You are here: Home » Comment »

Murphy, Cuts and the Ed Mili-vacuum

January 6, 2012 7:05 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

If it wasn’t the case before then it certainly is now – everything that happens in the Labour Party is seen through the prism of whether or not people are backing or attacking Ed Miliband. There’s an Ed Mili-vacuum (of which more later) which the Labour leader is allowing to be filled with stories that are increasingly bad for him.

Today the latest – and best – example of the media twisting a story to attack the Labour leader can be seen in the Guardian. The Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy has made some sensible proposals about spending cuts under his remit – and limited to his remit – which I understand are reflective of his views on Labour’s future defence
spending commitments. He doesn’t refer to any other spending commitments in any other government departments, and he uses the word “defence” more often than he needs probably needs to, to be strictly clear that he’s talking about his own policy area.

Yet what’s the Guardian headline? “Labour told to accept spending cuts to be credible”.

I despair sometimes, I really do…

That said, Jim Murphy – despite not making the argument that the Guardian headline (and coverage) might suggest – has made a serious contribution to the debate.

Labour will need to accept the need for cuts before the next election, and spell out specific cuts. Because without getting real about deficit reduction we can’t come up with any policies for the next election either. And without them, what on earth will any of us have to be enthused about? Nothing much at all. And there’s the second part of the Mili-vacuum. More on that later…

(Incidentally, many will assume that Murphy is jumping on the post Glasman bandwagon of criticising Ed Miliband, however I understand Murphy’s cuts announcement was planned before Glasman’s comments.)

  • Anonymous

    I noticed that Murphy was only speaking of defence cuts – on the 0530 Radio 4 “News Briefing”   (a sad old insomniac, me!) they mentioned his agreement with defence spending cuts, but they prefaced this by saying that Mr Murphy had said the Labour party should not be so quick to condemn all coalition cuts, so, if you had been in and out of the room, it might well have given the impression he was talking about a wider range of cuts. Certainly, like the Guatrdian, the BBC didn’t make it sufficiently clear he was only speaking of defence.

    And of course, Mark you are right. Lablour mujst make it very clear what cuts they do and don’t support, that said, Labour, whoever leads it, will never return to power if they just portray themselves as another version of the Conservative Party, as Ed allowed Liam Byrne to do this week.

    • John Ruddy

      No, the BBC bulletins later this morning, on both TV and radio, did not make it clear that he was talking only about certain defence cuts.

      However, what Jim needs to do now is come out and say that he has been misrepresented, and make clear that he was not talking about other departments. If he does that, this story will then become one about he media trying to spin a story to attack Labour, rather than a positive one for the tories.

      • Anonymous

        But he was also saying defence cuts and welfare within those cuts meaning welfare within defence, we have been hearing little bits for a while now that the army wants to be allowed to get rid of people who are disabled, they have not done so  before because Labour did not want stories of soldiers living in poverty, even though the DDA does not include the Military.

        So lots of soldier who gave legs arms  minds to the Labour parties wars will be made redundant to allow more soldiers to be employed or kept employed.

        These people will have to prove they are now disabled under Labours WCA lets hope the Tories new convent on the military takes this into account .

        Sadly Labour is now agreeing to this, says a lot more about labour then the Tories sadly

  • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

    Labour really has to accept that all of the main mass media outlets are now our enemies – and that the misrepresentations of the Guardian and BBC and Independent are more insidious and thus worse than those of the openly Tory press. 

    So every message has to be completely clear and delivered in such a way that they cannot be easily edited to mean something else. 

    • Anonymous

      It seems to me Roger there is some specific agenda behind the scenes, involving the more right wing of the party, possibly feeding the media with opportunities for greater line of criticism/attack. It hardly seems like a level playing field or balanced debate; it always comes from the same direction; no matter how eloquent the points made.
      It just comes across as plotting and scheming.for example, it seems no coincidence that many of these “critiques” are all realeased around the same time, possibly designed for maximum impact.

      This is a just a general comment, as I haven’t read all the suggestions made by J.Murphy, whom in many ways appears an excellent and effective MP; but judging by the constant stream of “critiques” being released since a slight blip in the poll, the whole thing looks almost conspiritorial. I do not believe this is a healthy way to air debate or encourage public discussion; it merely “feeds” the detractors more ammunition and creates more division within the party; may even alienate some members and supporters of the party who started out in good faith and actually wanted to participate in a meaningful fashion.

      I am becoming increasingly disillusioned and losing faith in any possibility of democratic workings and seeing a change in culture of politics; it is more like watching a series of clever games and  power struggles.

      What I want to see is pragmatic working and respect between people of all opinions,
      acting collectively on the big issues like the economy, NHS, education, poverty, etc.
      There is a huge amount to be done, and if all politics consists of is intellectual spats between factions of the party, we have far less chance of winning the next election or gaining respect from the public.

      As said, this is not a specific response to what has been said here, but a general observation
      on the torrent of articles and headlines re “Ed M’s leadership” since a blip in the poll.
      (I see that as a reaction to DC stance on Europe- which is a whole separate issue,
      and likely to be a temporary phenomenon.)So this is all hardly a long term view, or taking wider factors into consideration.It is an over reaction, designed to add more fuel to the fire.

      I’m not saying there aren’t major issues to be sorted; but process of change is always difficult and lengthy, and people need to be working in a trusting enviroment to succeed.

      Also, instilling some kind of faith in the members of the party and public is essential for morale, otherwise people will leave in droves.

      We were supposed to be getting away from the “Blair/Brown” era and entering a new phase of politics; but so far it seems that one section of the party may not be letting go;
      also appear to have many allies in the media.Are they remotely in touch with ordinary members or the kind of people that walked on the demo in March last year?

      Currently, I’m not impressed with the way politics is working for anybody.

      Thankyou, Jo.

      • Anonymous

        Mark, I’m sorry if I have given impression this is aimed at you or your article here; it is not; it is just a general frustration and sometimes anger about the prevailing atmosphere and torrent of “critiques” usually along the same lines, in my view.

        So I’m kind of agreeing with you; merely saying we should be careful not to supply ammunition to opposition forces?

        It’s hard to get things across sometimes; blogging is a limited medium.

        Thankyou anyway, and apology for getting cross earlier; as my comment just seem to disappear into the ether the minute I’d written it, and I had impression of being shunted off down a sideline for showing possible dissent of opinion?

        Sometimes it feels like nothing but antagonism and “anti” views via the commentary from many people who have no interest in Labour process.
        Not always the case though.

        It’s very easy to misunderstand where people might be coming from,
        especially where limited opportunity for 2 way dialogue and feedback.

        Jo

  • M Cannon

    Mr Murphy may have limited his comments to his own brief, Defence, but his reasoning is of obviously wider implication.  He talked of making cuts to welfare programmes (within the Defence budget) which he described as “painful”.

    Mr Murphy clearly accepts that there have to be cuts in government spending to reduce the deficit: the cuts he is prepared to accept are not things he would necessarily have chosen to do in more favourable circumstances.

  • Pingback: Mr Adam Richards

  • Pingback: Are you listening Ed Balls? « Mr Adam Richards

  • Pingback: Are you listening Ed Balls? « Mr Adam Richards

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    By Chris Williamson

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    By Owen Jones

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    By Ben Shave

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    By Ann Black

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →