Archive for April, 2011

Two Eds are better than one

21/04/2011, 01:30:53 PM

by David Talbot

As Gordon Brown succumbed to the inevitable late on that May evening – with an emotional and dignified statement to end his tumultuous premiership – the final chapter of New Labour was being written. A project that had started in earnest in the mid 1990s had met a sorry end. Achieving a meagre 29% of the vote would make Michael Foot blush, but as the former prime minster left number 10 for the last time, two young loyal lieutenants that had served the party since the early 1990s slipped into opposition determined to bring Labour back to the cusp of power.

The howl of indignation across vast swathes of the press and the Blairite bastions at the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader was an object lesson in frustrated establishment entitlement. His election was not ordained, the media had thrown its weight behind his brother, David, as the continuity candidate – and so had the New Labour hierarchy.

It didn’t take long for the repercussions to start, the Murdoch press predicted imminent disaster, the ever buffoonish Sun labeled him ‘Red Ed’ and disgruntled former ministers began spitting poison around the Manchester conference bars.

The very fact that Ed Miliband won was due in part because he caught a wave of opinion and optimism within the labour movement that was determined to see the party move on from New Labour and its discredited agenda of triangulation, authoritarianism and penchant for privatisation. Miliband offered a new vision and, even in these early stages, there can be no serious doubt that he represents a real and significant shift beyond New Labour politics. The danger is not this breach of the old order, but that the diehard Blairites, who apparently have no clue why Labour lost 5 million votes, continue to snipe and undermine the new leadership. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour needs to stop being the bossing and interfering party

21/04/2011, 08:39:28 AM

by Peter Watt

Last week’s decision to end the so called bin-taxes was clever politics by the government.  And as there hasn’t been an awful lot of clever politics recently by the government, I thought that it was significant. What was particularly clever was that the weekend “announcement” was actually an announcement that the ending of bin taxes would be announced in about a month’s time.

But the government knows that the local elections and AV referendum (whatever the result) are going to be pretty challenging for them. They know that there is not a lot that they can do to alter that. So they have decided to keep reminding people of what they think the public see as Labour weakness. So they might lose the battle in the next month, but they will keep sowing the seeds of an election victory in 2015. These reminders obviously include playing the blame game on the deficit and attacking Labour’s economic competence. But it also involves something else. Something more personally emotional for many voters. A perceived tendency by the last Labour government to overly interfere in people’s lives. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Thursday News Review

21/04/2011, 06:54:39 AM

Guardianistas go negative – at last

A leading Labour figure in the campaign for a no vote in the alternative vote referendum has praised its gutter politics, saying there are too many people on the liberal left who think politics is a spectator sport. Dan Hodges, a paid consultant to the no campaign until two weeks ago, ridiculed the yes campaign’s style, saying that gutter politics is where political battles are won and lost. His remarks come as allies of Nick Clegg have confirmed that the deputy prime minister feels David Cameronis breaking a private pact between the two men to maintain a low profile during the campaigning. Clegg refused to discuss the prime minister’s promise on the BBC, but will make a speech directly attacking first past the post. Clegg’s allies say the betrayal of the promise will have long-term consequences for the coalition’s future conduct. Hodges claims the yes campaign has not got a prayer in the referendum on 5 May. He writes in article for the website Labour Uncut: “I thought one of the positive legacies of Blairism was that it had finally put some lead into the progressive pencil. Those countless debates about ‘should we go positive… should we go negative’, ‘we mustn’t be too aggressive, the public don’t like it, ya da, ya da, yah’. All that had gone. Once we’d been campaigners. Now we were street fighters. If someone hit hard and low, we’d hit lower and harder.” – the Guardian

Whilst Clegg downplays his own importance

Nick Clegg has downplayed the effect his unpopularity could have in the AV referendum. In an increasingly personal campaign that has seen the ‘no’ campaign splash pictures of Nick Clegg across its literature, the deputy prime minister said it would be “daft” to vote against electoral change because of one politician. “I really don’t think that people are so daft that when they’re asked to have this once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the electoral system they’re going to do it based on what they think about one party or one politician,” he told BBC Breakfast. The deputy prime minister also explained his much-quoted remark before the election that AV was a “miserable little compromise. What I was actually referring to was Gordon Brown’s suggestion very late in the day in his government of making changes which everyone knew would not come into effect,” he said. – politics.co.uk

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg insists he is thick-skinned enough to deal with the personal attacks he has sustained in the run-up to the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum. The Liberal Democrat leader has been repeatedly mocked by those in the “No to AV” campaign, which is backed by Prime Minister David Cameron. Mr Clegg denied suggestions his stance on the referendum was causing problems with his working relationship with Mr Cameron – but said the No camp’s tactics were becoming “desperate”. He said: “I’ve been in politics long enough to know when people start mudslinging and start playing the man rather than the ball they are rather desperate. – the Scotsman

Now the teachers are unhappy with the coalition

Activists interrupted a speech by Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, with shouts of “rubbish” and “not true” as he addressed a union conference in Liverpool. Speaking to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, he claimed that proposed Government changes to the teachers’ pension scheme would protect their “gold standard” retirement fund. But members – traditionally viewed as more moderate than other classroom unions – repeatedly barracked the minister, saying he failed to understand their concerns. One activist also accused Mr Gibb’s boss, Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, of “political cowardice” for failing to address the annual conference in person. It is the first time teachers have publicly barracked a Coalition minister since the Government was formed last year. A series of Labour ministers were subjected to high-profile attacks over issues such as class sizes and national testing. The ATL claims the Government’s reforms, including a rise in pension contributions, will force them to work for longer and receive less when they retire. – the Telegraph

The schools minister, Nick Gibb, was heckled and jeered by teachers as he attempted to justify proposed changes to their pensions that have prompted a ballot for industrial action. When Gibb told delegates at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers annual conference in Liverpool: “I fully understand the strength of feeling on this,” and said teachers’ pensions remained a priority, he was greeted by shouts of “no, you don’t” and “rubbish” – along with calls for evidence of the need for change. ATL delegates voted to ballot for strike action over pensions, which could see schools shut by June. The union fears the changes will mean teachers working longer, paying increased contributions and receiving less when they retire. Teachers are also fiercely opposed to the coalition’s education changes, with a survey underlining the challenge facing the government. The survey commissioned by the Sutton Trust found only 8% of teachers believe free schools will raise standards, while 69% believe the expansion of academies will lead to greater social segregation. – the Guardian

He will wear a morning suit after all

David Cameron yesterday caved into his inner toff by agreeing to wear a traditional morning coat to the royal wedding. Downing Street had briefed that the PM would wear a lounge suit, because he did not want to remind voters of his posh past. But it was claimed yesterday that he will wear the full waistcoat and tails next week. A source close to the PM told the Daily Telegraph: “Of course he’s got to wear tails. He knows that. He’s the Prime Minister, it’s the Royal Family, there will be foreign dignitaries present. It is only proper that he dresses for the importance of the occasion.” Downing Street refused to confirm that the PM, after days of dithering, had now opted for a morning suit – or whether he will be wearing a top hat. – the Mirror

When Gordon Brown wore a lounge suit at the Mansion House, some were willing to forgive it as an eccentric piece of ideological nonconformity. But even Mr Brown wore a white tie and tail coat for a state banquet at Buckingham Palace. So when it was bruited that David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would be wearing a lounge suit to the wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton, there was more public outrage than perhaps he bargained for. For this is not a wedding of private individuals. As a semi-state occasion, the monarch will be present and foreign heads of state will attend. The British head of Government is invited in his official role, not merely for his agreeable small talk. “Reclothe us in our rightful mind,” says the popular hymn. We congratulate Mr Cameron on his change of mind – soon to be seen in a change of clothes. – the Telegraph

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Tom Watson’s apologetic addendum to his piece on Douglas Alexander and Libya

20/04/2011, 06:32:42 PM

In an unusual move, Tom Watson has added a caveat to his article adversely criticising Douglas Alexander’s refusal to back a recall of Parliament.

His apologetic addendum to this morning’s piece reads:

West Bromwich, 18.25

On re-reading this article, I find that, not for the first time, I’ve been too harsh on Douglas Alexander. He’s not making the calls, Hague is. He’s got the difficult task of reacting very quickly to a fast changing policy. So I regret the harsh tone of the piece. Sorry Douglas. To be fair, I should have said how he completely exposed coalition incompetence in the early days of the conflict over the evacuation. But I’m seriously worried about mission creep. And parliament hasn’t been consulted. Ministers should be held to account.

Whatever else you may say about Watson, he is never short of surprises.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The show goes on: bring back Prezza

20/04/2011, 03:30:23 PM

by Kevin Meagher

John Prescott was supposed to have gone to seed with the passing of the Blair era. His future lay in regaling well-heeled passengers on cruise liners about his forty years in Parliament. But the old sea dog keeps coming back into port. So much so that his retirement from the frontline is barely discernable.

Labour’s Emeritus Deputy Leader has been busy. He led the Go Fourth campaign to get Labour ready for last year’s general election. He has become an unlikely star of Twitter, supplying a constant stream of characteristically pithy opinions. In fact, he has transcended politics altogether and entered popular culture.

He had a cameo role playing himself in the BBC comedy Gavin and Stacey. Then he popped up presenting a documentary about class with wife Pauline. Now he’s sending himself up in that advert for a price comparison website (which he says helps fund his office in the House of Lords).

And when he’s not busy leading the charge against AV, he’s rattling cages about the phone-hacking scandal; jousting on Channel Four’s zeitgeist-y 10 O’clock Show the other week with former News of the World hack Paul McMullen.

Some retirement. But there’s not much effort involved. Prescott’s secret is that the words coming out of his mouth are the same as the thoughts in his head. That nanosecond between brain messages forming into words is detectable to the electorate. They know that politicians apply a filter before saying anything. They sense they are not being told the unvarnished truth. That’s why all MPs are bunched together in the public’s mind as conniving charlatans. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

We should recall Parliament, but Douglas is sitting on his hands

20/04/2011, 11:30:32 AM

by Tom Watson

There are few issues more important for our Parliament than sending British troops to a hostile country to support an unknown opposition fighting a raggedy civil war against a brutal dictator.

Questioning him on Friday 18 March after the government statement on Libya, David Winnick asked the prime minister:

“despite all that the prime minister has said about reservations – no ground troops and so forth – does he recognise that in the country at large there is bound to be great anxiety that we could be dragged, through escalation, into a third war in nine years? Therefore, will the prime minister make sure that there are daily – or at least very regular reports to the House of Commons, so we avoid a third war”?

David Cameron replied:

“…there should be regular statements updating the House. The point the honourable gentleman makes about no ground troops and no occupying force is vital. That is in the UN security council resolution; it is the reassurance that we can give to people that that is not part of our aims – it is not what the UN wants, it is not what the Arab league wants, it is not what Britain wants. That is clearly a limitation on our ability to act, but it is absolutely right, and I think people will be reassured by it”.

I read in today’s papers that we are sending troops to Libya, or as the government describes them “military liaison advisory teams”.

Yesterday, a number of Conservative MPs called for Parliament to be recalled. The government has not responded. While driving my children to a well known West Midlands theme park, I’m sure I heard Douglas Alexander on the radio agreeing that there was no need bring MPs back to discuss the matter.

I’m getting prematurely long in the tooth but I feel Douglas has made a mistake. He should have pressured a government minister to come to the House. It would have allowed MPs who worry about our Libya campaign to seek assurances that this does not represent mission creep. Personally, I don’t need to ask those questions. I know it is.

A recall would allow me, and others, to test the wisdom of David Cameron. David is very good at saying things. He’s a good wordsmith. He emotes. But he always leaves me with the sense that he’s basically just a bullshitter. It often feels like he is not fully formed in his views. You have to be up close to this set of ministers to get the full picture. Press statements are not enough.

It’s the psychology of our current crop of leaders that gives the game away. Unlike David Cameron, William Hague is a transparent politician. You always know what he is doing and thinking, even when his words suggest something different.

When William Hague said that sending “military liaison advisory teams” does not represent “boots on the ground”, I thought “oh my God, we’re sending in ground troops”.

Maybe Douglas knows a different William Hague and David Cameron. I would imagine he’ll be given special briefings on privy council terms. He probably accepts telephone calls, made by arrangement between their respective private offices for mutually beneficial times in their busy diaries.

Maybe that’s why he said on the radio that on this occasion he was satisfied by the government explanation of the need to send in special military liaison teams. Despite this, he shouldn’t be so quick to sit on his hands when backbenchers express legitimate concerns.

A recall of Parliament is a pain for all concerned. We should have one all the same. We’re sending in troops, for God’s sake. And look where that got us last time.

Tom Watson is Labour MP for West Bromwich East.

Addendum

West Bromwich, 18.25

On re-reading this article, I find that, not for the first time, I’ve been too harsh on Douglas Alexander. He’s not making the calls, Hague is. He’s got the difficult task of reacting very quickly to a fast changing policy. So I regret the harsh tone of the piece. Sorry Douglas. To be fair, I should have said how he completely exposed coalition incompetence in the early days of the conflict over the evacuation. But I’m seriously worried about mission creep. And parliament hasn’t been consulted. Ministers should be held to account.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

What will the Guardianistas do if we defy them and vote “no”?

20/04/2011, 07:00:14 AM

by Dan Hodges

I’m starting to feel sorry for the Yes campaign. Genuinely. They’ve got some good staffers. People with a sincere commitment to their cause.

But they haven’t got a prayer. And the reason they haven’t got a prayer is too many of their  own supporters don’t actually care whether they win or they lose.

Watching the Yes campaign from afar is like watching the Labour party in the late eighties. By then, the harder edges of dogma and ideology had been blunted. There was a realisation that the principle meant little without power. But while there was an intellectual acceptance of the need to secure office, the hunger was lacking. We wanted to win. But not quite enough.

It’s the same with those who are supposedly fighting for a change in our voting system. They’re not actually fighting at all. They’re pontificating. Posturing. Striking a pose.

Get hold of  yesterday’s Guardian leader. “Reformists have just 16 days to transform things”, it warns, “by countering a campaign of unremitting negativity, whose garish posters are explicit in saying that because the NHS matters, democracy doesn’t, and carry the implicit message ‘vote no or the baby gets it’”.

It then points out, “Dismal as the pitch is, it is making in-roads”. No shit Sherlock. You mean negative campaigning actually works? Who’da thunk it? (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Wednesday News Review

20/04/2011, 06:55:31 AM

Huhne warns Cameron over “reprehensible and underhand” campaign

A Liberal democrat Cabinet minister has warned David Cameron that the “outrageous” Conservative-led No campaign ahead of next month’s referendum on the voting system risks inflicting permanent damage on the Coalition. Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, told The Independent that the Prime Minister should intervene to stop the No camp telling “downright lies”. He cited its claims that a switch to the alternative vote (AV) would require electronic counting machines and cost £250m that could be spent on vital public services. “There is no truth whatever in these outrageous allegations,” he said. “It is absolutely astonishing that it could come from our Coalition partners. I fear it could damage the Coalition and diminish the respect his Coalition partners have for him [Mr Cameron]. There is no doubt that if you behave in a thoroughly reprehensible and underhand manner you are going to lose the respect of people.” – the Independent

Balls: Osborne’s plan just isn’t working

Next Wednesday’s growth figures for the first quarter of 2011 will give us a picture of our economy over the last six months – since the spending review and VAT rise, but before the impact of the bulk of the cuts has been felt. If the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of 0.8% growth for the first quarter is proved right then, with Osborne’s plan now in place, Britain’s economy over the latest six months will have grown by a paltry 0.3%. This compares to growth of 1.8% in the previous six months. The fact is that over recent months the economy has been flatlining, when it should be growing strongly. Slower growth plus higher unemployment will make it harder to get the deficit down. And however shrill and spurious the international comparisons from the chancellor become, I fear George Osborne’s plan is not working. He is increasingly out of his depth. – Ed Balls, the Guardian

Miliband calls for phone hacking review

Labour leader Ed Miliband wants an independent review of the regulation and practices of newspapers in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal. He said the review should begin once the police inquiry into phone hacking and any legal cases had been completed. The News of the World has apologised to some victims, including actress Sienna Miller, and set up a compensation fund. Three journalists have been arrested and bailed as part of the latest police inquiry. Speaking in the Guardian, Mr Miliband said the police investigation was the immediate priority but once it was finished, wider lessons needed to be learned. “I think it is in the interests of protecting the reputation of the British press that these matters should not simply be left to rest, and lessons have to be learned,” he said. – BBC (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Yes, MPs work hard. But who for? Themselves.

19/04/2011, 02:00:23 PM

by Alex Hilton

It’s truly challenging to express incandescent rage in the form of dry, political writing but let me have a go. I am stomach-wrenchingly sick of MPs defending the nobility of MPs in the process of backing the first past the post electoral system.

I’m sorry, Jim Murphy, but I’m talking about you.

Murphy is one of the better MPs. By all accounts he’s intelligent, hard working, serious and responsive to his constituents. But because he is good, does that really mean the rest of them are?

He is the latest in a long list of MPs telling us how hard-working and selfless MPs are. Please listen to me: this is utter tripe. Many MPs really are hard working, some are even obsessive and monomaniacal. But you have to ask who they are hard working for, and it’s usually themselves. It’s not their fault, it’s just how the systems works. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Purple bookers try to revive past New Labour glories

19/04/2011, 11:00:48 AM

Leading “Blairites” plan to publish a modernisers’ manifesto, to “reshape politics on the centre left” . It will be called The Purple Book.

by Sunder Katwala

Looking back at the successes and shortcomings of the New Labour years, it could be argued that, if there was a missed opportunity which set the limits to the party’s ambitions for progress, it came with the 2001 general election campaign.

It was an election which Labour was never going to lose. William Hague’s unpopular populism was never taken seriously across the country. Yet New Labour high command could never quite believe that the party was going to win, and was concerned to close down issues which it feared were resonating.

So the posters were purple – a lot done, a lot to do – in a bid to seek a largely mandateless re-coronation of the then very popular Tony Blair.

The result was a landslide – a slow motion replay of 1997, with almost no seats at all changing hands, but on a much lower turnout in a way that did little to shift the centre of political gravity. In retrospect, Labour’s 1997-2001 term stands up well, with a ream of manifesto commitments taken into office delivered in a way that endures, from the minimum wage to devolution.

What always remained elusive was “renewal” in office, though politicians and think-tankers talked of little else. The 2001 campaign may have a good claim to be the most cautious run by any winning party in the post-war period. (The major themes of the second term had been kicked into the long grass. It was a big deal for Gordon Brown to put up national insurance for the NHS, but it was safely “under review” during the campaign. Tony Blair’s big second term idea was to win the European argument, but he planned to begin it at the TUC conference on September 11th 2001, in a speech never given, rather than to take Hague’s “foreign land” campaign head on at the hustings).

Given that 9/11 came to dominate all else within a few months, perhaps events meant that it didn’t matter. But 2001 was probably the moment at which Labour needed to give its argument and vision more positive content.

Instead, Labour emulated Bill Clinton a few years earlier. It was re-elected, but did not seek to realign the political debate explicitly. It did shift policy arguments, but was less confident than Margaret Thatcher in believing that politicians could reshape the contours of public and political debate. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon