succeed, one of which included Miliband himself, but also:
Last week saw discussion about whether Miliband's lack of support will damage Labour's chances of success under him. The jury is still out. It is clear that the media will continue to paint Miliband fatal to the party's chances of success. This early into the job and with so many unknowns ahead it is hard to say. There is the reduction in the number of MPs, the AV referendum and the risk of a double-dip recession. It is certain the political landscape will change dramatically over the next two to three years. Many paint this is a huge threat to Labour but Miliband should see this as a huge opportunity.
Much of Tim Montgomerie's weekend Telegraph article resonated with me. Yes, he writes for the Telegraph and runs Conservativehome. Yes, he is also right even though he is a Tory. He highlighted several issues that Labour needs to address to succeed, one of which included Miliband himself, but also:
- Are Labour too reliant on Tory failure to grant them success by default
- How will Labour win in the South? Just as Cameron had to win outside the South
- Ed Balls seems to have the answers that (he suggests) Miliband lacks
The Labour Party has to address these problems. The party cannot rely on the other side messing up - that is not a long-term and stable basis for power. It might work in the short term but will only lead to problems. If you win by default you will have nothing positive to offer the country with your power.
Continuing to highlight falling living standards and hammering home that it doesn't have to be like this is one part of that strategy. There needs to be more, which includes fighting the claim, that currently sticks, that Labour and not the global financial crisis is to blame for the country's deficit.
Which Ed comes out of that struggle with the most to show isn't clear. They can do it together, or one of them could do it alone. Could it be that another Ed scuppers the other Miliband's chances of leading Labour in the future?
Friday, March 18, 2011
Is the budget the Tories last chance?
The Spectator has suggested that next week's Tory budget as a last chance saloon to pull this terribly unpopular government from the doldrums. The Tory claims to be boosting the economy certainly sound increasingly hollow to the extent that I don't think even they believe it. The realities that change doesn't always happen that quickly in government are hitting home but perhaps this is a good thing if it shields the country from the worst Tory changes for longer.
The public, 71% of whom think their cuts are too far and too fast, will not like next week's budget, or the effect of Gideon Osborne's austerity that will inevitably follow. The Tory government is already incredibly unpopular but none of that really matters because barring a huge fall out with the Lib Dems this government will go the distance. No matter how unpopular the government is it will survive, until 2015 at least.
The public, 71% of whom think their cuts are too far and too fast, will not like next week's budget, or the effect of Gideon Osborne's austerity that will inevitably follow. The Tory government is already incredibly unpopular but none of that really matters because barring a huge fall out with the Lib Dems this government will go the distance. No matter how unpopular the government is it will survive, until 2015 at least.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Does it matter if Miliband isn't loved?
Looking beyond the headline opinion polls that currently show Labour with a healthy ten point lead over the Tories it appears that Ed Miliband is the least popular of the three main party leaders. Even less than Nick Clegg. He hasn't been in the job very long which is certainly a factor, together with him not having been the most high profile minister in the former government.
As Miliband's recognition grows I expect his rating to improve. He will benefit from not being a Tory or Nick Clegg. That isn't enough to sustain him though. He needs to be liked and must be seen as a credible prime minister if he is to take Labour to victory. He has more time though the media will try and put him on the football manager style pedestal and stir up suggestions that he isn't up to the job.
The forthcoming Scottish, Welsh and English local elections provide the first test. The AV referendum is interesting too, for two reasons. First, if Labour are popular but Miliband less so Labour could "win" the next election much like the Tories did in 2010 - without a majority. Second, under those circumstances but with AV he would have to do a deal with the similarly unpopular Nick Clegg's Lib Dems. Right now that seems like a very odd scenario but it could well come to fruition.
As Miliband's recognition grows I expect his rating to improve. He will benefit from not being a Tory or Nick Clegg. That isn't enough to sustain him though. He needs to be liked and must be seen as a credible prime minister if he is to take Labour to victory. He has more time though the media will try and put him on the football manager style pedestal and stir up suggestions that he isn't up to the job.
The forthcoming Scottish, Welsh and English local elections provide the first test. The AV referendum is interesting too, for two reasons. First, if Labour are popular but Miliband less so Labour could "win" the next election much like the Tories did in 2010 - without a majority. Second, under those circumstances but with AV he would have to do a deal with the similarly unpopular Nick Clegg's Lib Dems. Right now that seems like a very odd scenario but it could well come to fruition.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Islington Lib Dems win "opposition group of the year"
That the Lib Dems awarded their rump of councillors in Islington "opposition group of the year" at last weekend's spring conference is laughable.
Lets look at their achievments in a bit more detail:
- When I moved to Islington in 2004 Lib Dems outnumbered Labour councillors by 3:1. Last year the Lib Dems were routed and Labour now outnumber the Lib Dem councillors by 3:1, losing what was once their flagship council
- Islington South and Finsbury was the number one Labour - Lib Dem marginal in the country. After a deluge of leaflets from Bridget Fox this is now a reasonably safe Labour seat for Emily Thornberry
- The rump of councillors have rarely been in full attendance at council meetings
- They have issued what I assume was satirical leaflet stating "Nick Clegg keeps his promises"! - what about tuition fees? Er...
- Celebrated dirty politics: this was one of the best read blogs of the year, which also made the local media and showed the outside world what most of us who have campaigned for Labour in Islington already knew. They are cynical, opportunist and play dirty, as shown by them having to pay Thornberry compensation for telling lies on their leaflets
Lib Dems winning here? No thanks!
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Lib Dem bashing: they only have themselves to blame
Nick Clegg shall be hoisted by his own petard. He doesn't want students to graduate with £20,000 of debt. He certainly agrees with that, students will be in at least £27,000 of debt thanks to him. It is so easy to watch video after video of Nick Clegg telling us all before the election of how he wanted to help students and to bring in a new, open politics. It hasn't really happened like that has it?
The Lib Dems are currently on 9%, behind "other."
The Lib Dems are currently on 9%, behind "other."
Monday, March 14, 2011
Ken for mayor?
Ken Livingstone's weekend Politics Show interview gave a taste of the arguments and attacks that will become both more prominent and prevalent as we head towards next year's mayoral election in London.
The Tories will attack and will make it personal. Having been at the top of Labour's London politics for around the same number of years that I have been alive, Ken has a history of achievements and also (perceived) failures. His opponents will attack him and will be quick to highlight that he has already been rejected by London's voters before.
At the Labour mayoral hustings I went to Ken was forthright in stating his campaign would focus on opposing Tory cuts. This will get him so far in picking up votes from anti-Tories and perhaps some from those who deserted him in 2008. Will it be enough? I'm not sure, the media attacks will be strong and will reinforce negative sentiment against him.
Ken was a hate figure for many in 2008 and was tired. To win he needs to get his enthusiasm and energy back. Otherwise he may be too easy to cast off. He says he suffered at association with a then unpopular Labour government. This presents the interesting contrast with Boris Johnson having to fend off attacks of association with an increasingly unpopular Tory government. As Alastair Campbell tweeeted me: the election depends on that - together with Ken having enough energy to convince London he has new ideas.
Ken has a good record, much better than that of the incumbent. Ken has been accused of being a (former) Zone 1 mayor. This is unfair and Ken points out his initiative of neighbourhood policing that gave the same levels of police coverage to all parts of London. Buses got better in the suburbs, particularly night buses. This is something I noticed having grown up in zone 6. Fares were (then) as affordable as they have ever been in London and Ken will seek to do that again. I'd hope that was possible in the face of significant central government cuts though I'm not sure. Having built up a £1.2b of reserves he would use them to protect Londoners from the worst of government cuts.
Fair fares and no cuts to front-line policing will be his flagship policies. These will undoubtedly be popular. That is the easy part. The hard part is convincing a hostile media who have built up several decades of pent up opposition to Ken Livingstone .
The Tories will attack and will make it personal. Having been at the top of Labour's London politics for around the same number of years that I have been alive, Ken has a history of achievements and also (perceived) failures. His opponents will attack him and will be quick to highlight that he has already been rejected by London's voters before.
At the Labour mayoral hustings I went to Ken was forthright in stating his campaign would focus on opposing Tory cuts. This will get him so far in picking up votes from anti-Tories and perhaps some from those who deserted him in 2008. Will it be enough? I'm not sure, the media attacks will be strong and will reinforce negative sentiment against him.
Ken was a hate figure for many in 2008 and was tired. To win he needs to get his enthusiasm and energy back. Otherwise he may be too easy to cast off. He says he suffered at association with a then unpopular Labour government. This presents the interesting contrast with Boris Johnson having to fend off attacks of association with an increasingly unpopular Tory government. As Alastair Campbell tweeeted me: the election depends on that - together with Ken having enough energy to convince London he has new ideas.
Ken has a good record, much better than that of the incumbent. Ken has been accused of being a (former) Zone 1 mayor. This is unfair and Ken points out his initiative of neighbourhood policing that gave the same levels of police coverage to all parts of London. Buses got better in the suburbs, particularly night buses. This is something I noticed having grown up in zone 6. Fares were (then) as affordable as they have ever been in London and Ken will seek to do that again. I'd hope that was possible in the face of significant central government cuts though I'm not sure. Having built up a £1.2b of reserves he would use them to protect Londoners from the worst of government cuts.
Fair fares and no cuts to front-line policing will be his flagship policies. These will undoubtedly be popular. That is the easy part. The hard part is convincing a hostile media who have built up several decades of pent up opposition to Ken Livingstone .
Ed Mili-Balls would tax the banks again - divided Britain
I'm sure the headlines will focus on Labour's announcement today that a bankers' bonus tax should be levied for a second time. This was just a part of Eds Miliband and Balls presenting their alternative to the savage cuts of the Tories.
I'm personally interested to see how well this plays with the public. Bankers were a popular and easy target a year ago. The bosses of the main UK banks have called on the media, public and politicians to "move on" and let the industry and economy progress. This has been in the face of fierce and continued criticism from certain politicians, notably Chuka Umuna and Lib Dem Matthew Oakeshott.
I suspect that the extra bankers' tax will come in for some media and political criticism from those on the right. The timing is also interesting though, coming just a couple of weeks before thousands take to the London streets to protest against the current government's programme of cuts.
This all points us in the direction of partisan politics and a divided country. It feels like politics is getting argumentative and Ed Balls will be central to this - a role I'm sure he is relishing.
I'm personally interested to see how well this plays with the public. Bankers were a popular and easy target a year ago. The bosses of the main UK banks have called on the media, public and politicians to "move on" and let the industry and economy progress. This has been in the face of fierce and continued criticism from certain politicians, notably Chuka Umuna and Lib Dem Matthew Oakeshott.
I suspect that the extra bankers' tax will come in for some media and political criticism from those on the right. The timing is also interesting though, coming just a couple of weeks before thousands take to the London streets to protest against the current government's programme of cuts.
This all points us in the direction of partisan politics and a divided country. It feels like politics is getting argumentative and Ed Balls will be central to this - a role I'm sure he is relishing.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Does anyone even know what an Oyster Extension Permit is?
Apparently London's train companies have agreed to abolish the totally confusing and bureaucratic Oyster Extension Permit. For those that don't know, if you are travelling through London on an Oyster season ticket and want to use some pay as you go money to top up your journey beyond your zones you have to get one of these permits if your extended journey is on a train. If you stick to the tube or Overground you are fine. Most people didn't know as how would anyone sensible expect to have to do such a thing?
It would be easier to know whether this insane system has been abolished had mayor Boris Johnson stuck to his 2008 manifesto pledge to hold a "public" rail summit. Instead it was held in private so we only know about this from whatever has leaked out. If it is true then it signals progress.
Hopefully getting around London will be much easier and less confusing. Soon. Perhaps. Probably. Bring on 2012.
It would be easier to know whether this insane system has been abolished had mayor Boris Johnson stuck to his 2008 manifesto pledge to hold a "public" rail summit. Instead it was held in private so we only know about this from whatever has leaked out. If it is true then it signals progress.
Hopefully getting around London will be much easier and less confusing. Soon. Perhaps. Probably. Bring on 2012.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Lib Dem bashing
Medhi Hasan suggests that the coalition has exposed "Labour's worst tribalist tendencies". To some extent this is true. The party has enjoyed baiting the Lib Dems as a diversion from its own problems: losing power. I admit that I've enjoyed taking part, though that emanates more from having campaigned directly against the Lib Dems in Islington for many years. Locally they have always been my foe.
Hasan argues that Lib Dem baiting is a problem for Labour because it ignores the common ground between the two parties. He highlights rebels in the Lib Dem ranks, such as Charles Kennedy and Lord Oakeshott. Labour should extend an olive branch to disaffected Lib Dems, because the social democratic arm of that party historically derives from Labour and there is some common ground. That isn't enough for me. Just as the Lib Dems held the Labour Party accountable for the actions of the leadership when in power, I feel we must do the same. We're involved in a competitive electoral fight. The Lib Dems know where we are.
If the "natural home for Lib Dems is on the left" they need to start proving that by their actions in government, at their conferences and if that doesn't work they should find themselves a new home while they still have the chance.
Hasan argues that Lib Dem baiting is a problem for Labour because it ignores the common ground between the two parties. He highlights rebels in the Lib Dem ranks, such as Charles Kennedy and Lord Oakeshott. Labour should extend an olive branch to disaffected Lib Dems, because the social democratic arm of that party historically derives from Labour and there is some common ground. That isn't enough for me. Just as the Lib Dems held the Labour Party accountable for the actions of the leadership when in power, I feel we must do the same. We're involved in a competitive electoral fight. The Lib Dems know where we are.
If the "natural home for Lib Dems is on the left" they need to start proving that by their actions in government, at their conferences and if that doesn't work they should find themselves a new home while they still have the chance.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Miliband's momentum?
I had been waiting for Ed Miliband to grow into his role as Labour leader. Watching PMQs today positive signs were apparent. He comes across clearer that in his early days in charge, though there was no killer punch. He has a little bit to go before he is able to match Cameron's wit and ease at the despatch box. None of this matters too much as we can all remember William Hague repeatedly getting the better of Tony Blair at PMQs yet he got nowhere because he just wasn't credible.
What matters for Ed Miliband is whether he and his team can take advantage of the Tories' unpopularity. For that to make an impact a clear and consistent narrative has be repeatedly communicated. His media image is improving with a real test around the corner in May's local elections. That is his first opportunity to gain momentum. All successful opposition leaders need to gain that to show that are heading towards power and that the government is on the way out.
Labour has opened up a consistent five plus point lead over the Tories. That is the kind of killer punch and momentum Ed Miliband needs. I hope it is reflected in the real opinion poll in May.
What matters for Ed Miliband is whether he and his team can take advantage of the Tories' unpopularity. For that to make an impact a clear and consistent narrative has be repeatedly communicated. His media image is improving with a real test around the corner in May's local elections. That is his first opportunity to gain momentum. All successful opposition leaders need to gain that to show that are heading towards power and that the government is on the way out.
Labour has opened up a consistent five plus point lead over the Tories. That is the kind of killer punch and momentum Ed Miliband needs. I hope it is reflected in the real opinion poll in May.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Lib Dem wipeout?
Much has been made of the Lib Dems' latest low in finishing sixth in this week's Barnsley by-election. Does this really signal the descent into oblivion for the Tory lap-dogs? The prospects don't look good for them. All those who were duped into thinking Clegg's party were actually of the progressive left and voted for them instead of Labour at the election will surely continue to desert the yellow.
That prognosis could be too simplistic. Boundary changes will take many seats away from Labour at the next election. Couple that with unclear prospects for the AV referendum and there could be a very different political landscape in the near future. The Tories are likely to suffer from being a very unpopiular government.
This presents a huge political opportunity for Ed Miliband. He has to highlight splits within the Lib Dem support, Barnsley showed that many of these will come back to Labour. More crucially he and Ed Balls have to gain credibility for alternative economic policies to the slash and burn from the Tories.
At the moment there is so much uncertainty with the only certainty that the Lib Dems will wretch to more new lows before an election in four years that could be anyone's.
That prognosis could be too simplistic. Boundary changes will take many seats away from Labour at the next election. Couple that with unclear prospects for the AV referendum and there could be a very different political landscape in the near future. The Tories are likely to suffer from being a very unpopiular government.
This presents a huge political opportunity for Ed Miliband. He has to highlight splits within the Lib Dem support, Barnsley showed that many of these will come back to Labour. More crucially he and Ed Balls have to gain credibility for alternative economic policies to the slash and burn from the Tories.
At the moment there is so much uncertainty with the only certainty that the Lib Dems will wretch to more new lows before an election in four years that could be anyone's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)