You are here: Home » Comment »

Opposition sucks, and we suck at opposition

January 19, 2012 9:32 am

Author:

Emma Burnell

Tags:

Share this Article

Something is really frightening me. Have you heard about the Shadow Cabinet minister who said something disloyal? How about the daft blogger with a superiority complex? What about the policy forum that shouts into a bottomless void? It’s waking me up in the night. Every time my mind wanders, it wanders ends up here, and my heart starts to race.

I don’t think the Labour Party know we lost the last election.

At the very least, very few of us are acting as if we know we’re in opposition.

Being in opposition sucks. It really sucks.

Do you know how much you can invest in growth from opposition?

Nothing.

Do you know how many jobs you can create from opposition?

None.

Do you know how many cuts you can prevent from opposition?

None.

Do you know who are implementing the cuts? Who have choked off the growth? Who are causing rising unemployment?

Do you?

Because from the tone of the conversations I’ve been seeing in the last week, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s Ed Balls who is responsible for causing the damage, not just proposing dealing with the fallout.

The fact that opposition is painful, frustrating and humiliating is no reason to pretend it’s not happening. But that’s what we’re doing.

We keep screaming at each other as if we were still in government and capable of doing – rather than simply discussing – things with which we disagree. We keep talking about ourselves, our leaders, our personalities, their leadership and their personality clashes; reducing leadership to a particularly daft edition of Heat magazine.

I’m amazed we haven’t focused on Ed’s cellulite, or Yvette’s top tips for shifting that baby weight. Then criticised her for her acceptance of the fact that her body has changed.

Not that our cabinet members are acting like they understand opposition any better than the rest of us.

Opposition is a time for ambition, and a time to evaluate our ambitions upwards after the long slog of Government. It’s a time to look again at what we failed to do and why. What we’d like to do and how. What we need to do by when.
Right now, our shadow cabinet are acting like jaded ministers in a dying government. They can’t step out of that mind-set. They can’t set themselves free from the shackles of Government enough to turn themselves into the kind of opposition that becomes a new and fresh government.

If we start a government muted and technocratic, God knows what we’ll be like after five years of the compromises of power. We need our cabinet members to shake the timidity of Labour government (for who is accusing this Tory government of being reticent) and grasp at the new nettles of 21st century challenges.

We’ve retained so many of the bad habits we gained as we got comfortable in government. Internecine warfare, insider briefing, poor discipline and easy, opportunistic in-fighting. We’re all at it; we’re all as bad as each other.

We’re holding on to so much of what made us less effective as a governing force. Timidity, managerialism, lack of a sense of an egalitarian destination. A tendency to tinker not to change.

If we can’t – individually and collectively – pull our fingers out and start to focus outwards on the country not inwards on ourselves, we don’t deserve to win again.

And the thing that really, really keeps me up at night?

Do some of us, deep down, prefer it that way?

Anonymous
Though opposition is frustrating, it can be enriching having time to formulate new ideas and working out your beliefs and principles and how best to implement them.
The trouble is because it is frustrating the temptation is to look at every opinion poll and if things are not going your way quick enough, to panic and blame the leader.
What of course they should be doing is to co-operate with the leader, and pull together instead of which they run off to the newspapers and the BBC to express their “concerns” anonymously. Why not say it to his face?.
As for people who have only been in the party five minutes (alright, 5 years) seem to be ashamed of their roots and decide to jump immediately to the Conservatives, well I don’t think they are worth bothering with. Whats-his-name will have been forgotten already by the general public, assuming they knew of him anyway.
jaime taurosangastre candelas
I think you are entirely correct Emma,
Given the adversarial nature of politics in the UK, the only thing for an Opposition to do is to start thinking, and speaking of principles. You – and Mike Homfray – are correct in stating that because the details of current Government activities, the books, etc are not known, the Opposition cannot reasonably counter any proposal with certainty. However, what an Opposition can do is to show an alternative path in general. In many cases, the alternative will not be populated with so much precision, and it will often be derided for that. But the function of proposing an alternative (in general) is to inform the electorate and to keep the current Government honest, not to be an actuarial exercise.
What we currently have is the worst of all worlds. Labour oppose every detailed proposal from the coalition Government and are beaten on the detailed numbers, but offer no alternative. The energy should instead be on creatively proposing an alternative.
That is where I believe Ed Miliband’s greatest failing is, in not inspiring his Party, not leading the creative thinking, not offering to the electorate any alternative. He sought the leadership, but having won it he does not appear to know what to do with it. It is probably too late for Ed Miliband – I think that he had his chance and he blew it – but if I am wrong on that, his easiest path back to electability is to be the “ideas man”, leading and shaping an alternative vision.
So far, “too far too fast” is the closest Labour has got to an alternative, and it is not working because it is not really an alternative, merely a difference in speed going along the same vector.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
But its actually Ed who is coming up with many interesting ideas. I think the problem is that what many in the party would really like to hear – me amongst them – isn’t realistic. And wanting it now rather than accepting that the election will be in 2015 and you don’t set your agenda three years in advance.
I think the very last thing we need is another shallow salesman – all style and no substance. We had that in Blair, and the only legacy was an illegal war, for so flimsy was the act of increasing spending without changing underlying Thatcherite structures and assumptions. Perhaps just for once, the British electorate will have to grow up and start thinking, not working on the level of smart soundbites.

jaime taurosangastre candelas
@ Mike,
you may also be correct in that Ed has some ideas, but the problem is that he is not credited with them (unless they turn out to be turkey ideas). Cameron steals the good ones, and leaves Ed with the bad ones.
Some posters on here may blame a biased media, but I am more hard-hearted. The squeezed middle was an inadequately made case by Ed, and then turned into a taxpayer-vs-benefits claimant argument. Good vs bad (predator against productive) sunk by the city. Even worker reps on boards is a poorly expressed idea, as they will be outvoted, and thus it is an easy policy for Cameron to adopt and put into practice without the city having to suffer any negative consequences.
I don’t like what Cameron does, but in a strange way you have to admire it for the brutal efficiency. The problem is that because Ed Miliband has all of the political acumen of a Smurf character, he gets beaten over again and again and again. Napoleon liked “lucky” generals. For all of his faults (and to the detriment of all of us), Cameron is a lucky General. By contrast, Ed Miliband is really like Mr Bean, and for the good of the Labour Party should be removed very soon. I’m fairly sure that for each year he remains as the Labour leader, he will cost the Party 20 seats in the 2015 election.
Anonymous
You will have to again tell me what is labour about , we have to have more then just words you do not have to have policies yet, but you will in the end.
Welfare has gone.
NHS is not the power it use to be , but doctors are out to protect pensions with nurses, so pension are now the big battle, where are labour on pension not much being said except we do not back the strikers.
Social housing is now, affordable houses for the middle class, labour tried council houses for the middle class but nobody wanted them.
So really labours battle is against the Tories not because they are wrong or bad, but because labour sees it self as a third way party of conservatism,
Anonymous
It would have been interesting to see if Blair would have won another election, Brown sadly was just as we expected poor .
But Miliband cannot win the 2015 election unless the country goes with him and around me the argument is what the hell does he stand for, what is he who is he, he will have to work a dam sight harder to get those things answered and get the people behind him, other wise a hung government is highly likely again or a Tory government with a small majority. but right now I cannot see Five points being enough.
I just been told that a benefits cap would see me losing £3000 a year, that is massive amount and they said my main ESA would in fact end up at £68 or the same as JSA, we are told the Tories are going to get the sick the disabled back to work they are determined, and labour has now agreed, but labour failed
Labour agree, labour agrees, labour agrees, that’s all I’m hearing from labour it’s not leading it’s following, labour gone from a party of welfare to the Party following the Tories.

http://twitter.com/all_thats_left_ All Thats Left
I am however, heartened by Labour’s proposals to put Workers on remuneration committees. If we are to embrace ‘fair capitalism’ (awful oxymoron) then it is a step in the right direction. Indeed, surely now is the time to strengthen the whole culture of Works Councils in this country and finally give them teeth.
Follow the link – to see our expanded argument on this point:
http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2012/01/want-to-make-capitalism-fairer-bring-forth-the-workers-councils/

Anonymous
I heard on the Today programme R4 an experienced journalist say Ed M
always has the best ideas, but stolen by Cameron; and unable to enact being in opposition. Also ideas need to be articulated more clearly.
I think Ed did that much better in the T’graph article yesterday-
more detail, and sounded credible and convincing.
Unfortunately now though, both leaders are fighting over the same territory,
and no doubt DC will try to claim all the credit.
Meanwhile, what interested me far more today was the news about the RCN
and reaction to health reforms…..I think this is unprecedented, because
they have historically been relatively compliant with government policy
over the years.
And yet AL says other factors at play now because it’s politically
motivated??
What is he doing with the NHS then- and who is best placed to defend that?
It’s hardly just about practicality- it’s also ideologically driven
by a right wing government, along similar lines as the 80′s.
If that isn’t political I don’t know what is.
Don’t front line workers have a right to speak out
or defend services on behalf of the public and their own profession?
As for ideas for action Emma- I think there’s plenty
to be getting on with- but has to be articulated clearly.
Thankyou, Jo.

http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone
“Ed M always has the best ideas, but stolen by Cameron; ”
I also heard that comment. But, following last years conference speech, Ed was criticised from some quarters for “anti-business rhetoric” and it is possible that, in order to placate the noisy people who regard that as a great sin, Ed toned things down. Certainly, in my opinion, he didn’t make the ‘predator capitalism’ concern the popular centre-piece it could easily have been.
The consequence is that now, just as bankers are about to be rewarded with bonuses for driving the economy into the ground, up pops Cameron, trumpeting his ‘passion’ for social justice with talk of capitalism in crisis and explaining that no true Conservative could “stand back and let capitalism rip”. And he also delivers a headline grabbing stunt with talk of relieving Goodwin of his knighthood.
So Cameron has stolen Ed’s ideas, and will get away with it because Ed hadn’t, for whatever reason, made them obviously his own.

Anonymous
Thanks Dave- in full agreement.
I am amazed how the media is getting away with being so biased;
I do wonder if there is some agenda there too?
Has some deal been struck?
It is far from a level playing field; although there are exceptions of journalists who are showing great integrity and not following the current consensus being created.It seems like a bit of a stitch up
at times, and they are using their power of platform.
I think Ed will have to get a lot tougher and follow through with his ideas, challenge more; defend his position through power of argument.
I think what he has on his side Dave is substance- but he’s got to explain more clearly.
DC makes glossy speeches- but to me they invariably sound the same; as if the same spin on it, regardless of subject area.
It comes across as superficial and surface- stuff said but sounding more like a sales pitch than an impassioned heartfelt conviction.
People have to actually believe this stuff, not just be lectured to.
Jo
Anonymous
Thanks Dave- in full agreement.
I am amazed how the media is getting away with being so biased;
I do wonder if there is some agenda there too?
Has some deal been struck?
It is far from a level playing field; although there are exceptions of journalists who are showing great integrity and not following the current consensus being created.It seems like a bit of a stitch up
at times, and they are using their power of platform.
I think Ed will have to get a lot tougher and follow through with his ideas, challenge more; defend his position through power of argument.
I think what he has on his side Dave is substance- but he’s got to explain more clearly.
DC makes glossy speeches- but to me they invariably sound the same; as if the same spin on it, regardless of subject area.
It comes across as superficial and surface- stuff said but sounding more like a sales pitch than an impassioned heartfelt conviction.
People have to actually believe this stuff, not just be lectured to.
Equally I think, Ed has to get away from the wooden sounding repetitive phrases or abstract talk- just stick to talking human
and being straightforward.He sounds far better off the record anyway- so that should be natural.
Jo

John Ruddy
I think part of the issue is the difference between the two main parties. Traditionally we have been part of a wider movement, linking in with the Co-Op, the trade unions and so on. Policy has also been traditionally made at conference.
The tories have always been a much smaller (in terms of breadth, not necessarily in numbers) party. The leadership has always decided policy, and their conference has always been a place to stage manage the rubber stamping of policy. The so-called “magic circle” used to elect leaders, while we did things differently.
The problem is that our leadership has tried to move towards to Tory model of party management, while the rest of the movement has stayed where we were. This the tension. The leadership seems to want to do things their way and get us all falling behind them in agreement, rather than the traditional Laboru method, which involved dialogue between all parts of the movement.
Anonymous
With you 100% until the last two sentences, which are often said and are really a shallow comment and not true.
http://profiles.google.com/roger.f.mccarthy Roger McCarthy
The underlying issue is the speed of the news cycle and the now almost total hostility of the media (even at editorial level of the Guardian and Independent) to Labour.
In 1987-92 we spent the whole parliament carrying out a true policy review and while this was not without conflict and drama the process did involve real debates and produced a workable programme for government (which was then mostly ditched by Tony Blair but that’s another story).
Now we have to rush and railroad through everything in a ridiculously compressed timescale to feed a media which will deliberately distort and misrepresent everything we do anyway.
Labour really does need to wise up to the fact that the coalition won’t collapse and that like it or not we have until 2015 to completely rethink absolutely everything.
And if we do somehow win in 2015 there will be little but ruins left of the NHS, the welfare state, the British economy and in all likelihood the Union itself – so we will be in much the same position that Attlee, Cripps and Bevan faced in 1945.

Plato
All very sensible stuff until the last paragraph, which I disagree with completely.
This is precious time that Labour needs to spend rebuilding and working out what it wants to be and why. Without these fundamentals in place, its virtually impossible to move on.
Almost two years have passed, and much time spent on distractions, passing bandwagons, and chip paper politics/sloganising.
A few feel that the ‘u-turn’ on spending is a year too late, some that it’s selling-out and aping the Tories, others are saying Meh, its nothing new. I’ve seen EdM and Hattie and Balls all saying different things since last weekend, and have absolutely no idea what Labour’s position is on cuts.
Is Peter Hain still in charge of the policy review process? Is it Blue, Black, Red or Purple Labour. Or something else?
EdM needs to get on top of this as others are filling in the blanks.
Cracking article BTW Emma. More please.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Whereas I think just about everything said now will be history and largely irrelevant by 2015.

Anonymous
That Depends does it not, if it’s still being said in 2015 it will mean the same then as it does now.

Anonymous
It worked in 1945 perhaps a bit more of this and less of cuts to the poor may well work
The Labour Party stands for freedom – for freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the Press. The Labour Party will see to it that we keep and enlarge these freedoms, and that we enjoy again the personal civil liberties we have, of our own free will, sacrificed to win the war. The freedom of the Trade Unions, denied by the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, must also be restored. But there are certain so-called freedoms that Labour will not tolerate: freedom to exploit other people; freedom to pay poor wages and to push up prices for selfish profit; freedom to deprive the people of the means of living full, happy, healthy lives.The nation needs a tremendous overhaul, a great programme of modernisation and re-equipment of its homes, its factories and machinery, its schools, its social services.

Anonymous
Emma,
You have bought into the “with us or against us” mantra that an elite uses to keep a majority in check. It’s perfectly legitimate to disagree with the leadership on the best way to achieve power.
I happen to think that endorsing the government’s economic strategy is tactically naive. Not least because it is wrong.
When we do back the government, we should at least take care to do so only when they are doing the right thing – or on rare occasions, when the act of opposition itself would cause harm (eg for national security reasons or something)

Anonymous
But of course labour has, or new labour has backed the Tories, Miliband’s biggest problem is not the Tories but his own party factions, until Labour either kills off New labour or becomes new labour it’s not going to be seen as a party able to govern.

Redshift
I think this is actually the most sane article on here in a long time.

Redshift
If half of the effort people put into blogging, bitching and philosophical musings instead went into door knocking, we would have the government on the ropes.

Anonymous
Unless of course your a Tory who is door knocking or New labour, that’s the problem is it not the Labour party is factional at the moment the battle is not with the Tories but Newer Labour against the New labour regime.

Anonymous
Emma. All fine in principle. But we have a massive problem. The guy at the top is a dead-duck.
Ed is talking today about the rigged energy market. So who was the last Labour minister who had the power to fix this?
Step forward, Mr Ed Miliband.
He is a do-nothing, weak, awkward individual. He failed as Energy Minister. He’s failed at Refounding Labour in a clear and transparent way. He’s failed to fill in his ‘”blank sheet of paper”. He’s failed to do anything useful with M4C, etc, etc, etc.
And Labour voters and non-Labour voters alike can’t stand him (40% LL readers think he’s Poor or Very Poor).
More telling is that those voices desperately trying to prop up Ed are the very same who failed to acknowledge the fatal flaws in Brown’s leadership.

Anonymous
No bias there then.

Anonymous
Yes. I am biased. I care about the Labour Party and resent the damage Ed is doing to it.

Anonymous
Well you are not alone in caring about the Labour party.
But I do try to steer clear of overtly personalized comments
in “attack” mode- it closes down debate and puts people on the defensive.
I personally think you made some sweeping statements and assumptions, although acknowledge difference of opinion.

Anonymous
I appreciate how difficult it is for Ed’s loyalists. It must be exasperating to hear him speak on subjects such as the rigged energy market today, knowing that he did not one single stroke of work whilst he was the Energy Minister to fix it.
Of course his backers will be defensive, but we have to put the Party first.
I remember having this very same conversation with you, Jo, about Brown. And look how that turned out.
Anonymous
Jason, I’ve seen your references to me on more than one occasion; less than subtle.
You are free to make whatever assumptions you wish,
but don’t speak on my behalf.
Perhaps try asking first and checking out a few things?
Not that I’m always able to be here, but I do try to show respect by replying to people, even when I disagree with view points.
I try to be fair in my impressions of people, so don’t always leap to conclusions.
Agreed I’ve been supportive of Ed M, but many others have been too; he was highly popular at the time of the leadership election.
It’s true to say I’ve been disappointed in some respects- but liked other aspects, such as his conference speech, and what I saw of him during a long Q+A and speech. He strikes me as a decent down to earth person without any pretentions or arrogance; willing to speak honestly and admit mistakes; modify, keep an open mind.
I also think he is a genuine team player.
So these are some of the qualities which people pick up on to form a view.
But in terms of “leadership,” yes, some things could be improved upon.I think in part it’s been a lack of communication and patchy announcements about policy etc. It’s bringing it all together and clarifying direction that needs shaping up.
But these are still relatively early stages.
I think this year they have to raise their game,
but already, Ed has impressed with his article in the T’graph- filling in the missing spaces and giving the detail. He’s been more direct and explaining better.
Perhaps just didn’t realise the urgency of it last year- maybe not focused enough; but he’s also had a very tough time of it- that would impact on anyone.
DC is obviously trying to capitalize on his ideas too- that opinion has been widely expressed.
I suspect Dave C has no limits in this respect-
he’s a shrewd operator.
But what matters is backing up what one says- and events over time.
We all make preferences based on impressions, but that doesn’t make it black and white or set in stone.
I personally favour a far more pluralist approach on the centre left rather than being purely partisan.
Politics seems to me a brutal enviroment at times,
and a pretty macho style; it would be refreshing
to change that culture and have a few open minded individuals with intelligently thought through ideas.
I don’t see this as an authoritarian top down situation- but a whole team approach, with different strands of the party working together; seeking wider consensus, connecting to issues of real public concern- and actually involving people in that process; ie collaboration and co operation.
So far, it’s just been a start- but I perecive Ed’s very much got the message that he needs to step up a few gears.
But it’s surely better for the party to have some solidarity and goodwill- not just seeking conflict
from the sidelines or trying to push a particular agenda.
J..
Anonymous
“…surely better for the party to have some solidarity.”
Quite simply no, it is not. Here’s why:
Nobody believes Ed can be PM (Reference: YouGov, 18/1: Only 7% say that Ed has both the ‘right’ policies AND ‘looks and sounds like a Prime Minister’).
Previously it was argued that people needed to get to know Ed. We now know the more he speaks, the more he repels voters. Look at Feltham & Heston Labour excluding Ed from all literature during the by-election.
Ed either leads us to certain defeat in 2015 or we get rid of him.
If the Tories get a second term, they will have fully dismantled the NHS to the point where it cannot be repaired. (Case in point: Ed’s opposition of the NHS bill is truly risible. Quite shocking in fact. I mean 33k signatures on an e-petition. Seriously, is that a joke?)
Finally on your broader point: Politics is a dirty contact sport. You may hate that, but it is. David Prentice knifed Ed in public this week. Ed knifed his brother in public. Last week Emma B urged us all to quote: “..play dirty.”
That is politics.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Well, we are not going to get rid of him, so get used to it. Hopefully a few more Blairites will jump ship in the meantime, and I won’t regret that for a second
jaime taurosangastre candelas
I think you may be wrong on that Mike. I give Ed M less than a year before a small delegation arrives in his office to tell him to go. At the current rate of dissension, it may only be about a couple of months. Now, I believe that would be positive for the Labour Party in terms of the next election (i.e. getting close to or actually being in power). If you are correct – and I concede your more detailed historic knowledge of the Labour Party, you may be happy with fewer right-of-Labour supporters (who you call Blairites) in the Party, but will you be happy with a Party locked into a second period of opposition and having a leadership election in 2015 after Ed Miliband is dumped?
Anonymous
here here , if these are the so called members you do not need enemies.
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
And the entire left. Because the move to the right is noticeable.
I’m sure the remainder will do just fine shadow-boxing the Tories though.
Anonymous
Jason, I’ll just respond with these points:
Re polls- they are notoriously inconsistent and selective.
Also perception varies depending on many factors and reaction to events- so that’s a continuum.
I’m guessing in Ed’s case it’s taken a while to establish a public persona, amidst some major factors, such as post Brown/Blair era; post election defeat; post 2008 global recession;
also new political set up with 2 other parties on coalition; and possibly far less resources and finance.Also- hostile media from the start makes a huge difference. Ed M also needs to gain experience, unlike some who would have provided “ready made”
leaders- but perhaps stayed static.
All this needs time and great effort- but also many more people on board.
It has to be a team effort; no one can function in isolation.
Re NHS- I agree opposition could have been much stronger over time;
but I’ve watched coverage of quite a few of the health debates in the HOC,
and J.Healey gave an excellent defence, as did other members of the team.I also personally rate A.Burnham.
But sadly this may be too little too late. Many of the LD’s were also robust in opposing- but always seem to cave in at the end….why do people give in so easily?
So I’m with you on the topic of NHS, and as you may know I’ve been a health professional for many years myself.I can’t bear to see what is proposed- it is a travesty.
But I don’t believe anyone else would have done more; I don’t know why- but that seems to be the case.
Re your final point-we’ll have to disagree on aspirations for politics;
I don’t doubt some treat it like a dirty business- but there are bad eggs in any organization- that doesn’t justify being complacent and accepting the status quo. Many, including myself believe reform is needed in the way politics is conducted.
As an anecdote, remember the leadership debates pre election on TV?
The audience were monitored for their reactions throughout.
The “surprising” finding was that people intensely dislike confrontation and discord, but prefer consensus.
It might explain partially why people feel turned off by politics.
As for Ed entering the leadership contest for the party- he had every right to do so, as did any other MP.
So I don’t see all this in the divisive terms you refer to.
But do share commitment on NHS.
There’s a whole myriad of ways any of this can be seen; I think question of interpretation and preference-
but room for change.
J
Anonymous
Jo
You say:
1. “I don’t see all the divisive terms you refer to.”
and;
2. “You are free to make whatever assumptions you wish,
but don’t speak on my behalf.”
You then dismiss my comments to another person as:
“I suspect it’s a touch of the “Blairites” again.”
You do see how hilarious that looks, right?
Anonymous
Of course your talking about England when you talk about the NHS, it’s been devolved to Wales and Scotland not to sure about NI.
But the NHS will change it always has, but your not hearing to much from labour about it, because now it’s not changing enough to get the people annoyed.
Anonymous
But of course nor did the leader Blair or brown or any other energy Minister, you do not like Ed because I suspect your mate David did not get the job, some bloody member you are.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Well, he is the party leader, so if you are that unhappy do what I did when Blair embarked on illegal wars
Anonymous
Right your a party member, I can say what I like because after 46 years I jacked it in and left mainly because labour was not labour any more.
But if I was a party member I would not come on here moaning, I would do my moaning at the party conference or the CLP, I would not moan about it here.
You do not like Miliband then do it the correct way because as a member it’s your task to support the party win the next election end of story.
Your another fine weather New labour type.

Anonymous
I am a life-long Labour voter, not a Party member. I have no obligation not to criticise Ed on this forum or anywhere else I choose. (Let’s also not forget 40% of the readers of LabourList say Ed is Poor or Very Poor. I am in good company).
My current politics is guided by the belief that the privatisation of the NHS (ie. hospitals allowed to earn 49% of revenue from private means under the Tory NHS bill) is the single most important domestic political issue of our generation and every generation that follows us.
Ed’s opposition to the NHS Bill has been child-like in its competence. He has gained zero traction with the public on this matter. HM Opposition have a technical role in our ‘constitution’ to oppose such bills. Ed has comprehensively failed to do this.
The public will never elect Miliband to be PM. If the Tories get another 5 years, the NHS private income level will be increased again to 80+ %. The poor will have to go to “county” hospitals, the kind you get in the USA.
This is why I will take every opportunity to criticise Ed.
Anonymous
Look we have two parties which live in a world in which profits direct your policies , labour will seek to see which way it goes by watching what the people think they will use the media.
NHS has for years been a home for private doctors who only do private treatment, if the private treatment out grows the NHS work then sadly private treatment and private hospital will win.
Most of the companies in my area offer private health care as part of a package UNUM Provident also mostly lived in Labours pockets if you do not know about UNUM take a look on Google.
We live in a Market orientated country with two market driven political parties.
I’d put a bet most MP’s have private health care.
Anonymous
Then your basically damaging the party, labour is not my party so I can say what I like , but moaning about Ed being in the party the place to do that is your local CLP and conference, I suspect you be fawing over Blair or David.

Anonymous
Labour voters and non-Labour voters alike can’t stand Nick Clegg, but he has survived – but that might be due to the fact that LibDem spokespeople and supporters have stopped slagging him off at every opportunity – a pity Labour spokespeople/supporters don’t take the hint.
Ed Miliband is honestly not being given a chance by his own people, because they are so desperate to do him down. Some, I am sure, have genuine unbiased complaints, but we all know there are a significantr numb ers of former big beasts and has-beens who are desperate to get rid of him

Anonymous
Agreed Alan; I suspect it’s a touch of the “Blairites” again.

Pingback: Economics and Perception « « Future EconomicsFuture Economics
derek
Hey, I said it first!!!!!!!
Anonymous
One of the main problems, as revealed clearly last weekend, is the leadership don’t fundamentally oppose the coalitions cuts agenda. Both leaderships favour austerity: the Tories like it hard and fast; Labour likes it sugar-coated, nice and slow. Either way, ordinary working people, small businesses, pensioners and the disabled are going to be shafted by ideologically driven, and ultimately ineffective, austerity measures.
In order to oppose an alternative narrative and set of policies, derived from that narrative, that challenges that of your opponent.
I notice the article, like many in the media social or otherwise, are not saying much about solutions to the problem. As I stated in another thread, the solution begins with a rejection of the neoclassical economic orthodoxy that got us into this mess in the first place.
A summation of the Post-Keynesian alternative can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4D8087FA634EFC0B&feature=plcp

Anonymous
Roubini also adds this: http://online.wsj.com/video/nouriel-roubini-karl-marx-was-right/68EE8F89-EC24-42F8-9B9D-47B510E473B0.html
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
@Jason_Butcher: Do you believe it is possible to accept that something has to happen without requiring you to like that thing? Or to like the idea of changing to something totally different but recognise that such a “solution” is not adequately thought through, and hence entirely infeasible.

Anonymous
David,
That’s a very abstract question. Do you wish me to answer you philosophically or point you towards the people who have been thinking this through since at least the Great Depression (Schumpeter, Keynes, Keen, Roubini et al.)?
Or did you not bother to follow the link before posting your question?
Now, a question for you: How do you propose we pay a debt of 950% to GDP with austerity measures when we factor in Keynes’ theory on the paradox of thrift?
I would very much like to see your response.
Jason Butcher.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
You have, angrily I rather think, asked me three questions without answering my one, plurium interrogationum which is a shame.
I shall nevertheless respond more fully to you:
1. You have named a number of economists, presumably to apply an appeal to authority to the link you originally posted. I do not accept such an appeal (of which more later).
2. However, yes I did follow the link to the marginalized Western Sydney University economist whose book on such neo-Keynesian theories is supported as luminary a person as the assistant professor at the private Methodist University of America (in Washington). I therefore reject your appeal, although I concede that simply because he is unknown, largely unaccepted, and certainly not overladen with plaudits does not necessarily mean he is wrong.
3. You ask ”How do you propose we pay a debt of 950% to GDP with austerity measures when we factor in Keynes’ theory on the paradox of thrift”. This presupposes that I accept Keynes’ theory, and that it is relevant to the current situation. An argument, perhaps, from fallacy, or perhaps even a base rate fallacy. I presume that when in debt that if both left and right wing governments across the world are choosing to implement austerity measures that they might be better judges than I could be. This is no appeal to authority myself, merely an observation that such macroeconomic theories are tested in the real world, rather than relying on economic constructs.
I trust this response satisfies your desire to see it. Would it perhaps now be too much to ask if you might be so kind as to answer my original, hypothicated question now without offering such aggressive prevarication?

Anonymous
Dear David,
Playing the man and not the ball? How sad.
In response to your original question: yes, I think things through. I also base what I believe on the best evidence available to me at the time. It’s not a question of like: it’s a question of evidence.
Now, you can call me aggressive, angry, anything you like – I don’t really care. I know that I’m feeling jovial at this juncture as I find your attempts to engage in serious political discussion funny.
Sorry David, don’t mean to cause you personal offence, although I may have done, in any way as I don’t know you from Adam. You are probably an extremely nice person in real life, and I can assure I am as well, but a political or economic argument requires a little more than the posturing you have put forward without any basis other than your own assumptions. Good luck to you and yours, but until you have something more substantial to offer, I have nothing more to say on the matter above.
Kind Regards,
Jason Butcher.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
Really? You don’t see the aggression in your own posts?
If it is any consolation I never had any interest in debating macro-economic theory with you, I simply wanted to understand if your initial point, vis “the Tories like it [cuts] hard and fast; Labour likes it sugar-coated, nice and slow” you would concede the possibility that Labour might not wish to make cuts, but accept that they may feel they have no other credible choice to the current situation.

Latest

Comment
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
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?
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?
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…
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 →