A boost for the hard right of the party?

http://www.labourlist.org/a-boost-for-the-hard-right-of-the-party?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=113632+Is+Ed+a+slave+to+Labour%27s+hard+right%3F+%2F+Is+Miliband+a+shark%3F+%2F+Punishing+the+innocent+%28LL630%29&tmtid=113632-13888-13888-162-12-832-91650


i do't agree with the anti-right rhetoric, but i like some of the ideas.

the bad:
Ed Miliband is not - as some of his enemies would claim - on the left of the Labour party. He would, traditionally, have been seen as a fairly conventional old Labour right-winger. But for those who wanted a shift away from New Labour, it was crucial he defeated his brother in the leadership election, because David Miliband would have ideologically resisted pressure from below - no matter how strong - for a change in position. His team (who included people even more right-wing than he is) would have relished defining their man against the party and the wider labour movement.

the most representative members of Labour's electoral college: rank-and-file trade unionists.

In the speech, Ed Miliband put so-called "benefits cheats" in the same category as the bankers who nearly brought the entire global economy crashing into a 1930s-style Great Depression, and who caused a crisis which we are still stuck in after nearly four years


the good:
The government estimates that £1.5 billion a year is lost through welfare fraud, compared to £70 billion a year lost through tax evasion. The amount of benefits left unclaimed - "welfare evasion", if you will - is about ten times the amount lost through fraud.

There are 2.5 million unemployed people in Britain today, and another 1.5 million in part-time jobs who want full-time work. That's excluding those on incapacity benefit who the government wants to push into work. And yet there are only around 500,000 vacancies - and generally not where they are most needed. When Iain Duncan-Smith suggested the people of Merthyr - a Welsh town battered by deindustrialisation - get on the bus to find work in Cardiff, it was subsequently pointed out that there were 9 jobseekers for every 1 vacancy in the Welsh capital. As Ed Miliband himself highlighted in his response to the Budget earlier this year, there are 10 people chasing every 1 vacancy in over 130 constituencies.

Ed began Monday's speech with an anecdote about a man on incapacity benefit who, in his view, could work. I'm not sure about the wisdom of playing amateur doctor, but in any case, the anecdote misses the point. There are not enough jobs to go round, a statement we would all be wise to repeat again and again.

It is true that, as Iain Duncan Smith has admitted, Tory governments in the 1990s manipulated unemployment figures by encouraging those without work to be transferred to incapacity benefit. But, as research by Dr Christina Beatty and Professor Steve Fothergill has revealed, many incapacity benefit claimants are those who are least able to work in areas with the least amount of jobs. When there are large numbers of people competing for a small amount of work, those with ill health are least likely to get work: hence they concluded that "the UK's very high incapacity claimant numbers are an issue of jobs and of health."

And they are right. If you are scraping by in life, working hard in a job that you don't enjoy, and you think that there are those enjoying a higher standard of living at your expense - that will rile you more than anyone else. Right-wing politicians and journalists know this, and exploit it ruthlessly.

But it will backfire. The strategy will fuel prejudices that the Tories will be best placed to satisfy





Tweet

Ed Miliband: even pandas need to pander

personally want Ed to do well. I really want him to do really well. It's a good point about whichever brother got in, people would be wishing for the other. I've been doing that myself, but thinking about it I'm less sure.
Ed Miliband can usually do a good job in substance, so long as he's not pandering to bad causes, and his presentation needs some work but he's young. but that's my whole problem with this love for the young in politics, they are still a work in progress.
anyway, i enjoy Michael White as i think he's fair and balanced so always worth a read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jun/07/ed-miliband-even-pandas-need-to-panda






Tweet

Voters want tough responsibilities agenda, Ed Miliband told

I think that's very interesting. I also think there's a fair bit of scope for a lefty agenda in there.
things like employment protection regs coming down on the side of the workers through the more moderate and reasonable bits of the trade unions would definitely be something to consider, and if working people, "squeezed middle" or not, can see that these help them, they might support them.
Ed Miliband needs to put his analysis of immigration into a good strategic direction and some philosophy before the detail comes.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/08/voters-tough-agenda-ed-miliband

The knives are out for Ed Miliband at the moment

I've been fairly critical of Ed Miliband's leadership of Labour, and I'm not the only one.

One bit from that article that resonates with me is "Nine months into his leadership, few in the party are clear about even the broad strategy".
That to me is a problem. It's not a policy issue, it's a 'broad strategy', a 'high level' thing as they say at my work.
Thing is, i want the lad to do well. i want him to be good. i want him to be the leader i voted for, even though i regretted voting for him over his brother before the result was announced, because i voted early.
i want him to do well, and it is a mixed picture. I'm interested in this Blue Labour idea, and one i think could work and take us forward as New Labour showed. I think we (Labour) have to appeal to people who may vote for us rather than talking to ourselves and having policies we think people should want rather than ones people do want.

For me, give the guy some more time.




Tweet

The squeezed muddle

I think the saddest part of that is that while he's trying to stand up for a group, he's too fearful of making that claim publicly. I don't know if that's him being weak or clever. He wants to stand up for the group Healy identified, I don't doubt that. But he wants to do it without alienating the groups either side, especially the ones higher up for fear of a backlash.
I personally think that Cameron is in No. 10 because the Tories were the only party to put together a coherent philosophy at the last election, and the reason Clegg is there is because Cameron tried to please too many people rather than being bold and brave, alienating some and securing others. It's certainly far too early to judge miliband, or to start backing yourself into a corner by making pledges. Sadly, policy must wait, and wait years. Cameron did the right thing in not committing to policy for years but rather rebranding and all that stuff I hate. While I don't think Miliband should start wearing converse or proclaiming love for the Smith/Killers/popular music group of the week, he should be vague at this point, dealing with philosophy rather than policy detail. At least that's what I think.

the royal wedding‏

Personally,
I care only so far as I’m footing the bill. If a single penny of tax payer money goes on that wedding it will be disgusting. Why should a pair of spoilt brats who are not exactly short of a penny or two take taxpayer money at a time when things are so tight and jobs are being lost?

I hope Labour’s focuses on this to show it’s more on the side of working people than royal glitz and glamour. Given Clegg and Cameron’s backgrounds there may be some political capital there

Five reasons why Conservatives should fear Ed (and more than David) By Lewis Sidnick.

1) He is new: No matter how important he was to New Labour in Government, and no matter how many years he worked for Gordon Brown and served as a Cabinet Minister – the public hardly know him. They don’t recognise his association to the past Blair/Brown years. Unlike his brother, to the vast majority of the public he is a fresh new face at the top of British politics.

2) He’ll have a centre ground agenda, but with a splash of left policy which could work well. Ed Miliband will know the dangers of presenting a left of centre agenda and come the General Election, the main strands of his policies are bound to be centre ground. But during a period of cuts and pain, lower disposable income, falling property prices and general financial insecurity a splash of more “caring” left policies will work well for the next 2/3 years. Blair said to move an inch to the left would be a disaster for Labour. He was right but he isn’t now. During his period as Leader, with a growing economy and rising levels of wealth, moving to the left would have been ideal for the Conservatives. However, a light short term left of centre policy approach, but fading away as the election approaches could be a sensible strategy.

3) He will be able to ditch the broken New Labour brand: As a result of points 1 and 2 above, he (and not David) will be able to ditch the New Labour past and move the Party on (regardless of whether policies change or not).

4) He is normal: Despite his education and years growing up in a posh area in north London, he comes across both as normal and also successful and competent. Most importantly he can communicate in everyday language, sound knowledgeable and not out of touch (a frequent criticism was that David could not).

5) He is a winner. His success story is quite remarkable. He became an MP in 2005, then a Cabinet Minister and now Leader of the Opposition. How many people can compete with that? Well, maybe only Cameron and Clegg can and look where they are now.
1)
the parallel is Cameron. Both wrote the loosing manifesto then were able to shed it so Cameron probably can't bring it up.

2)
i think he got in because he's not his brother. Many people are big supporters of his, but we all know who the MPs voted for, and who the unions members voted for. i'm a bit unsure where he will go, but ever so slightly to the left is my guess

3)
true. when in doubt, brand

4)
only as far as politicians go

5)
can't argue with that, and i don't think he's throw that away to tack miles to the left

The new shadow cabinet: A smart use of resources

it's also about having a high profile Blair-ite in the role which makes some sense and shows a strong move to the centre. odd phrasing i know, how can anyone move TO the centre if they've never left the centre. but you know what i mean.

also, Balls' economic theory does attempt to reduce the deficit, but through growth and investment. a sort of bringing it down by other means. which i'd love to see work

Ed Miliband as leader

so, Ed Miliband eh? yeah. erm.
anyway, enough of that, let the work of kicking these useless Tory coalition out begin. This country needs a Labour government again, let's go

red Ed and paper power

I saw a very worrying article in the FT blog.
Tabloids salivate at prospect of “Red Ed” in charge
Ed Miliband would "be easy to caricature as “Red Ed”, slave to the unions and champion of unreconstructed lefty-ism".
and
"Another tabloid hack told me weeks ago that Ed had tacked wildly to the left with his socialist policy agenda. Such as what, I asked? “Well, I don’t really know,” he admitted. “Does it matter?” Such is the reality of the Westminster village."

very worrying, and if the following policy positions are taken into account too:
"It may also be rather unfair given that on some issues there isn’t an obvious difference between the brothers.

For example David wants a higher banking tax, a high pay commission, a mansion tax and so on. Where he has set out a different stall is a] his more middle-ground rhetoric, b] his refusal to promise to joining anti-cuts rallies c] his refusal to apologise for Iraq d] his more firm commitment to Alistair Darling’s deficit reduction programme and e] his sticking to New Labour’s (not very liberal) policies on CCTV, ID cards and so on.

Both brothers are committed to the central principles of union rights, a distributive tax system and a fiscal tightening which falls far short of the coalition’s plan.
Further UPDATE (3pm): Friends of Ed Miliband point out that he doesn’t back his brother’s mansion tax nor his tax on private schooling."

so is David in fact to the left of Ed on policy?
i've been thinking for a while that i went for the wrong Miliband.

a mate of mine and i were discussing this over beer the other day and he's worried that Ed M could be characterised as Red Ed. i've heard people talking about him as a Benn-ite, which is rubbish but the fact people are talking about it is worrying from a truth point of view

voted

Right,
I've now submitted my votes for all positions up for play in this election.
Sadly, I lost my notes so i have no record of who I voted for on the NPF.
On the NEC i voted Akehurst, Baxter, Black, Livingstone, Ware-Lane and Wiseman.
NPF, can't remember.

Leadership:
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
David Miliband,
Andy Burnham,
Dianne Abbott

Labour Party Leadership

last night i cast my UNITE ballot, once i get my NEC and NPF ideas together i'll cast those.
as i haven't a clue who most of the people are, it's taking a while

Labour Party Leadership

according to Vote Match I should go for Dianne Abbott. But I won't. Of all the five she's the only one i would never consider voting for.
policy shouldn't be that important in the leadership contest. we are five years out from a general election probably, and the party should have a role in setting policy. we need character, philosophy and who will best beat the tories.
on some of those that horrible David Miliband is improving with me. i don't agree with him on some things, and think he's not a very nice person, and not nearly personable enough to take the fight to Cameron on Cameron's own terms, but he's got a good chance of beating the tories.
ed miliband is good too, and i respect lots of the people who have backed him.
ed balls is a heavy weight, but too brusing and better behind the scenes.
andy burnham is good but too young and a bit lightweight, maybe next time.
round and round and round i go.

David Miliband

Damn it Miliband, D!
what am i to do now eh?
first cruddas comes out in support of him, then i listen to DM on the guardian podcast.
i've never liked David Miliband, and he's been in 4th place. but the faults and inexperience of the other 3 have always left the door a bit ajar for him.
whilst i didn't like much of what he said, the bit at the end when they got onto the really serious stuff impressed me. he was talking about balancing torture again human rights and i think he was very good. i personally am more on the side of security than human rights provided certain conditions are met, e.g. ticking bomb or certainty. if, for example, you are certain someone is a terrorist i have no problem with them being tortured as i believe someone who sets out to indiscriminately kill innocent people is a far greater risk to freedom than upholding freedom through torture, personally.
Miliband wasn't nearly so up front as that, but he certainly didn't rule it out and made the case for that sort of progmatism in light of the necessities.
the alternative is the risk that innocent people die and terrorists have their rights to do this upheld

David Miliband's party

Judging by this, i never want to go to one of David Miliband's parties.
The thing is, the bloke seems to have the personality of a calculator. He's a brilliant policy geek, just like a (pun intended) rich-man's, clean-shaven, not-socialist Bearded Socialist.
I am a policy geek, oh yes i am. But i bet my parties are more fun than David Miliband's. Which is probably why he'll lead the Labour party and I won't.

I'm getting really narcoleptic about the leadership election actually. For a start they're too young.

David Miliband is too slimy, arrogant and dull for me as a leader. i think he's a poor man's Tony Blair.

Ed Miliband is not any where the finished article for me. i know a lot of people who's opinion i respect are going for him, but i thought he was very patchy and inconsistent on the Guardian politics podcast i listen to and that's a fair reflection i think. Sure, he's young and has time on his side, but we are election the person we think should be able to be prime minister tomorrow.

Ed Balls is brilliant but a rough bruiser. he's probably my personal favourite but i think he'd be a poor leader, he's more a behind the scenes man due to his personality and sytle. abrasive to say the least. a friend of mine described him as 'gordon brown' without the good bits and i think the puplic at large would take to Balls about as well as Gordy.

Andy Burnham is too young. he's got potential but hasn't been able to stamp his authority on the race. definately a talent, and should be in and around this batch, maybe in ten years time he will have grown into his potential.

Diane Abbott "is arguably the most left-leaning of all the candidates, but her lacklustre pitch so far has mainly consisted of repeatedly pointing out that her opponents are all Caucasian men." Sums her up perfectly

labour leadership via blogging

some interesting comments i thought (in reverse order):

my oxbridge comment was because Julian said "She will have a natural constituency alien to the four white middle-aged Oxbridge males". i was only pointing out that all 5 candidates are oxbridge, not that there is anything wrong with that.

i certainly am politically incorrect, i almost wear it as a badge of honour. i also believe in positive discrimination because if i as a white middle-class educated young man get to the same level as someone from a harder background they have achieved more than me.

Yvette Cooper was my first choice as leader, in part because she is a woman. only in part. after that, Alan Johnson because he's worked his way up and has good experience. After that I at the very least wanted Harman to run because i really believe in her equality agenda.
I personally want Ed Balls to win because i like his style i.e. he's a nasty hard noised bastard. but i don't think that is what the public want in a political leader, so i'm back Ed Miliband as i'm very impressed by the people who are backing him


in reply to:
Oh bearded one!
Sometimes reading your contributions one feels that whatever happens you cannot be pleased, however perhaps you feel the same about me! Poor Diane – how awful to be thought ‘a bad advert for positive discrimination’! That little statement by you ticks about every politically incorrect box going. You will have seen that I am against positive discrimination of any sort believing in the ‘best person for the job’ principle and imo Diane Abbott is just that. She would not have been my first choice for the Labour leadership contest, that would have gone to John McDonnell [I supported him against Gordon Brown last time around and have sadly just put away again my John4Leader t-shirt!] but once John stepped down yesterday Diane Abbott became my natural next choice. Not for any of the ‘positive discrimination’ reasons but because I mostly like her political views [as Julian says she and I were both anti the Iraq war - I was one of those who took part in all the marches] The issue of her sending her son to public school? I can understand her comment that she was only being questioned because she is a woman as it is true that it is largely the case that women MPs of whatever political shade are questioned a lot more about childcare and things like their schooling etc than male MPs. The question of whether or not the child should be at a private school is a different issue upon which I don’t feel I should comment.
Lastly why the comment about Diane Abbott being Oxbridge educated? Is it forbidden for left wing socialists to graduate from Oxbridge? No-one told me I would have to give up my left-wing credentials when I graduated on that October day in Cambridge! In fact I think that the education I got confirmed those credentials and the work I have done since then has taken me further forward! Diane Abbott comes from an ordinary family where to go to university in the late 1960s/early 1970s was an achievement, let alone Oxbridge. Do you really want to be represented in this day and age by men and women who are disadvantaged educationally amongst their peers?


in reply to:
i think she’s a bad advert for positive discrimination i’m afraid.
in the first debate on monday, all the candidates made reasoned and sensible contributions when talking about the private provision of public services. her response was to rant that ‘privatisation is wrong’. when asked yesterday about her sending her son to a private school, she objected that she was only being targeted for being a woman.
And she’s also Oxbridge educated.

in reply to:
I am delighted that Diane Abbott has made onto the ballot for the Labour Party leadership. She will liven up what was threatening to be a one-dimensional contest.

This is not to say that the other four are not great talents – they are. But there was a common theme running through the other contenders.

Diane’s inclusion ticks a number of boxes: she is of the left, she is female, she is black, a backbencher, and she represents a southern constituency.

This is not a sop to tokenism; it is an enabler to widening the debate. Diane’s inclusion will mean that the left of the party will have a voice. This means that issues like Iraq will be debated with a voice who opposed the war from the start (and this is not a dig a late converts). It will widen the debate so that women’s and minorities’ issues will have a voice from within that camp.

Diane is not as polished performer as her male opponents, but I find her occasional skittishness endearing, and it makes her look more human too. She looks like the outsider at the moment; this is not necessarily a bad place to be.

What her inclusion will do is make the other four work that bit harder and no bad thing. She will have a natural constituency alien to the four white middle-aged Oxbridge males. To win this election they will have a foretaste of what will be required in 2015.

I really haven’t made up my mind who to vote for, although as the election is being conducted using a version of AV I can claim that I will vote for all of them. I know that what is needed is a winner, someone capable of ridding us of the Con-Dem coalition.

Jon Cruddas is right (and so is Boris)

Damn that's good analysis.

Is there institutional sexism in the Labour Party?

discussion from Julian Ware-Lane's blog

i think there is a far deeper issue of sexism in the country. i heard on some media or other that more coverage was given to the clothing of the leaders wives than to any female politician.
women are very rarely taken seriously by the media and i'm sure that puts many women off. Ed Balls has admitted that he wanted to stand aside for his wife to stand but she declined, which is sad as she would have got my vote.
It's right that we are having this discussion, that's for sure

Ed Balls: 'They said we were not on their side, that we lost touch'

I think Balls has been the most impressive contender so far in that he seems to have the best idea of why Labour was kicked out (the fairness thing) and his stated willingness to stand aside to allow his wife into the contest. It's a shame she refused as she would be my choice.

Would-be Labour leaders, take the Mrs Duffy test | Liam Byrne

He may well have a point, but who have we? David Miliband? Someone help us