If Ed Miliband wants to be leader he has to get ruthless
Regular readers will know that I was on the Ed Milibandwagon over a year ago. I agree with his strongest supporters that Ed M ’speaks human’ and comes across as very affable and down-to-earth.
At the Fabian event on Saturday, Ed went much further than I expected in repudiating many of New Labour’s failures in government. He accepted ID cards were wrong, that Nick Clegg had a point on trying to reduce taxes on the poorest, that more had to be done on regulating financial services and on promoting green technology/jobs. If he were to become leader and campaign in a general election, expect him to become more centrist.
Obviously I’m pleased Ed M has entered the race but unlike my colleague Don Paskini, I have a different set of concerns.
continue reading… »
Right-wingers blame Libdems for Cam betrayal
The Daily Mail has an article today that tries to channel right-wing anger at Cameron via the Libdems.
It says: Tories ditched policies as fast as they listed them: ‘Cameron wanted to bury party Right,’ say Lib Dems
It quotes various Libdem MPs:
A shocked Mr Alexander told Lib Dem MPs: ‘The Tories are ditching policies faster than they can list them. They pointed to them and said, “That can go, that can go.” We thought, “If they are offering up all this, is there anything they will not do?”’
…
Senior Lib Dem Lord Greaves, who was present when Mr Alexander reported back to MPs, said: ‘We were negotiating against people like George Osborne and Oliver Letwin who have never had to negotiate a thing in their lives. They are privileged little rich boys. The most difficult negotiation they had was when they proposed to their wives.“Our negotiating team said the Conservatives told them, “There is something in your manifesto we would like to concede, can you add it to your list?” and “There are some things in our manifesto that are daft which we would be delighted if you would veto”. It was men against boys. They were totally out of their depth. Our people were hard-nosed negotiators.
Ouch.
Right-wing Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘The Lib Dems are entitled to crow. Our negotiators panicked. It is absurd to give them five Cabinet jobs – that’s ten per cent of their MPs in the Cabinet. They are supposed to be the junior partner. We gave away too much. I get the distinct impression that David Cameron is happier with his Lib Dems than he is with some of the people in his own party.
And of course Lord Tebitt makes an appearance again.
On MP told the Daily Mail: “George [Osborne] is convinced that this will make it easier for us to swallow up the Lib Dems.”
The question now is: will the right-wing sense of betrayal lead to continual bad press and fractures within the Tory party? And will that make it harder for Cameron to pass legislation?
Is this why the Libdem election vote didn’t hold up?
contribution by Renard Sexton
There’s one point about the recent election that has not been discussed about. And that is whether there was a “loud but flakey Lid Dem” effect at play, similar to the “shy Tory” problem of the 1990s.
As put by Nate Silver at 538 earlier this week, this “may not be the pollsters’ fault if voters changed or made up their mind while casting their ballots, as sometimes happens for third parties whose viability is questionable” (emphasis his).
We now have at least partial answers to these questions, which conspired to precipitate an election result where instead of seeing a long-awaited Lib Dem breakthrough we saw a rather demoralising Lib Dem meltdown.
To begin with, the Liberal Democrats pulled 23.6 percent of the national vote, a mere 1.5 point increase over their 22.1 percent share from 2005. As we have learned from our projections, however, if those 450 thousand voters (1.5 percent of the total 2010 electorate) were gained in the right seats, they could flip perhaps 5 to 10 seats to the Liberals.
continue reading… »
Welsh politics is about to get more interesting
contribution by Marcus Warner
The last few days have been rather normal for those of us who operate under devolved systems. Negotiations, drama, rumours and compromise are all part of Welsh Assembly elections, with it taking weeks to come to a Government being formed.
The One Wales Government, despite being from parties of the centre left, was seen as a marriage of mortal enemies.
Regardless of the political hue of the Government, it has been resolutely strong and focused, with minimal bust ups.
continue reading… »
10 years for preparing for a race war
Ian Davison, the neo-Nazi who succeeded where others failed in producing ricin, must be somewhat relieved at receiving only a 10 year sentence for concocting a chemical weapon along with other terrorist offences, including making pipe bombs, one of which he recorded exploding.
After all, Martyn Gilleard, the skinhead who shared a passion for potential race war with a predilection for children, was given an 11-year-stretch for similar offences while only putting together some very rudimentary nail bombs, involving film canisters.
Davison’s son Nicky, on the other hand, has been given what seems a far harsher sentence of two years detention for only having the almost required Anarchist Cookbook and Poor Man’s James Bond manuals, both of which the judge himself noted are available to purchase from Amazon (and still are) despite their possession itself being an illegal offence.
continue reading… »
The unfairness of Ed Miliband
Since the election there have been a slew of former Labour ministers keen to tell us that Labour needs to change by listening to the voters and their concerns. The speeches and articles are sprinkled with anecdotes from conversations that these ex-ministers had with voters in their constituencies.
In many cases it is obvious that going and talking to voters had been a rather novel activity.
Ed Miliband’s speech today, in which he announced himself as a candidate for Labour leader, gave two particularly obnoxious examples of this genre. On immigration, he announced that:
continue reading… »
Exclusive: Ed to launch leadership bid this week
Ed Miliband is launching his leadership bid for the Labour party leadership next week, perhaps as early as Monday morning, sources have told me.
The former cabinet minister will do a round of local interviews to launch his bid in stark contrast to his brother David Miliband’s launch in Westminster. The latter move was described by Alex Smith at LabourList as possible “strategic error“.
Ed Miliband will be keynote speaker at the Fabian conference tomorrow in London.
A group of supporters are planning a rally before the conference starts to persuade him to throw his hat in the ring.
That is now a forgone conclusion. The Sun today speculated he would launching sometime next week.
Supporters have already set up a website advocating for him.
But Labour MP Tom Watson wrote on Liberal Conspiracy this week that the party would be better off having a slow leader contest.
Update: There seems to be some confusion over names. It now looks like Ed Miliband may not go as early as Monday. But it is expected he will put his hat into the ring early next week.
David Miliband will launch his campaign officially on Monday and do local media interviews. It is now thought that brother Ed won’t want to clash with that deliberately.
Update 2 The confusion was over when exactly the campaign would be launched. But as confirmed by various media outlets now, Ed Miliband will run for Labour leadership. Remember where you heard it first.
The mysterious case of the 55% solution
contribution by loveandgarbage
“But Holmes,” I ejaculated. “The 55% rule hidden in the coalition agreement. Surely it’s the end of democratic accountability as we know it.”
Holmes turned.
“Hah!” he cried. “You see Watson, you see but you do not observe. The hysteria of people who ought to know better about the 55% rule is an attempt to disguise their real concern about fixed term parliaments.”
I found this hard to follow. Holmes observed my confusion.
continue reading… »
Outrage against Theresa May’s appointment grows
A potentially fractious split has already opened up between Conservatives and Libdems over the issue of equality.
Outrage has been growing online over the appointment of Theresa May as the minister of equality despite her voting record.
poster created by: @RoryDoona
A Facebook group against Theresa May’s appointment has attracted over 32,000 people in less than 48 hours.
An online petition has also been launched, this states:
Her appointment is symbolically counter-productive as it suggests that there is not a more appropriate person for the job who has been positively campaigning for gay rights. We would also question her commitment to implementing effective change in this country considering her own views. Her appointment is therefore both intrinsically and instrumentally unacceptable.
The issue of equality and diversity has already cropped up as a contentious issue between Libdems and Conservatives.
Libdem MP Lynne Featherstone told Radio 4 today that neither party was doing enough to promote equality at the top:
When you look at the negotiating teams, they were male and pale.
So the issue is how do you get women through the ranks of parliament to those positions where they are then in a position to be in the cabinet?
She said she was “very disappointed”.
Therese May is her senior in government. She has yet to say anything on the matter however.
Backlash against Nick Robinson’s pro-Tory bias
A Facebook group criticising Nick Robinson’s pro-Tory bias has attracted over a thousand followers within a few days.
This group believes that Nick Robinson is too biased to serve as the BBC’s political editor.
Former president of the Oxford University Conservative Association and one-year National Chairman of the Young Conservatives, Nick Robinson is consistently unable to disguise his bias in favour of the Conservative Party. We therefore believe the BBC should install a new and more balanced political editor as soon as possible.
Creator Peter Tennant lsists five examples of Robinson’s Tory bias during the election:
a) Comparing Cameron to Disraeli before he’s even taken office;
b) Talking about Downing Street as a ‘Labour free zone’;
c) Talking about Gordon Brown as the ‘unelected prime minister’;
d) Talking about the Conservatives as having ‘won’ the election;
e) Talking about a rainbow coalition as a ‘coalition of losers’;
f) The clear pleasure on his face when the Tories returned to power.
There’s also a group annoyed at Adam Boulton for his pro-Tory bias
[hat-tip Roy Greenslade].
Update
There is in fact a much bigger group calling for Kay Burley to be sacked. Among examples of her partial reporting was this interview where she claimed people voted for a Hung Paraliament and that protestors who want electoral reform should “just go home”.
This represents the end of Thatcherism. What comes next?
I’ve written an analysis of the new Coalition on OurKingdom. My core argument is that means the end of Thatcherism as the identity brand of the Tory Party and probably the end of Thatcherism as the organising culture of UK politics, as, after 30 years, her ‘conviction’ politics is replaced by ‘coalition’ politics.
If only Labour could have achieved the same – as it had every opportunity to do.
The longer term success of the Coalition will be defined by two things, its economic policy and by its reform of our democracy. I don’t say anything about the cuts, partly because I don’t perceive much difference between the parties.
I do think the political culture that will shape the way they are implemented will be different however.
continue reading… »
More thoughts on Labour’s electoral strategy
contribution by planeshift
Sunny has started the ball rolling on what future labour strategy should now be.
I agree with the main conclusion that Labour needs to be a broad church, and keep the centre ground, avoiding 1983-esque stupidity.
So here are some more specific suggestions:
continue reading… »
Will Harriet Harman send out deputy leader nominations?
contribution by Peter Kenyon
Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee meets in five days time to decide the timetable for the election of its next leader. There are three options now in play: fast track before the summer recess, normal procedure in time for Conference, Tory 2005 model using Conference for TV test ballot after.
Being a ‘harpy’ for accountability myself, shamelessly rule guided, if not bound, I support the timetable arising from the Rule Book .
The Labour Party has already budgetted a modest £500,000 to conduct a postal ballot of its members to elect constituency representatives to its NEC and National Policy Forum, which are conducted under the ‘one-member-one-vote’ system.
continue reading… »
Amnesty fundraises to attack Shell’s record
Human rights organisation Amnesty International has launched a mass fundraising campaign via social networks for a hard-hitting advertising campaign targeting the oil company Shell.
It is the first time Amnesty International has used fundraising to pay for a campaigning advertisement.
The full-page newspaper ad highlights Shell’s responsibility for pollution in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where oil spillages and gas flaring have polluted people’s water supply and devastated livelihoods based on fishing and farming.
It will be timed to coincide with Shell’s AGM on 18 May.
Amnesty International UK poverty & human rights campaign manager, Naomi McAuliffe, said:
The AGM is where Shell’s Board is held to account by its shareholders, so it’s an ideal time for us to try to influence the company’s policies.
Because of the activity of Shell and other oil companies, people in the Niger Delta are left to drink polluted water, eat contaminated fish, farm on spoiled land and breath in air that stinks of oil and gas. We want to expose the culprits and get them to come clean and accept responsibility.
.
From a press release
The psychology of coalitions and commitments
Several on the Left are predicting that the Libservative coalition will break up nastily. Maybe.
But I think Andrew makes a good point – there are powerful psychological mechanisms which might keep it together.
One of these is our desire to be consistent. Once we have embarked upon a course of action, however daft, we tend to stick with it. This could be because of an endowment effect; things become valuable once we have them. Or it might be because of the confirmation bias; having taken a decision, we look for evidence to suggest we were right.
But it’s also because we like to think well of ourselves, and this leads us to want to be consistent. It’s for this reason that people are often loath to sell badly performing shares; doing so is an admission of failure, and folk hating making such admissions, even to themselves let alone the wider public.
In his book, Influence (which is far better than the cover suggests) Robert Cialdini gives several examples of this. People who have just bet on a horse become more confident about its prospects than they were before they placed the bet.
In the Korean war, the Chinese got American PoWs to volunteer very mildly anti-American remarks (“the US isn’t perfect”) and found that those who made them were more likely to collaborate later. Home-owners who agreed to put up a small poster urging folk to drive safely subsequently agreed to put huge unsightly bill-boards in their garden. Students who have undergone painful or embarrassing initiation rituals to get into societies value membership highly. Salesmen are desperate to win small orders because these lead to larger ones.
These are all examples of a common habit, says Cialdini:
Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.
This has a natural implication. Having decided to ally with the Tories, Lib Dems will be loath to break up their partnership. And they will look more favourably upon future Tory actions than they would had they not allied with them, simply out of a desire to stay consistent with their initial decision.
And here’s the thing. Cameron knows this. Cialdini’s book was on the reading list he gave to MPs in 2008.
So, here’s his tactic, assuming he wants to keep the coalition together. Whenever he needs Lib Dem support, he’ll try and show that such support is consistent with the terms of their initial agreement to govern together.
The Lib Dems will only withdraw from the coalition if they can claim credibly that doing so is consistent with their original decision to join. The deal-breaker will come if they can say: “This is not what we signed up for.”
Insofar as Cameron wants to keep the coalition together, he’ll try to avoid giving them such opportunities. I'd expect the phrase "you did sign up to cut the deficit" to be wielded.
All this suggests that an acrimonious split is only one possible ending. There’s another possibility, famously written by George Orwell:
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Dave Osler Wins Libel Case
The journalist Dave Osler, contributor to Liberal Conspiracy and many other places, today won a libel case that had been brought by Tory (former Respect) activist Joannah Kaschke.
Jack of Kent has a little bit of analysis of Dave’s case and was first to tweet the positive outcome.
I am sure he and/or Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorship will report with a full analysis of Justice Eady’s ruling soon, but the analysis from Dave’s lawyer Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave (also Simon Singh’s lawyer) is that it sets a very good precedent for bloggers, and how much responsibility we take for wayward comments posted unmoderated on our websites.
I took some photos of Dave Osler and wellwishers outside the court (including another Liberal Conspirator, Paul Evans).
True, the last photo does show Dave sipping champagne (which might undermine his reputation as a staunch defender of the working class) but otherwise it is worth noting that both Dave and his partner looked relieved rather than happy.
This case has taken three years to defend, and for much of that time he has had to defend himself. Months have been spent preparing a defence against someone who appears to be a vexatious litigant, time that could have been spend freelancing.
Substantial costs are unlikely to be recovered, meaning Dave is severely out of pocket.
One of the Libel Reform Campaign’s recommendations is the establishment of a fast-track libel tribunal to deal with cases like this.
Although Dave Osler has won his case, its another example of why the English libel laws are not fit for purpose.
Update:
Dave speaks to blogger Richard Wilson after his win
How many cabinet MPs went to private schools?
by the blogger and tweeter Hannah Nicklin
.
An open letter to Labour supporters, from a leftie Libdem
contribution by Kim Lofthouse
Dear Labour supporters,
I voted Lib Dem in the general election and that I did so not out of some sort of misplaced disillusionment with recent Labour policies or hope that it would keep out the Tories in my local area. I voted Lib Dem because when it came right down to brass tacks, they were the party who’s values & manifesto pledges were most in-line with my own values and ethics.
Now as someone who has die-hard Labour supporters as family, friends & co-workers, I’m well aware of why any outcome involving the Tories being back in power is abhorrent to you and from the point of view of being anti-Tory (some may say to an almost fanatical extent at times) I’m well & truly on your side of the line.
However, I don’t think that painting the Lib Dems and their supporters as the new Satan is particularly helpful to the Labour movement or the left in general.
This outcome isn’t the fault of the Lib Dems or their supporters; in the end the Lib Dems only ended up with the choice of Labour or Tory as coalition partners because of the hung parliament result of the election and they never stated that they would only go with Labour if that were to happen. For more detailed reasons on why the ‘betrayal’ charge doesn’t stand up in the cold light of reality can be found here on Pickled Politics
An argument that I’ve seen come up quite a bit today which is that the Lib Dems are really Tory-lite and that, therefore, all their supporters are pro-Tory. This is just a modified version of the right-wing Conservative line that was going around, prior to the election, accusing the Lib Dems of being Labour-lite.
It also negates the fact that many Lib Dem party members & supporters passionately despise the Tories and what they stand for (myself included on the supporter side of the fence) – a lot of us were just as disappointed, outraged & saddened to see Conservative after Conservative seat rolling in on Thursday night.
On the contrary, those of us in the left-leaning Lib Dem camp (such as myself and more notably Simon Hughes) are simply choosing to wait & see before we take a leap of faith with our political allegiances.
For us, we can’t give up our own liberal values to make that leap from the yellow ship to the red one without seeing some radical changes in Labour policy and thinking over civil liberties & constitutional reform at the very least.*
In my mind, the left-leaning Lib Dems are part of the hope for the new liberal left and Labourites who choose to burn all their bridges with them via demonising them & throwing stones are doing the movement no favours.
We understand that you’re angry, but choosing to thrust it all on the Lib Dems simply because as a party & support base we’re smaller than you is a bloody stupid idea if you want to avoid the Tories having their own 13 year reign in Downing Street.
Instead, showing respect & understanding to those in the Lib Dem camp who are choosing to follow the cautious ‘wait-and-see’ model for the time being is more likely to result in these people either aligning themselves more definitely with the Labour side of the fence or going all in and jumping onto the socialist bandwagon.
In short, to paraphrase one of those old clichés, now is the time for Labourites to remember that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar and that the same goes for attracting & keeping left-leaning Lib Dems as part of the movement.
Yours in alliance – not war,
Kim
—————
Kim Lofthouse blogs at Amor Vincit Omnia (where a longer version is posted) and tweets here.
Labour can’t rush its leadership election; why not have a TV debate?
There’s so much I want to shout out about the last 13 years. There are so many great achievements I want us to organise to protect – Sure Start and the Building Schools of the Future programme to name but a few. And there are the inevitable mistakes that I want us to learn from.
First though, I want the blisters on my feet to heal and the many thousands of Labour members – our volunteer army of progressives and community builders, to get a well earned rest. We asked a lot of them these last months and years. And in the face of adversity, they helped prevent a hubristic David Cameron command an overall majority in the House of Commons. I’m proud of them for that.
In the whirlwind of Westminster news cycles, my colleagues and I sometimes develop a kind of collective anxiety that drives us to instantly react to every twist and turn of events.
When under pressure and facing uncertainty, it’s an understandable response. Yet at these times it is often more effective to be still. We are in a period when our movement should remain calm and reflective.
A couple of months for the party to take stock, to work out what we did right and wrong, would help prepare our new leader for the challenge of a ConDem government.
I’ve not often gone in for toff-bashing but one thing I know about these two particular public school boys in Number 10 is that they’re both well-mannered, charming and utterly ruthless. The idea that their partnership will fall apart by October is missing just how well-trained they are for power. They’ll do anything to win. Dissent will be charmed away or crushed.
A number of colleagues have said to me that Liberal Democrat back benchers will not stomach seeing their front bench colleagues make the compromises that ministers very often have to make. This misses the point. With 20 odd ministerial positions, all Nick Clegg has to do is promise his 57 MPs a turn in the ministerial Prius over the next five years.
His job is easy. He could even have a ministerial rota. It’s harder for David Cameron to manage the expectations of his party old guard but many of them retired last week. So we’re in this for the long haul. And though depressing, it gives us plenty of time to prepare for the next general election.
So why don’t we learn from Michael Howard? Why not turn our conference into a platform for our future leaders. Give a day to each candidate to make their pitch. We could even test their TV skills with a big election-style debate.
The Labour Party couldn’t do this for much of the 1980’s because it was split. Using our conference to focus on potential leaders would have been suicidal. Yet we now have some amazingly talented potential candidates. They’re all broadly pro-european progressive social democrats who can make a difference.
Whichever of them wins, they’re going to lead a newly invigorated Labour party. I’m told 3000 people have joined or re-joined in the last 48 hours. We should give these members the chance to have their say about the future.
So let us slow down, be calm and think about what we’ve done right and wrong in the last 13 years. Then we can have an enjoyable, positive leadership election that focuses on the future.
Life imitates art
Just a little pictorial commentary for a dull Wednesday evening…
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» What would you ask the Labour leader candidates?
» Complete tits
» How bad is the feline obesity crisis?
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civic cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
|
11 Comments 66 Comments 20 Comments 13 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Red posted on His best speech ever? Jon Cruddas on how Labour needs to reinvent itself » Kate Belgrave posted on His best speech ever? Jon Cruddas on how Labour needs to reinvent itself » Mike Killingworth posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » cjcjc posted on Complete tits » Flowerpower posted on His best speech ever? Jon Cruddas on how Labour needs to reinvent itself » john b posted on How bad is the feline obesity crisis? » Mike Killingworth posted on Complete tits » Lou posted on Ashcroft to launch "devastating" attack on Cameron » Dick the Prick posted on Ashcroft to launch "devastating" attack on Cameron » Sarah AB posted on Complete tits » tim f posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » TJC posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » TJC posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » BenSix posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » Barry Tebb posted on Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed? |
