You are here: Home » Featured »

Triangulation? It doesn’t work anymore Mr Miliband

January 20, 2012 11:42 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

A few months after Labour’s devastating defeat in May 2010, a former Blairite aide – John McTernan, who now works for the Australian PM – made a rather startling admission at an event organised to discuss the party’s “Southern Discomfort”.

He said New Labour had utterly failed to convince the public on the issue of immigration, despite its hard talk. Furthermore, he added, the heightened anti-immigration rhetoric of Brown years alienated white voters in Metropolitan areas and ethnic minority voters too.

The admission was surprising to me because it came from an aide who worked for a Prime Minister who took no prisoners on triangulation.

Welfare, immigration and now the deficit have always been tough areas for Labour MPs – caught between trying to appeal to floating voters and keeping their core voters on side. No wonder they try and avoid these discussions.

Tony Blair’s triangulation required ignoring cries from his own base (solved by assuming ‘they have nowhere else to go’) and moving firmly to the right on the economy, crime, welfare and immigration. And it worked for a bit too.

But triangulation has a limited shelf-life. Firstly, Labour’s moves to the right didn’t placate the Tories – they simply moved even further right to differentiate themselves. On immigration they argued for an unfeasible (as they’re finding out now) cap; on welfare they are currently trying to deny even disabled people basic benefits; on the deficit they keep denying their harsh cuts are ruining the economy. This forces Labour to fight even more with its base in order to move further right, and so on.

Secondly, voters have become much more cynical in recent years and pay less attention to current affairs. This means any triangulation – especially when you’re in opposition – requires even bigger symbolic statements and fights. Despite their tough talk while in power, Labour trailed significantly behind the Conservatives on immigration and even cutting the deficit going into the election.

In other words, you can talk tough but the electorate is so cynical that only extreme positions now get noticed. The only way Labour could break through on welfare and deficit reduction now is to start cheering and call for more when Tories demand cuts – which is simply unfeasible.

So what should Labour do? It cannot ignore its credibility gap with floating voters on some issues forever. For a start it could learn from Obama’s failures.

How voters interpret the public debate was recently articulated well by Nate Silver at the New York Times. If both sides are vociferously squabbling over an issue, and the truth is difficult to ascertain, voters usually conform to their prejudices or see it as a typical partisan squabble and ignore it. Our media focuses more on reporting the ‘he said, she said’ arguments and perpetuates that cycle:

“However, if one side makes its point unambiguously, while the other side hedges and does not seem to have its story straight, the public may conclude that the truth lies on the side of the group that has articulated its case more vigorously. This dynamic may have worked to the Democrats’ disadvantage during the health care debates of 2009 and 2010.”

It also worked to Obama’s disadvantage during the debt-ceiling debates, when Republicans unambiguously set themselves as the party intent on cutting spending while Obama was forced into a corner – trying to sound credible on cutting debt while maintaining spending for key social security programs.

The lessons for Ed Miliband’s team should be this: the time for triangulation is over because the benefits are marginal.

First, concentrate on areas where you can win (jobs, economic growth) and have clearly defined themes supplemented with big, bold ideas.

Second, use those big ideas and specific bold policies to force the discussion on to your territory (to his credit, Ed has managed this with both ‘squeezed middle’ and ‘responsible capitalism’) and keep hammering hard with strong, unambiguous messages.

Obama managed it – forcing the Republicans into a losing fight over the Payroll Tax, and are now reaping the rewards. And third – come up with innovative solutions that actually tackle the problems on areas where you are weak, while keeping your own base on side. Don’t just talk tough – or keep saying you will “listen to people’s concerns” – and hope that will deal with the credibility gap.

For example: at the start of the year Liam Byrne made a big splash with his ‘back to Beveridge’ speech on welfare. Can anyone actually remember a new, innovative policy proposal he made?

That’s the Labour party’s problem right there.

Related posts:

  1. The limits of triangulation
  2. Not scroungers anymore
  3. Gordon: People are cruel, but I don’t get hurt by abuse anymore
  4. Ed Miliband: We got it wrong on immigration
  5. Ed Miliband and the future of social democracy
  • Anonymous

    Good interesting stuff and makes total sense to me, Sunny.

    Paul Hillyard

  • Redshift

    Spot on!

  • http://profiles.google.com/roger.f.mccarthy Roger McCarthy

    Obama has agency – he can initiate actions to which his opponents have to respond. 

    In our elective dictatorship a British opposition party is effectively powerless – and a Labour opposition which represents even the vaguest future threat to capital is rendered doubly powerless by a viciously hostile media which will systematically ignore or distort everything it says or does.

    And that is the real problem – even if Miliband and Co. were turning out brilliant, bold and innovative new policy ideas every week they would be mocked, lied about or simply ignored.   

    • Anonymous

      Problem is of course they are not turning out anything are they, all you get are the Think tanks and the advisers reading the Daily Mail and then responding 

      • http://profiles.google.com/roger.f.mccarthy Roger McCarthy

        As I commented on Emma Burnell’s post  a complete policy review cannot be produced in weeks or even months – the Kinnock-Gould review took most of the 1987-1992 parliament and involved all sorts of high level inputs from academics as well as think tanks and multiple real conference debates. 

        What has changed fundamentally is the news cycle and the unprecedented virulence and near unanimity of the media’s (very much now including the Guardian, Independent and BBC) anti-Labour bias. 

        • Anonymous

          Yes and what did Kinnock and Gould come up with New Bloody labour

    • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

      Nonsense. If they were, then they’d have public movements backing them and making things very uncomfortable for the government. The Lords would also feel a lot more free to oppose the government as well, and the LibDems could EASILY be made to feel a lot more uncomfortable…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    A good article, and very accurate I think, although it avoids the thorny subject of what those “clear messages” should be, since this is a political rock – paper – scissors situation: you say “squeezed middle” – the Tories say “tough on benefits”, you talk about “responsible capitalism” (was that message even clear?) and they say “less regulation”.  Triangulation is, I suggest, more about forcing your opponent onto the defensive as it is about finding an ideological position per se.

  • Chilbaldi

    The real issue here is that nobody actually believes Ed Miliband when he talks tough on the cuts. People still think of him as “Red Ed”, and believe him to be lying.

    • Anonymous

      That makes total sense if Ed agrees with Cameron, then Ed is Red, because he is lying.

      Politics as seen by a Tory

  • Steve Jennings

    The problem is there is an idological issue, what does the Labour Party stand for.  The cinical appoach taken by New Labour has isolated many traditional supporters.  The argument for a mixed economy ie re nationalisation of transport and utilities is one that should be made to floating voters, now more than ever.  Privatisation has given cosumers less choice and increased prices, there is no controle over energy prices state onership could and would regulate price instability giving industry an advantage.  The transport system would likewise benifit thepublic from re regulation.  The argument put by the neolberal right is the is no alternative.  is wrong.  Capitalism must be regulated not overthrown, that is the choice that must be offered to the british people.   Labour must be brave and not hide behind polls and focus groups.  The esence of true leadership is to convince people you are right.  Many people are crying out for this choice, if the electorate percieve there is no differance between the two parties they tend to stick with what they have, this is the choice for Mr Miliband and co.

    • Anonymous

      So whom are you going to tax very heavily to pay for nationalisation?

      • Anonymous

        The disabled the sick and the poor as it seems labour been doing for a while..

        • Anonymous

          Well that goes without saying…

          At a time when money is tight anyone suggesting privatisation is really living on a different planet..

          Maybe money does grow on trees?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not suggesting anything except hanging my self from the nearest tree should help labour and the Tories with cuts.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not suggesting anything except hanging my self from the nearest tree should help labour and the Tories with cuts.

      • Anonymous

        You make the rich pay their taxes.  Mark Serwotka says that if the super rich were to pay their taxes, it could wipe out the deficit.  You also borrow, but instead of borrowing to pay for unemployment benefit, you borrow to create jobs.  I heartily agree with Steve Jennings about nationalisation.  We need more government – not more private enterprise.  Thousands of pesky little private businesses will never create the jobs we need;  only public enterprise can do that.  And talking of nationalisation – include the banks.  It’s time to start up a conversation about this, otherwise most people remain in ignorance about the possible alternatives.  They are brainwashed by the Daily Mail (and even the Guardian).  Let’s have a Labour Party again!

        • Anonymous

          Since most of the Super rich are not UK domiciled your argument about taxing them is rubbish.

          Try living in the real world and suggest possible solutions rather than incredible and unachievable fantasies.

          (If the super rich were taxable, why did Labour not tax them? Answers on a postcard to Gordon Brown.)

          Borrow to create jobs?  You mean civil servants I suppose? Ni thanks – destrution of wealth.

          • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

            Because he’s a Neoliberal, just like you.

            And right, gotta have the RIGHT destruction of wealth, hurting the 99%, not the 1%. Because the economy is crashing, and you’re laughing.

          • Anonymous

            Crashing?  You really ought to read and learn what a CRASH is.. HINT: see 2008…

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Wishful thinking there, maddy.

          • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

            Yes, and things are going FAR worse now, since there’s no buffer. You’re jumping up and down, seeing how bad it can get.

          • http://profiles.google.com/roger.f.mccarthy Roger McCarthy

            The US tax corporations on their global income and haven’t seen any great exodus of companies.   

            Plus most of the worst tax havens are British territories and can be closed down by an Act of Parliament and if necessary the despatch of a company of Royal Marines.  

          • N Elias

            Hear, hear!

          • N Elias

            Hear, hear!

          • N Elias

            You should have watched the TV programme, about a month ago, on the super rich and how they avoid paying their taxes.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility – given a determined government which is not in thrall to them – to legislate forcing them to pay up.   Unfortunately, the Tories are not going to because they are all bedfellows, and the last two Labour governments were too scared to do anything – nor did they have the determination. Blair was hypnotised by the rich!  The programme showed that the amounts owed in taxes by them are so vast that they would, indeed, wipe out the deficit!

            That’s the real world and is certainly a solution and not a fantasy.  

            What’s your solution?  Sit back and let them get away with it while the poor suffer?  Some socialist you must be!  Although he didn’t do it, Healey talked about “taxing the rich till their pips squeak”!

            Did I say civil servants?    But you seem also to be opposed to creating jobs.  I think you are a right-wing Tory who has sneaked his way into Labour List.

            By the way, my son has been a civil servant for around 35 years.  He works for low pay (Dept of Employment), is extremely conscientious, has never taken a sickie in his life and tries his hardest to find work for single parents.  But, then, I suppose, he doesn’t matter in your nasty little world of private enterprise.  At least the Labour Government was going to give him a reasonable livable pension.  This lot have taken that away and he will find it difficult to have a decent life.  I wonder what “wealth” means to you.  To me it means a comfortable life for everyone.  THAT would be a good society.

          • N Elias

            You should have watched the TV programme, about a month ago, on the super rich and how they avoid paying their taxes.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility – given a determined government which is not in thrall to them – to legislate forcing them to pay up.   Unfortunately, the Tories are not going to because they are all bedfellows, and the last two Labour governments were too scared to do anything – nor did they have the determination. Blair was hypnotised by the rich!  The programme showed that the amounts owed in taxes by them are so vast that they would, indeed, wipe out the deficit!

            That’s the real world and is certainly a solution and not a fantasy.  

            What’s your solution?  Sit back and let them get away with it while the poor suffer?  Some socialist you must be!  Although he didn’t do it, Healey talked about “taxing the rich till their pips squeak”!

            Did I say civil servants?    But you seem also to be opposed to creating jobs.  I think you are a right-wing Tory who has sneaked his way into Labour List.

            By the way, my son has been a civil servant for around 35 years.  He works for low pay (Dept of Employment), is extremely conscientious, has never taken a sickie in his life and tries his hardest to find work for single parents.  But, then, I suppose, he doesn’t matter in your nasty little world of private enterprise.  At least the Labour Government was going to give him a reasonable livable pension.  This lot have taken that away and he will find it difficult to have a decent life.  I wonder what “wealth” means to you.  To me it means a comfortable life for everyone.  THAT would be a good society.

        • Peter Barnard

          @ Veganista,
           
          You may be on to something re “nationalisation.”
           
          Back in 1978/79, when government owned gas, electricity, water etc, and a lot more council houses than it does now, current receipts of government were 40.1 per cent of GDP, with taxes and NI contributions 33.1 per cent of GDP, ie government collected 7 per cent of GDP via operating surpluses of the stuff that it owned.
           
          By 1990/91, this (7 per cent) had shrunk to 3.5 per cent of GDP, by 1996/97 to 2.4 per cent of GDP. In the last fiscal year of Labour, it was 2.9 per cent of GDP.
           
          The shortfall – say 4 per cent of GDP and about £60 billion a year – would do wonders for “THE DEFICIT!!!”

          • N Elias

            Thanks for that, Peter.  I wasn’t aware of the figures you quote but  it seems to me to be as plain as the nose on your face that wealth is created by government which doesn’t have to pay out monstrous salaries, bonuses and profits to shareholders.  A government can’t be “greedy” as is private industry which exists to make profits for itself and not for us. When Sweden had largely a democratic socialist government it was a rich country with a ceiling on how much people could earn.  We need democratic socialism now more than we have ever needed it.  And we need to stop allowing ourselves to be mesmerised by THE DEFICIT!  We live in a disgusting world of immense wealth and immense poverty.  We have to do something to change it.  The discussion must start now.

          • N Elias

            Thanks for that, Peter.  I wasn’t aware of the figures you quote but  it seems to me to be as plain as the nose on your face that wealth is created by government which doesn’t have to pay out monstrous salaries, bonuses and profits to shareholders.  A government can’t be “greedy” as is private industry which exists to make profits for itself and not for us. When Sweden had largely a democratic socialist government it was a rich country with a ceiling on how much people could earn.  We need democratic socialism now more than we have ever needed it.  And we need to stop allowing ourselves to be mesmerised by THE DEFICIT!  We live in a disgusting world of immense wealth and immense poverty.  We have to do something to change it.  The discussion must start now.

        • Anonymous

          Veganista: “Thousands of pesky little private businesses will never create the jobs we need.”

          I think the use of the term “pesky” tells us ideologically where you are coming from, but you should at least get the facts right.  From BIS:

          2009: Private sector enterprises employed an estimated 22.8 million people. Small & medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) accounted for 99.9 per
          cent of all enterprises, 59.8 per cent of private sector employment and 49.0 per
          cent of private sector turnover. 

          Sole traders and companies of fewer than 9 employees employed 7.8 million people.  That’s almost 6 times the number of people employed by the NHS.

          Pesky indeed.

          • N Elias

            10.85 million of your 22.8 million private sector jobs are actually either self-employed or part-time. This brings your number down to 12 million.  Statistics show that most of these people are actually looking for “proper” full-time jobs which don’t exist.  I know of women who are “self-employed” cleaners or who work for peanuts in Sainsbury’s.  Hoorah for private enterprise!  And, yes, when they are no longer needed by their employers, they are thrown on the scrapheap!  ”Free enterprise” means abiding by the whims of the market.  Is there something wrong with wanting security of employment and keeping your family safe and secure?  There’s nothing wrong about the John Lewis type of organisation or Workers’ Co-operatives but they must inevitably struggle for survival in a capitalist culture.  Capitalism, as presently constructed, is obscene and keeps millions upon millions of children throughout the world starving.  The human species hasn’t evolved very far with regards to morality and humanity if we are prepared to put up with this ugly face of capitalism!

      • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

        Tax? Simply don’t renew the franchises as they come up.

        The government ran things a LOT more cheaply than the private companies…amd can again.

        • Anonymous

          Yes: and so the Government will produce power with what? Hot air?

          The companies OWN  the power stations and the distribution lines…

          • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

            Erm….In the Transport system? The energy system dosn’t have time-limited franchises.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

            Government would still need to buy the depots, buses, trains etc. off the private companies, and would most likely also be required (under EU law, so this isn’t something we can just ignore – unless that is part of the proposal too?) to compensate shareholders who invested in the privatised companies on the expectation that they would not have their money simply “taken” by the government in the manner of some historic south american juntas.

      • Anonymous

        The rich   who  come here as a bloody tax haven the gents who pay £39,000 because they gave labour £100,000 and then steal expenses as they work for labour making three times the money they gave to labour, you know the people who Blair  sold a peerage to before he had his fingers burned.

         The people who we are told gave millions to charities only nobody can find the charities they gave to , the Non Dom’s , the people you creep around which ever leader is here so they can send all the profits they made to  a wife in a tax heaven, to  phone companies who do sweet heart deals with tax officials, and those tax official who do deal with or without government approval.

        Labour did the most with this group while telling people at the bottom you have to do more, pay more.

        lets not  kid our selves labour has moved a long long way from a socialist party, or a party which  give a dam for people who are below the  loved middle class

  • Anonymous

    ‘First, concentrate on areas where you can win (jobs, economic growth) and have clearly defined themes supplemented with big, bold ideas’.
    This is just hot air.  There are no ideas forthcoming from Labour about jobs and economic growth.  If someone could outline what they are – then many people would be interested to hear them.  Real growth and jobs have to come from the private sector, but Milliband and the current Labour party don’t understand industry, retail,  or manufacturing and have confined their attentions over the past decade to mainly the oil and finance sectors from where the easy tax revenue came. 

    • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

      To be fair they were good on films, and were finally listening on games.

      Of course, the Tories have undone most of the good…

    • http://profiles.google.com/roger.f.mccarthy Roger McCarthy

      Sadly this true (and also applies to the Tories).

      But the key here is not trying to micromanage individual sectors back into prosperity but to create consumer demand at the macro-level and this is something that can be managed if we are willing to challenge the dominant narrative that only neo-liberal austerity programmes are possible. 

      And this requires public works programmes that can only be managed by the public sector. 

      • Anonymous

        Sadly a social party would say ok what we need is housing, what we need are houses to rent, what we need are some of our motorways upgrading, the Tories would say the private sector can do it with tolls, and labour would say  affordable homes are the way, problem is people are not spending  with housing in my area some of the lowest in the last twenty years.

        One house company is offering so much now the houses are down to £120,000  and the four affordable housing on offer are £125,000 but the fact is all of the housing is standing empty

    • N Elias

      “Real growth and jobs have to come from the private sector”.  They do?  Sorry, that’s completely wrong, unless you think that working on the checkout in Sainsbury’s and being paid the minimum wage is a real job creating real wealth.  Haven’t you read the latest on the supermarkets – and they employ a hell of a lot of people!  The coal and steel industries, the post office and the NHS used to employ enormous numbers of people.  Now that nearly everything is privatised the jobs have gone.  Little local firms can’t employ more than one or two people and can’t pay them a decent wage  And if they get into financial difficulties, they “lay off” their workers.   Apart from the big, private car-building companies of years ago, no private industry can replace publicly-owned industry.  Karl Marx certainly got a few things right about capitalism and one of those was, when the capitalists don’t want or need you any more, you’re thrown on the scrapheap.  No thanks – you can keep your private sector!

    • N Elias

      “Real growth and jobs have to come from the private sector”.  They do?  Sorry, that’s completely wrong, unless you think that working on the checkout in Sainsbury’s and being paid the minimum wage is a real job creating real wealth.  Haven’t you read the latest on the supermarkets – and they employ a hell of a lot of people!  The coal and steel industries, the post office and the NHS used to employ enormous numbers of people.  Now that nearly everything is privatised the jobs have gone.  Little local firms can’t employ more than one or two people and can’t pay them a decent wage  And if they get into financial difficulties, they “lay off” their workers.   Apart from the big, private car-building companies of years ago, no private industry can replace publicly-owned industry.  Karl Marx certainly got a few things right about capitalism and one of those was, when the capitalists don’t want or need you any more, you’re thrown on the scrapheap.  No thanks – you can keep your private sector!

    • Anonymous

      GG – I entirely agree, this is hot air. But I fear that hot air is what many people want to hear right now.

      Labour has a basic problem – relatively wealthy western democracies such as ours are clinging to mindsets of a lost order. The one where we held the key economic advantages in a world that was fundamentally ‘ripe for the picking’.

      In today’s world, our relative wealth is fast becoming a liability. We are more expensive than others competing for a slice of the same global pie. By thinking we can recreate the old advantages if we ‘temporarily’ tighten belts we are actually accelerating a downward spiral for the working majority. Good for keeping the rich few afloat, but long term bad for everyone else. 

      Unfortunately for Ed M, people are clinging tight to the old order. They don’t want to let go because it was nice there. Ed’s choice is a tough one: say nice sounding things on the way down, or try to keep the ship afloat and be cast over board!

    • Anonymous

      GG – I entirely agree, this is hot air. But I fear that hot air is what many people want to hear right now.

      Labour has a basic problem – relatively wealthy western democracies such as ours are clinging to mindsets of a lost order. The one where we held the key economic advantages in a world that was fundamentally ‘ripe for the picking’.

      In today’s world, our relative wealth is fast becoming a liability. We are more expensive than others competing for a slice of the same global pie. By thinking we can recreate the old advantages if we ‘temporarily’ tighten belts we are actually accelerating a downward spiral for the working majority. Good for keeping the rich few afloat, but long term bad for everyone else. 

      Unfortunately for Ed M, people are clinging tight to the old order. They don’t want to let go because it was nice there. Ed’s choice is a tough one: say nice sounding things on the way down, or try to keep the ship afloat and be cast over board!

      • Anonymous

        This is the old problem of slavery.

        If some people employ slaves, then they themselves become seriously rich. The slaves, of course, support them. (Didn’t Marx have something to say here though?)The people who are destroyed, of course, are the workers who previously were running their own small business. As prices fall, they are, one by one, ruined and have to sell themselves into slavery to keep up.

        Chinese, Indians, Brasilians, Africans…….. I suppose, naively, we thought they would come over here and be content with their old standard of living! It has not happened. Instead their own controllers are taking advantage of their willingness to work for very little without emigrating in appalling conditions. And that is just the children.

  • Alan McMahon

    Steve Jennings is entirely right with “the argument for a mixed economy ie re nationalisation of transport and
    utilities is one that should be made to floating voters, now more than
    ever.” You only have to talk to people to know how aware they have become of high cost and poor service. Where is the tipping point where a re-nationalisation proposal will  gain traction?  I’ll tell you when – when my brother in law, a life-long arch Tory, sheepishly articulates the prospect of re-nationalisation in favourable terms. Big, bold ideas are needed, and this is one on which there is plenty of public-friendly evidence that can be hammered away at.

  • Daniel Speight

    triangulation

    Does anyone understand this? Is it some sort of wonk talk?

    I must be too old. Better leave it to the apparatchiks I guess.

    • derek

      Daniel, Who is on first base, in the end, they will still be wonking it out? LoL!!!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter

    You had me nodding largely in agreement until you got to the second half of the piece Sunny.

    The simple fact is that Labour has been attempting triangulation for the last 18 months and it finally gave it up last Saturday. On the left were to ‘zero cuts’ proponents. On the right were the ‘austerity’ until there’s no blood left. Labour was trying to argue that the real issue was jobs and growth, i.e. that the framing of the left v right debate was wrong and we need to look at it a different way. It wasn’t working as a political strategy. Maybe the problem was that is was a *political* strategy.

    Instead, it has now adopted a more realistic position based on the economic and fiscal reality. It now has something sensible to say about the debate: Osborne is destructive and inflexible in his approach but if he carries on we’ll be in a different place in 2015 and that’s what we’ll be confronted with in Government. Labour would make cuts as well and it has started to outline what they would be. It is a ‘white flag’ position in the sense that to realise you can’t fly unaided is a white flag to gravity.

    Obama has a credible position on fiscal consolidation and that is why he has been able to shift the debate to jobs and growth.

    Gramsci, Lakoff, ‘framing’, changing the conversation are the tools of defeated ideas. It’s about the reality of the situation and Labour has to have a convincing answer for all of it not just some of it – it is now starting to do so. If you’ve got an alternative then I’d love to hear it because I haven’t heard a convincing one yet. Yep, Newton was on to something when that apple fell out of the tree….

    • derek

      Anthony, the apple never falls far from the tree?”responsible capitalism” what does it really mean? creating a sharing holding society that could be rapped within a new clause 4, changing the tax system to be more reflective on the public, (predators > producers) all words, a bit like a skeleton boned chicken being laid on the table and everyone asking where’s the meat.

      So if the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, the continuation of self greed because greater as individual are far more prepared to multi task to ensure their share rate is healthy and the producers seeks to become the largest predator by monopolising.

      And in the end the “free market” sense of individualism is accepted by all, Little America becomes us all, if you can’t earn your F….D…….Capitalism failed! long live Capitalism.

      • Anonymous


        Capitalism failed

        It just blew up. Happens every 30 -40 years.

        As for failing, you are fed, clothed, paid, transported, and entertained by capitalism..

        And without capitalism there would be no internet.

        Saying a system has failed when it has made the world richer – in the past 100 years – is like saying “Communism won”..

        But hey fantasise away…

        • http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter

          Actually, we have the internet because of US federal defense spending….

          • Anonymous

            And who funds the US Government?

          • derek

            And do only those in the private sector pay tax?

            You see public sector employees, tend to buy homes, food, cars and most other items, the monies (fiat paper) isn’t that important compared to the demand and producing.

          • Anonymous

            Derek
            At the end of the day, the private sector pays for everything.

            A public sector on its own produces zero wealth. Yes it provides often essential services to those who do.. but it consumes wealth to do so.

            Period.

          • derek

            madasafish, take away the public sector? and how do the millions pay to health care, education, food, homes, military, the monarch, parliament, planes, trains? we’re all consumers unless you know different. 

          • Anonymous

            You are all peddling nationalisation abandoned by B0lair 15 years ago.

            Living in the past sticking to failed policies.

            And you think you want to be in Government?

            No wonder your economic policy is a shambles.

            Derek I did say “A public sector on its own produces zero wealth. Yes it provides often essential services to those who do.. but it consumes wealth to do so.”

          • derek

            Give us the stats, how you believe the private sector pays for everything?

            Give us your reasons why you believe those in the public sector aren’t wealth creators. 

            A public sector on it’s own produces zero wealth? I think you need to elaborate on that? but   millions in the NHS  provide a service and wealth.

          • derek

            Are you saying all things should be private? Murdoch, should appoint MP’s and buy all parliamentary buildings? I know that a group of privately wealthy individuals are paying for the Queens jubilee boat but are you saying that  wealthy people should buy the monarch and all it’s establishments? and those wealthy should build private armies, navies, air-force? the royal mint and one individual should own the BoE?I think you’ll have to tell us want you want? 

          • Peter Barnard

            @ madasa, 

            At the end of the day, the private sector pays for everything.

            If you wrote that to say that, ” At the end of the day, individuals pay for everything,” you would be absolutely correct.

            As an economic transaction, it makes diddly-squat difference whether the money is paid to government for the services that it provides, or to private entities for the goods and services that they provide.

            But, as long as you have a hole in your backside, you’ll never accept that because in your world,  ”private sector good, public sector bad” and “the private sector pays for the public sector.”

          • Pspence

            “..the private sector pays for everything”: what complete nonsense.

          • Pspence

            “..the private sector pays for everything”: what complete nonsense.

          • Anonymous

            “Period”

            So private healthcare, private schools, private road building, private house building etc etc. They create wealth but public healthcare, schools, road building, house building, etc etc don’t.

            Please keep coming back here every day,  you cheer me up no end.

          • Anonymous

            “Period”

            So private healthcare, private schools, private road building, private house building etc etc. They create wealth but public healthcare, schools, road building, house building, etc etc don’t.

            Please keep coming back here every day,  you cheer me up no end.

        • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

          No, they’re fed, clothed, paid, transported and entertained largely by the free market. Capitalism is working to starve, freeze and otherwise kill off the poor, since they’re not economically important enough.

    • Redshift

      Anthony, it was upon your advice that the leadership has adopted this stance and quite frankly it has pissed off some of our supporters without winning any over. 

      Why?

      Because there was no positive announcement. You had no actual proposals for changing the ball game into that supply-side argument. THIS should have been your emphasis NOT the change in spending plans.

      So now we have headlines that essentially say that Labour has capitulated on economic policy because they are accepting x, y and z cuts – bizarre in the sense we are saying we cannot say what we will reverse when we are in power (to a point I have no problem with that – I agree that we don’t know what we will inherit) but we are saying we are accepting things that actually we have no control over anyway. 

      We had started to recover our lead in the polls following the EU ‘veto’ but now we look like we don’t know our arse from our elbow and we’re back neck and neck.

      Next time you have an idea about a new stance, try actually coming up with some proper proposals! 

      Deliver social justice without big spending. OK, I think we are agreed that we need an element of this. But like what?!

      • http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter

        We’re at the start of the journey…..

        • Redshift

          So at least tells us where you intend to take us.

          What do you think should be these supply-side ideas? Why not give us 10 possible ones? Even if only a couple were taken up by the leadership we would still have a bit more confidence in your strategy.  

          • Anthony Painter

            There are more than ten in my chapters in these two publications:

            http://www.policy-network.net/publications/4078/What-mutualism-means-for-Labour

            and

            http://laboursbusiness.org.uk/h/

            Hope this helps.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Thanks for those, Anthony – useful suggestions as to what could be on the table once we’ve stopped falling into our self-made traps.

            I’ve been suspicious of Cameron’s pro-mutualisation of public services stance – seeing it as a half-way house to privatisation – as when tenders are renewed the multi-nationals may move in and grab the most profitable sectors. 

        • Anonymous

          Maybe so but your not part of the Story are you your back in opposition again discussing how you can get back, just like the other times that you have lost, only this time the people  really turned against you.

        • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

          If you mean another major shift right, yes, sure…

    • http://www.pickledpolitics.com Sunny H

      Hi Anthony,

      “The simple fact is that Labour has been attempting triangulation for the last 18 months and it finally gave it up last Saturday”
      - I don’t agree. They had a fudged line (cuts too far too fast) but at least it was consistent. Your line that we should talk about the deficit now makes the line even MORE fudged. Now we hate cuts but will accept them later. We oppose them, but maybe not later. Might make sense to wonks and policy analysts but it won’t to the public. Even the media is confused. You really expect this new approach will work?  Cripes!

      “Gramsci, Lakoff, ‘framing’, changing the conversation are the tools of defeated ideas”

      - trying to reframe the debate while actually having nothing new to say is obviously madness and counter-productive. Rather reminds me of Blairite ministers saying “we must listen to people’s concerns on immigration and welfare…” – as Liam Byrne habitually does.

      The triangulation that has actually failed has been that of the last 15 or so years. Despite sounding very harsh on immigration and welfare – Labour went into an election way behind on both issues. It pissed off sympathetic voters (like me) and didn’t attract new ones.

      Now – if the aim is to attract voters and convince them of your conviction and plan – this narrow Westminster position isn’t going to work. do you have anything else to propose?

      • Anthony Painter

        Hi Sunny,

        I have bucket loads to propose (see my chapters in the links below for some recent ideas). But now is the time to lay down foundations. Actually, six months ago was the time to lay down the foundations. We didn’t so we need to do it now instead. 

        I think the problem we’re having in this conversation is that you are in campaign mode; this is not a general election yet. Is fiscal conservatism an electoral winner? Of course not. But if Labour is not fiscally conservative then it’s a big loser. Let’s prevent the house sinking first, put in some strong foundations, then we can move to the next conversation.

        • http://www.pickledpolitics.com Sunny H

          ”
          I think the problem we’re having in this conversation is that you are in campaign mode”

          I’m always in campaign mode – because the Tories are always in campaign mode too (see the migrant figures today… they’ve been good at this and good at shifting the debate for years). 

          My problem with Labour is that it does not campaign ENOUGH – and we assume that our subtle positioning will be understood by the wider public. 

          Just contrast the haphazard way John HEaley fought the NHS bill. He barely got heard. As soon as Andy Burnham came in the – the whole tenor changed: he launched the #dropthebill site – gave several interviews saying he would reverse the bill as much as he could, and he held events to rally Labour people in the NHS. He started COMMUNICATING with people in a way Healey never did. And he now gets far more traction on NHS issues than Healey ever did. 

          • Anonymous

            Campaign on what, lets have a look what are the Tories doing, ok we will do the same.

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    ‘they have nowhere else to go’

    Time to change THAT then. No offence, but things have got ridiculous.

  • Anonymous

    Aww well CLP meeting tonight – the rain is falling and it’s miserable at Barnsley – should I go – or stay in and watch the telly – last meeting I said that we should revert to Clause 4 – silence – one member said he voted to keep it – silence – no further reaction – carry on with the MP’s address – getting stress from the partner – said I’d been out every night – shall I send my apology – NO I AM GOING – I WONT GIVE UP THAT EASILY.

    • Anthony Painter

      Good stuff….actually I think we threw the baby out with the bath water when we ditched the old clause IV….ownership matters. Hope you had a good meeting.

      • Anonymous

        Hold on you agree we should have kept it?

        • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

          But it’s when discussing forms of ownership that things can get interesting/difficult.

          We’ve had top-down ownership, both public and private. There are also mutual/community/co-op models.

          Some argue for these on the grounds of institutionalising more equitable economic and social relations without having to wait for the boom years to return: social justice in hard times.

  • Anonymous

    The simple fact of the matter is labour took us into the biggest down turn in living history, Labour did more  for the bankers and banking which ended up allowing  banks free rein.

    The housing, labour once stated Councils  should ensure teachers Police officers firemen and doctors, doctors mind you should have first dibs on council housing. F*ck the poorest or people who arrive here in boats you know the immigrants who labour allowed in by the million. And now to help the banks labour state we should build affordable housing, the Tories state they will build council housing, Jesus what a mess what the hell are labour for these days, the battle to become the Tories is over you lost.

    Yes we should without doubt vote labour at the next election, my ass….

  • Chris Cook

    @madasafish:disqus 

    Complete and utter tosh.

    If you define ‘private profit’ as wealth – as you do – then by definition the public sector does not produce it.

    Just tell the doctor; the nurse; the teacher; the carer;  and all the rest – who actually do pay taxes themselves – that they only create ‘wealth’ if they work for sod all in the private sector.

    According to you, the ‘wealth creators’ are the landlords and shareholders sitting on their arses collecting rents and dividends; and the massively overpaid managers who rip them off to the best of their ability.

    Get real and go and troll somewhere else.

  • Chris Cook

    @madasafish:disqus 

    Complete and utter tosh.

    If you define ‘private profit’ as wealth – as you do – then by definition the public sector does not produce it.

    Just tell the doctor; the nurse; the teacher; the carer;  and all the rest – who actually do pay taxes themselves – that they only create ‘wealth’ if they work for sod all in the private sector.

    According to you, the ‘wealth creators’ are the landlords and shareholders sitting on their arses collecting rents and dividends; and the massively overpaid managers who rip them off to the best of their ability.

    Get real and go and troll somewhere else.

  • John Reid

    anti-immigration rhetoric of Brown years alienated white voters in Metropolitan areas –
    there was me thinking that Diane Abbott’s criticism of Tony Blairs views that “the left who had nowhere else to go” and “were working class and wanted A 1970′s style labour party,they would stick by New labour and wouldn’t go off and abstain or voted Lib dem, and that abbott felt the reason that labour lost so called 4 million working class votes was because they  felt labour was to right wing on immigration”, turns out the “have nowhere else to go brigade were middle class  Metroplolitan elite and it was they who felt that we were’nt champagne socialist enough.

    • Anonymous

      yet we are seeing the Tories now struggling to stop the people who come here, not the reason, the world is much smaller, we should be looking at the EU now as  a place which will be a benefit. If I was eighteen or twenty I would be working in the steel industry in Germany

  • Anonymous

    Stop being clever.
    When I go into my home town this morning, I shall hear more Lithuanian and Polish than I shall hear English spoken. When I go to Church, I shall be with Africans, Indians and Filipinos. People loathe this, whatever you may think. 
    How can a tiny little country that has lost all its heavy industry and productivity simply open its doors to the whole world, offering free education, health, spending money, house, car even? It will go broke.
    And that is what has happened.
    We can see it.
    Why can’t you?

    • Anonymous

      Because I’m not a bigot, I knew many years ago when  we had  cheap flights that the world was getting smaller so did labour and  we said we have to make more homes home housing for these people, it was decided in labour that helping people live a decent life was a socialist view, we also knew and hoped that joining the EU would allow people from the UK to move to other countries to get jobs, but of course our mentality is a little Island.

      If you want to work in heavy industry go to Germany

  • http://twitter.com/christof_ff christof_ff

    I agree with you on the need to do something bold & innovative, but I really haven’t seen anything bold or innovative coming from Ed’s team – they’re about as daring as a plate of cucumber sandwiches.
    There’s a huge reservoir of turned-off, uninspired voters out there yet but rather than inspire people, Labour is chasing a small sliver of floating Tories using dull formulaic Blairite platitudes.

  • http://twitter.com/christof_ff christof_ff

    I agree with you on the need to do something bold & innovative, but I really haven’t seen anything bold or innovative coming from Ed’s team – they’re about as daring as a plate of cucumber sandwiches.
    There’s a huge reservoir of turned-off, uninspired voters out there yet but rather than inspire people, Labour is chasing a small sliver of floating Tories using dull formulaic Blairite platitudes.

  • Franwhi

    Are you sure  John McTernan in Australia ?  He pops up on Scottish TV all the time where he’s a bit discredited. Nobody takes him seriously any longer since he’s been seconded to the Scottish Labour Party twice to lead or advise on Holyrood election campaigns and managed to lose both of them. I don’t think he’s in the political circles he used to fly in but maybe he’s flying Quantas now

  • N Elias

    10.85 million of your 22.8 million private sector jobs are actually either self-employed (

  • Pingback: Link Loving 21.01.12 « Casper ter Kuile

Latest

  • News Seats and Selections Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    By Paul Wheeler

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →