Posts Tagged ‘cuts’

Sunday Review on Thursday: Progress Political Weekend 2012

22/03/2012, 01:22:41 PM

by Jonathan Todd

Peter Mandelson was there but, pace Michael Meacher, the Progress Political Weekend 2012 was not a meeting of the Bilderberg group. For one thing, I imagine, the Bilderberg Group comes to conclusions.

This was not the only difference. There was no secret agenda. It was advertised online. This was less an elite stitch-up and more the imbibing, both of learning and alcohol, by bright young things.

The discussion was perceptive, but the themes covered were not unexpected: fiscal credibility, public service reform, southern discomfort. So much was everyone on pretty much the same page that Douglas Alexander arrived, having followed earlier proceedings on twitter, worried that Liam Byrne had already delivered his speech.

I’m not sure what Meacher would expect but I got what I anticipated, which was some education (Phil Collins’ session on speech writing was particularly illuminating) and some reflection on the hard questions that face Labour.

But I’m not sure how far we got with answers.

At the same conference a year ago Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy in separate sessions said that Labour needs “a draw on the deficit, a win on growth”. How is that working out?

This year Patrick Diamond warned against Labour being hawkish in principle and dovish in practice on the deficit. Talking tough on the deficit but not providing support for cuts to match this tough talk.

But Meacher can be assured that no plans were hatched to carve up the state in the country house, now owned by the NUT, just a taxi ride away from the grocers in which Margaret Thatcher grew up.

Not one suggestion for a cut was proffered, as far as I recall, though, sadly, I needed to be in London on Sunday, so missed the second day of the conference and perhaps some proposals for cuts.


Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour needs to get a script and stick to it

26/01/2012, 08:15:35 AM

by Peter Watt

In government it can be difficult to keep telling a coherent story about what the common purpose of the administration is. You start off with “New Labour, new Britain”, and end up, well who knows quite where we ended up? But that is the point; events, complexity and the sheer relentlessness of governing gets in the way of the message.

You try and stick to the script, “tough on crime” say, but then someone lets a load of foreign criminals out of prison and you don’t look so tough. Or you start talking about going “back to basics”, and then members of your top team get caught with their trousers down or lining their pockets. And lots of things that sounded so simple in opposition suddenly look complicated and undeliverable in government. Just think about the promises to reverse immigration trends by the Tories. They look laughable now.

But in opposition you have no such problems. In fact the opposite is true. The monotony of being responsible for nothing means that you are fighting for attention. It’s not sticking to the story that is the problem, it’s anyone listening to the story at all. You have such limited opportunity to tell your story that you can’t afford subtlety or nuance. Such luxuries get in the way. You need to paint in big bright colours so that people notice.  This can also be a strategic advantage. Whilst you can draw clear and unambiguous lines, government ministers are forced to fudge under pressure from advice from civil servants and the reality of unintended consequences. And there aren’t many aspects of being in opposition that can be described as advantageous.

Well maybe it’s just me, but Labour seems a bit all over the place at the moment on the opposition front. In fact they seem all over the place a lot at the moment. So how can they have got things so wrong recently?

Let’s take the deficit. For months they appeared to refuse to acknowledge the full harsh reality of the deficit and the scale of the cuts required to deal with this. Instead there was a complex series of explanations and justifications that involved banks, lack of a growth strategy, world recession and the generally unpleasant nature of Tories. Anyone and anything except Labour in fact. Not surprisingly this was not particularly successful as far as voters were concerned.

And then recently Ed and Ed appeared to clarify and simplify this. It was an important moment; not a change per se, but a change in emphasis certainly. Labour now accepted that they would unable to reverse the Tory cuts after the next election. The deficit was such that it would be impossible to promise this. Good so far. Clear, simple and unambiguous. And we would support a public sector pay freeze over investment in jobs. Even better; we now had a crystal clear story. We are fiscally responsible and will take the tough steps needed to reduce the deficit and promote job creation.

And the icing on the cake was being attacked for this change by “Red” Len McCluskey, a good old fashioned trade union firebrand. It couldn’t get much better. All we had to do was keep telling people our clear and unambiguous story that reiterated our fiscal responsibility. But oh no; we had to start being clever and playing to the left of centre gallery. You see (clarification coming) Labour doesn’t actually support the Tories cuts, even though we would also have had to cut under the Darling plan. No, because the Tory cuts are ideological and bad, while Labour’s would be reluctant and in the national interest. The Tories are cutting too far and too fast, and we would cut less and slower – well at least until after the next election.

It risks convincing no one and we will keep getting stuck every time we are asked which of the Tory cuts Labour will keep. Our clear and unambiguous message is watered down at best.

And then there is the welfare reform bill. It is massively popular with the public that the government is proposing to cap at £26,000 per annum the amount of welfare payments that any one family can receive. It’s not surprising that people feel this way, and in fact for many people the fact that the cap needs to be set at all confirms their view that Labour had been over generous with tax payer’s money in the first place. And Liam Byrne was crystal clear and unambiguous that Labour supported a cap.

Our story was clear; we did not support welfare dependency for those who could work and we were absolutely on the side of working families. Fantastic; and then we fudged it again by trying to be all nuanced. Labour sided with the bishops in the Lords to try and argue that the cap should be effectively raised beyond the £26,000. Brilliant. David Cameron wandered off to talk to some Asda workers and asked if they thought that it should be raised as Labour wanted. What do you think they thought? Well I would suspect that they thought that £26,000 was too high not too low. Labour’s clear and unambiguous message is watered down.

So far from enjoying one of the few benefits of opposition, the ability to be unrealistically strident and paint policy in big bold and unambiguous colours, Labour seems intent on confusion. Ed and Ed need to decide whether their primary audience is a Labour faithful one or a sceptical public. You can’t play to both successfully. The Labour faithful love nuance and detail. A sceptical public need to know clearly and unambiguously what we stand for. Ed Miliband should remember that for all the talk of leadership threats it is the sceptical public that holds his fate in their hands.

Peter Watt was general secretary of the Labour party.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The seven-year itch: a cautionary tale of tax, cuts and debt

18/09/2011, 12:00:14 PM

by Rob Marchant

There was this bloke. And there was this girl. They met, fell in love, got married, usual story. It was a big, special wedding, everybody went. A match made in heaven, everyone said. People came out of their houses to wave as they went to the church. The kind of wedding that fills everyone with hope for the future.

She was popular, always a lot of boys round her. But she was smart, knew what she wanted. Sometimes it looked like she wasn’t paying much attention, but she did when it counted. Didn’t stand for any nonsense. He, on the other hand, was a bit of a tearaway. Heart in the right place, but not very together a lot of the time. And a drinker. A long history, in fact. Lots of girlfriends, but in the end, they all went, because of the drink. But not this one: this time it’d be different.

So, on the day they married, he promised to her that that was it with the drinking. And it was true. Never touched a drop. Day in, day out, he would walk home past the pub, think how lucky he was to have found her, and kept straight on walking. Life seemed charmed. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Hope, help and community

12/08/2011, 01:30:03 PM

by Stella Creasy

Fear is a powerful motivation for action. As I stood on Sunday night with other terrified and angry residents and watched looters turn up and trash Walthamstow I wanted it just to stop. This was our home. Our shops. Our people frightened. Nothing justifies this and ever will.

Since then I have worked with police, outreach workers, residents and the council to try to restore order and calm to our streets– to sweep up the glass, separate internet fact from fiction, account for the welfare of people and try to assess the damage. To channel this fear into something positive. To draw strength from a commitment to the capacity of collective endeavour to restore and replenish rather than demolish and destroy. Because to do otherwise is to give up hope.

Those who label these events indicative of a sickness in the areas where they happened get short shrift in Walthamstow. Only a strong community could put together a pop up canteen for all those helping to keep our community safe. Springing up overnight, with hundreds of volunteers we are providing cakes, tea, hot food and friends for our police and outreach workers. That tells you what we are capable of – not the broken glass outside our local bank.

Following the weekend, young people have played cat and mouse with the authorities in Walthamstow. They are setting fires, taunting officers, frightening residents and damaging local businesses. My community, like many others in the UK, is now dealing the fact that the looters have unravelled the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour.

Changing this isn’t about shutting down twitter, or handwringing about liberal elites. It is about restoring those boundaries and showing those testing them there are consequences to their behaviour.  That’s why speedy justice and strong sentences are important as a means to illustrate to those rioting and looting- and those who help them- that it isn’t worth it.

It is also about our increased police presence. Our Borough Commander Steve Wisbey and his team have had less sleep than anyone, working round the clock. Only when the calm has held for several days will the emotion of this time dissipate- and so too the rumours driving the tweets, bbms and texts which are fuelling disorder and fear.

Yet it is too easy to see this as solely about criminal acts and mindless thugs. On Sunday night there were agitators who instigated events, exploiting tension and technology to organise criminal activity in a way not seen before. But a strategy that only deals with these people is one which only sees half the story. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

People are rioting and politicians are revolting

11/08/2011, 08:00:46 AM

by Peter Watt

Politics has never had such a bad name. Well, that is one of those slight exaggerations that help to colour opinionated blog posts like this one. But there is surely no doubt that politics and politicians are pretty unpopular at the moment. A succession of scandals, and a sense that they are in it for themselves, has meant that most people look on politicians with disdain. The ongoing hacking furore has just added to a sense that those inside of the elite bubble don’t live in the same space as the rest of the country. This isn’t just a UK problem, but that hardly matters to those who live here and are disdainful of UK politicians.

A large part of the problem is that people just don’t think that politicians get their lives. That the language used, and the solutions offered, just don’t resonate with their own experiences. For instance, for years people have felt that some young people have been out of control. Not many, certainly nothing like a majority, but some. No one seems to be in charge of them and they don’t seem to listen to anyone or respect or fear authority. They put their feet upon the seats of trains and tell the guard to “fuck off” if they are asked to move them, with no apparent sense of embarrassment. They mouth off at anyone who looks at them in the wrong way and are never at school, college or work. Normal deterrents, like parental sanction, fear of arrest, fines, public shame or worse, don’t seem to work.

Over the years, politicians’ responses have included more education, boot camp style discipline, national service, more youth clubs or more benefits. Most people knew that there were elements of a solution in all of these, that some would benefit from each. But they also knew that it wouldn’t help those who were really out of control, because the problem for them was something else. It was a problem with parenting or rather the lack of parenting.

Politicians from the right would demand tough love, and those from the left more understanding. But people out there knew that the real problem was that for some family life was not providing the support, discipline and example that we all need to become responsible adults. In fact, for some family life was providing exactly the opposite. It was nurturing irresponsibility and lessons in how to operate outside of the mainstream. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The latest round of Army cuts confirms that the Conservative Party, like News International, use the military for their own ends

26/07/2011, 08:00:01 AM

by Matt Cavanagh

David Cameron’s Downing Street machine may have endured its biggest crisis so far over phone hacking, but at least its media strategy is working well in one area: defence cuts. As with October’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, bad news in defence is only cleared for release when there is enough other bad news to bury it. The SDSR announced the biggest defence cuts for 20 years, including cutting 7,000 soldiers, but with the spending review setting out even bigger cuts elsewhere the next day, the defence settlement didn’t make a single front page, and broadcast coverage was similarly muted. Likewise last week, when Defence Secretary Liam Fox announced that 10,000 more soldiers would be cut, even Telegraph readers had to turn past ten pages of hacking coverage before they saw it.

How much attention an announcement gets will always depend on what other news is around, and it would have been hard for any story to compete with the hacking scandal. But it is a shame for defence, because the Government’s treatment has been both dishonest and shambolic, and deserves greater scrutiny.

Fox’s dishonesty on Army numbers goes back many years. In opposition he repeatedly lied that Labour had ‘cut the Army by 10,000’: in fact, numbers remained fairly stable, and the Army was bigger in 2010 than 1997. He also promised that a Conservative government would give the Army ‘three new battalions’, a promise which Cameron endorsed in his Conference speech in 2007 at the end of another hard summer in Afghanistan and Iraq – a predictable move from a party which has long seen defence as an issue to be milked for maximum political effect. Some in the Army may be wishing they had paid less attention to these speeches and more attention to history. The bean-counters in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury have always wanted to cut the Army – it is so much easier than dealing with the bigger problems in the defence budget – and generally it has been Conservative ministers who give them the go-ahead, perhaps because they think they can get away with it. In the 1990s, they cut the Army by 35,000, alongside deep cuts in the defence budget and reductions in military capability. The script has changed – then it was the ‘peace dividend’ after the Cold War, now it is the deficit – but from the Army’s point of view, they could be forgiven for thinking history is repeating itself.

Even now, with the Government’s real agenda for the Army exposed, ministers are still not being honest. In early July, Labour’s Dan Jarvis, a former Parachute Regiment major, confronted Fox at the despatch box and asked him whether he had any plans for further cuts to the Army. Fox replied that ‘nothing has changed since the SDSR’. This was two weeks before he announced further cuts of 10,000 soldiers. When he did finally announce the cuts, he attempted to preserve some semblance of consistency with the SDSR by claiming that none of this would happen before 2015, and that when it did, it would be offset by more generous funding. That was contradicted yesterday by a leaked letter in the Telegraph from the head of the Army, suggesting that 5,000 more soldiers will indeed be cut before 2015, biting deep into the combat units which have been serving in Afghanistan.

We should not deny that there is a funding crisis in the MOD – even if its true nature tends to be obscured by the ministerial rhetoric rather than illuminated by it. There is also a case to be made for a smaller Army. In the continuing absence of an existential threat of the kind we faced in the Cold War, and with the nation losing its appetite for manpower-intensive counter-insurgency, ministers could have come out and argued for a redistribution of resources away from a standing army and towards new threats and new capabilities – like cyber security, or drones and other surveillance. But they haven’t had the courage, or strategic vision, to do so. Fox did try to use the Reserves Review to put a strategic spin on last week’s cuts, arguing that overall ‘deployability’, across regular and reserve forces, is the key – with a reformed and more deployable T.A. offsetting cuts to regular soldiers. Leaving aside the hypocrisy of Fox objecting to Labour questions about overall numbers (“they talk about total numbers all the time”, he complains, “but they do not talk about deployability”) given his own approach in opposition, this is an dangerous tack for a Defence Secretary who has announced a radical cut of one-third in, precisely, deployability. (This was tucked away on p19 of the SDSR document, glossed over by Fox and Cameron in their statements at the time: the admission that in future, in a one-off operation like the invasion of Iraq, we will be able to deploy 30,000, rather than 45,000; and that in an enduring operation like Afghanistan, we will be able to deploy 6,500 rather than 10,000.) (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Cameron’s broken promises on policing

22/07/2011, 11:00:01 AM

by Matt Cavanagh

A few days before the general election, David Cameron famously promised that “Any Cabinet minister, if we win the election, who comes to me and says ‘here are my plans and they involve front line reductions’ will be sent back to their department to go away and think again.” As late as last September, home secretary Theresa May was insisting that “lower budgets do not mean lower numbers of police officers”. The breathtaking disingenuousness of these soundbites has been exposed again yesterday, as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary publish the first authorised estimate of how the government’s 20% cut in police funding, announced in October’s spending review, will affect police numbers – and in particular how it will affect the front line.

The report, based on detailed investigation of individual forces’ plans, estimates that 16,200 police officers will be cut between 2010 and 2015. This entirely undoes Labour’s investment between 2000 and 2010, taking police numbers back to 1997 levels.

There is undoubtedly scope for efficiency savings in the police. Some of these were already in train before the election (they are set out in Chapter 5 of the 2009 White Paper). But as is clear from the graph on p24 of the HMIC report, with 81% of police funding going on staff costs, and another 10% going on areas like transport and premises, the 20% cuts announced in the spending review were always going to cut deep into police numbers. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Time to get out of our cosy anti-cuts bed

12/06/2011, 11:44:32 AM

by Mike Blakeney

Opposition is warm and fluffy. It is great to be liked.

I joined the Labour party when times were at their toughest. Tony had left, we had Gordon, and the public were increasingly upset with the party. My joining could only be described as a crazed act of masochism.

Yet we soldiered on through adversity, safe in the knowledge that we were making a difference.

Now we are doing better in the polls, comedians tease our opponents and Question Time audiences cheer our MPs. Surely we should be happy again? But, rightly, we’re miserable.

Miserable because we see the devastation that is happening to our public services and we are powerless to stop it. That is what happens in opposition. It’s warm, it’s fluffy and people agree with you. But ultimately it’s soul-destroying.

Not long after joining the party I was told that, “The greatest leaders are liked and respected, but if you have to make a choice, be respected”.


Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The positive alternative to just denouncing cuts

23/05/2011, 03:00:42 PM

by Jessica Asato

I don’t agree that Labour should stop fighting the cuts as Peter Watt wrote last week. But in the furore surrounding his audacious suggestion, most people seemed to miss a sensible point. That the public still blames Labour for overspending and is aware that, had we been elected, would be making cuts too, seems lost on the wider party.

On the doorstep, the overwhelming impression I get is that people are indeed angry about the cuts that are threatening their communities, but don’t believe Labour has yet set out a credible alternative. The question – so what would you do differently – has become as tricky on the knocker as taming a tetchy pitbull.

It is because we have such trouble answering this simple request that the cuts have become our single narrative. We cling to the belief that as people see services falling away they will repent of ever doubting Labour. They’ll flock back to the true righteous path and thank Labour for spending their money on great things. Except, they won’t. No matter how much we shout “international global financial crisis”, the public believes that Labour got the country into a financial mess like they always do and don’t know how to get out of it.


Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Sleepwalking to irrelevance, pt II

19/05/2011, 12:00:06 PM

by Lisa Ansell

There can be no doubt that New Labour is over. As had repeatedly been warned, attempts to maintain the status quo, in the hope that people would be cross enough to return to the Labour party, without it addressing the reasons people are angry in the first place, did not succeed. In the purest economic sense, Labour is currently a right-wing party, with the confidence of the market at its heart. Like many of Europe’s “left wing” political parties, with right wing economic strategies, they have found themselves in crisis. The financial crisis revealed that neo-liberalism can no longer even appear to be tallied with values of equality and redistribution. It is toxic to the majority now, not just the marginalised few.

Since the disastrous election result, there have been bitter recriminations within the Labour party about the failed gamble on the “progressive majority”. Ed Miliband had declared himself the “progressive champion” three days after last years netroots conference. The conference had been the cherry on the cake of an attempt to co-ordinate the Labour-supporting blogosphere. Ed tried simultaneously to frame Labour as the party of opposition to the cuts, while distancing himself from opposing the cuts that hurt the most vulnerable. Promising market confidence, and attaching himself to aspects of the perceived “left” which did not require a change in economic policy. The “progressives”.

The “left”, as Labour views it – a spectrum with itself at the moderate heart – is dead. It has had no relevance for a long time outside the imaginations of those at Labour’s Islington epicentre. It is certainly does not found on the political map that is unfolding. The “liberal left progressives” whom Ed Miliband wanted to champion, are among the more toxic aspects of the Labour brand. An arrogant “liberalism” which assumes the ignorance of those it dictates to, and assumes all faults lie with those who do not agree.

The “Yes to AV” campaign’s approach of telling people they were stupid if they didn’t want AV, and then not only blaming them for the failure of an insulting and patronising campaign, but for apparently condemning Britain to an eternity of Conservative hell fire, was a clear demonstration of the problem.

The liberalism at the heart of Labour’s progressive “majority” is a tedious distraction to those whose belief in market forces attracted them to Labour. “Progressives” willing to sacrifice the most vulnerable in our society for their own political survival (while crying socialism and fairness) demonstrate a hypocrisy which alienates people across the political spectrum. The factionalism of an “old left” who want to resurrect battles long lost, remains as toxic as it has ever been.

The research done by Searchlight had already sunk Miliband’s view of the progressive majority. This research into identity politics has been pored over at length, and undoubtedly contains warnings for Labour – but the inequality exposed by the cuts is likely to expose more problems. The realisation that all three parties are willing to have mothers forced into dependence on relationships, or be pushed into poverty whether they are working or not, has raised slightly bigger questions than the deficit. The war on disabled people, and those too sick to work led by Labour, and continued with relish by this government, means that disability groups are now fighting for political representation rather than against welfare cuts.

No party attempting to create a coalition of progressives could hope to be successful while so many are fighting it as the cause of their disenfranchisement. And it certainly cannot do so while pandering to racism, and agreeing that demonisation of the poorest should continue with blue Labour.

But does this mean that the “progressive majority” does not exist?

The demand for a re-examination of our economy in the context of the global financial meltdown is being ignored by Labour, but outside this echo chamber British businesses are looking for answers. Business link services have been scrapped; regional development agencies, who could offer grants to small business have been replaced by a regional growth fund with a minimum investment of £1million. Cuts to tax allowances which allowed firms to invest in themselves were sacrificed to pay for a corporation tax cut which only benefits companies with the ability to choose between nations. The fixed and low income spending which sustains small businesses is being deliberately sucked out of the economy. It may seem an obvious point, but the expected jobless recovery is one that doesn’t benefit businesses outside the already bloated financial sector. And they know it.

Professional bodies across the board are speaking out against the policies being implemented by the Tory-Lib Dem government. The combination of low wages, inflated house prices, and a personal debt bubble several times our GDP is ringing alarm bells far outside the traditional vanguards of the left. The “squeezed middle” that Ed Miliband was concerned with is crying out for a political party to discuss the vice like grip that housing costs, debt, and welfare cuts have on their lives. Concern that an approach which transfers public debt originating from the banking crisis to individuals and businesses who have no capacity to accommodate it is not exactly the domain of student radicals.

It is easy to dismiss the SNP victory in Scotland as an indicator that Scotland wants independence immediately, or as a protest vote against Labour; a sign that Labour needs to “focus”. To do so would be simplistic at best. Like the True Finn party, the SNP have redefined themselves in the context of the current situation and in the context of their national needs. Abandoned traditional ideas of left and right, and asserted the right to represent voters, and respond to the current economic challenges. At the first sign of any alternative, as we saw with Cleggmania, people grabbed it.

At a time when a political party would have to do very little to recapture the kind of cross party support Tony Blair enjoyed, it is only the arrogance of Labour leadership and its core supporters that is preventing Labour from becoming a political vehicle which could do the same.

Britain’s personal debt bubble, inflated house prices, and stagnated wages are at the heart of discussions about everything from the financial crisis, welfare spending, the decline in living standards that most of us are experiencing, and the major risks our economy is exposed to. Yet they are completely absent from Labour’s rhetoric.

While Labour agonises over how to unite working and middle class voters, it maintains an economic strategy which casts adrift the poorest, punishes the hundreds and thousands of working people who are welfare dependent, and not only attacks the squeezed middle’s incomes and services, but asks them to pay proportionally more than the people who caused the crisis. While their children face bleak futures, and while those fulfilling roles outside breadwinner have their services stripped and privatised, and are left with nothing.

The “radical” left has redefined in the context of global economic shifts. With roots in decades-old anti-capitalist and environmental movements, the financial crisis and the response of western governments to it, has politicised a generation after decades of perceived political apathy. This is a “left” not defined by an obsolete left/right axis, but by a changing economic and political landscape. Identity politics, economic inequality, generational shifts. Equality for women, and rights for those with disabilities surfacing as important facets, after their marginalisation ensured that they would make easy targets for the fiscal responses to the banking crisis. The desire to move away from the neo-liberalism which is at the heart of Labour’s economic policy is the cause at the heart of new “left”, and it is this shared aim which unites so many disparate groups.

This has happened after decades of politicians declaring the British public apathetic, even when inquiries like the Power report showed clearly that disengagement from political process was a failure of our democratic system, rather than due to the indifference and comfort of voters. This is not confined to the UK, and has been seen in Wisconsin, and across Europe. Most importantly for Ed Miliband, it comes after 13 years after the only political vehicle for the left embraced the economics of the right, and a foreign policy which ensured that many turned their backs on Labour.

Arrogance and fear of short term political consequences is leading Labour to ignore a rapidly changing political and economic map. And, in doing so, it is losing the opportunity to become the political force that takes the country through the current crisis. The “left” continues to redefine in a political vacuum, and in the long term it is inevitable that this will give birth to new political forces. In the shorter term, Labour could remove the necessity for such a force, but it has to be bold enough to shake off conventional wisdom. Analyse the long term risks to our economy, and assess the situation voters are actually in. Bold enough to present a new economic vision.

The progressive majority exists. But they are progressive in that they want to see a credible alternative to what is happening. A government which has the ability to unite people through this crisis, and assert its duty to represent voters over markets. Labour is so busy trying to squash criticism, and manufacture a “progressive” majority which will unquestioningly go where Labour leadership wants, that they can’t see, hear, or represent them. And in doing so, Labour risks sleepwalking into irrelevance. After all, there are other parties with Labour’s economic policy, who are willing to do it quicker, and with conviction.

The first part of Lisa Ansell‘s critique appeared here last week.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon