You are here: Home » Comment »

Want to really restore trust in politics? Stop the lying and duplicity

September 23, 2012 9:26 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

I’ve been stewing all day about Nick Clegg’s assertion that his apology was right, on the basis that:

“I just genuinely thought what we did was wrong and I should apologise for it. I just hope that reasonable people – whether they have heard it to music or not – will think okay, fair enough, he’s come clean.”

The problem is, Nick, that you’re still not telling the truth, as George Eaton has so astutely noted already. Similarly Clegg argued on Marr this morning:

“I think the vast majority of people in this country would find it wholly unacceptable if further fiscal austerity was basically implemented on the backs of the poor.”

Which would be fine, were it not completely ignoring that the brunt of the cuts carried out so far have fallen on “the backs of the poor”. It was duplicitous at best…

Clegg seems to believe that by apologising – although for making a pledge, not breaking it – he can somehow begin to restore faith in politics, and perhaps even save himself. On both scores he couldn’t be more wrong.

The reason Nick Clegg is so reviled is not because he made a promise – countless politicians do that – but it’s because he broke that same promise. Now you may say that politicians break promises all the time – and you’d be right – but Nick Clegg made the mistake of breaking a promise about the one thing people definitely knew about his party in 2010. And at a time when trust in politicians was at an all time low after the expenses scandal. And after getting into a coalition bed with the Tories that many of those who voted for Clegg wouldn’t have been seen dead in. It was a triple whammy of faith and trust-busting weaslyness. And no apology for making pledges can undo that.

What could bring politics back from the precipice would be if – and I know this seems like a long shot – politicians actually kept their promises. That not only means learning Clegg’s lesson – don’t make promises you can’t keep – but also another lesson – if you make a promise, you have to keep it, even if that’s hard to do. Otherwise your promises are just empty, politician breath. Coffee vapours. And you can’t build good government on coffee vapours, despite the efforts of some ministers to try.

So it was promising then to hear Lord Wood – one of Ed Miliband’s closest advisers – write earlier this week that:

“When politicians dress up tactical manoeuvring and political constraint as personal sincerity, the cynicism of voters is bound to increase.”

Very true, and very astute – and something I hope Lord Wood and those around Ed will hold the Labour leader to.

To put it more crudely that Wood might – politicians need to “cut the crap”. Too often politicians have been happy to “appear honest” or “act with good intentions”. Labour did it plenty. Indeed the Lib Dems are not alone in promising not to vote for higher fees, and then bending over backwards to do just that after an election. It was as wrong when we did it as it was when the Lib Dems did it. We were just lucky enough that it wasn’t the only thing people knew about Labour, and that people didn’t despise politicians (as much).

Of course many politicos will say that the lazy characterisation of politicians as liars is completely unfair. They’d probably say that it’s media spin that ignores the vast majority of times that politicians tell the truth. But as anyone who has ever heard the joke will tell you, you can do what you like with the rest of your life – “but if you f**k one goat, they’ll call you a goatf**ker”. So it goes with politicians. You can be honest your whole life, but if you’re shonky with the truth just once, you’re a liar.

So if you want a reputation as being straight, you’ve got to be unimpeachably honest. Now is that likely? Probably not. Would the whole edifice of modern politics collapse if everyone was honest? Quite possibly? But is it something that could and should be aspired to, and might lift our national dialogue away from the strong winds of anti-politics? Of course.

 

Related posts:

  1. Will constitutional reform restore our broken trust?
  2. Why is Cameron lying about Labour councils?
  3. Guido Fawkes’ racist comments have to stop – and Iain Dale must stop linking to him NOW!
  4. Let’s restore some faith in the process – and give the NEC a real choice
  5. Mr Lansley, I don’t trust you
  • Alexwilliamz

    Clegg is only behaving the same way many lib dems do up and down the country do when they find themselves in control of local councils.

  • Alexwilliamz

    I don’t think it was even breaking the promise, in the circumstances the imperative as they thought of forming a coalition government in the face of a crisis, that set people off. It was the way in which they then actually starting supporting tuition fees and making the case of why they were actually necessary. Why not just say the price of coalition was to sacrifice this promise, we are still unhappy but have to make this tough decision etc etc. They might even have been able to abstain from voting (maybe providing a token vote in favour if the arithmetic dictated it), they could probably have negotiated that with the tories on the grounds of needing to retain integrity and face. The same went for their falling behind and backing the austerity measure. I’m pretty sure coalition doesn’t mean you have to actually come out and make the case for every policy, instead you can chalk off a number of votes as ‘being part of the coalition’. If the tories did not want it then they could have walked away with integrity in tact.

  • Paul Cardin

    How can you restore something that was never there in the first place?

  • AlanGiles

    If only politicians of all parties would stop getting carried away by the notion they have that they have an answer to every problem – make the promise/pledge ever more fantastic, and you will get them applauding even harder at conference. Let’s find a cure for the common cold in the next Parliament – cue tumultuous applause – lets get them clapping even harder – a cure for every disease by 2025, or some date safely well into the future. The problem is that date eventually comes and there are written and sound archives to remind everyone in 2026 you didn’t deliver.

    I have always thought it best to promise less than you can deliver – that way, if you beat your target and do more the public, or your customer, will be pleasantly surprised and be more tolerant when things go wrong (which they often do). They trust you because  you have promised what is feasible.

    I have no sympathy or love of Nick Clegg, but at the end of it all, nobody died. Can we say the same thing where Freud and ATOS are concerned?. And, remind me – which party gave that vile little creature his head?…….

    • aracataca

      ‘I have always thought it best to promise less than you can deliver’
      This would of course explain why you support Guardianista Natalie Bennet’s promise to put an upper limit of £200k pa on peoples’ incomes.

      • AlanGiles

        The Greens really frighten you, don’t they, Bill?. hence yet another querulous little outburst, which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. The Greens is not the topic here, old fruit.

        You seem to have been in Puckish mode for the last few days Bill – with me at any rate – and as I have no wish to engage in some silly war of attrition to you, I’ll let you get on with it, and we will talk again when you are more in possession of yourself.

         

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

        An upper limit of £200k pa on income is just the sort of policy thinking that should be given exposure. Regardless of the practicalities it certainly raises the profile of the inequality debate and is more likely to lead to an exploration of possibly productive themes such as ‘shared growth’ and ‘predistribution’ than is wittering on about ‘aspiration’ (not that I’m accusing you of doing this!). 

        A number of researchers have linked inequality to a wide range of undesirable outcomes – from the 1980 Black Report to Wilkinson and Pickett’s Spirit Level, the message is clear: more inequality means more problems.

        It is only by bringing solutions into the public domain that the conversation can begin on how best to address inequality.

        • Hugh

           Can’t see Polly Toynbee and Alan Rushbridger going for it.

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

            Polly Toynbee is in favour. The key is to establish a link between maximum and minimum wages*, high earners can have more but only when low earners also get more.

            * http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012083426/bold-new-labor-call-maximum-wage

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Having read your link, can I ask you to point out a single country in which this is in operation?  Ut conceptus, it makes some sense, but in the real world…?

            I can imagine a single country making this a law, much as the Swedes and Canadians tried with a Tobin tax idea in the late 1980s, but the problem is that unless every country within the developed world does so, it fails.

            I mean no disparagement on you raising the idea, and perhaps I am too pessimistic, but what you raise seems to me to epitomise the entirely unbalanced nature of the very real global economic situation.  Nothing changes unless everything changes:  if one country makes a new law the money temporarily moves elsewhere until that country realises it is out on a limb and meekly comes back into line.  And yet our domestic politics cannot overcome this.

            It is some way from the topic, but while I think that the internet has done some wonderful things for individual people all around the world, it has also allowed global capital to move around almost literally at the speed of light, with no effective boundaries. I read a month ago of some new optical fibre network between Singapore and Japan that was purposefully designed to be as straight as possible on the ocean bed so that the opto-electrical signals travelled even more quickly***, and so could have an advantage in trading between the stock exchanges. The cost was in the billions, but yet worth it for the traders. Against that sort of mindset, internationalist sentiment has little answer, at least for now.

            *** Having thought about it, with the least possible resistance and data packet checking and error correction. Not travelling more quickly.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Having read your link, can I ask you to point out a single country in which this is in operation?  Ut conceptus, it makes some sense, but in the real world…?

            I can imagine a single country making this a law, much as the Swedes and Canadians tried with a Tobin tax idea in the late 1980s, but the problem is that unless every country within the developed world does so, it fails.

            I mean no disparagement on you raising the idea, and perhaps I am too pessimistic, but what you raise seems to me to epitomise the entirely unbalanced nature of the very real global economic situation.  Nothing changes unless everything changes:  if one country makes a new law the money temporarily moves elsewhere until that country realises it is out on a limb and meekly comes back into line.  And yet our domestic politics cannot overcome this.

            It is some way from the topic, but while I think that the internet has done some wonderful things for individual people all around the world, it has also allowed global capital to move around almost literally at the speed of light, with no effective boundaries. I read a month ago of some new optical fibre network between Singapore and Japan that was purposefully designed to be as straight as possible on the ocean bed so that the opto-electrical signals travelled even more quickly***, and so could have an advantage in trading between the stock exchanges. The cost was in the billions, but yet worth it for the traders. Against that sort of mindset, internationalist sentiment has little answer, at least for now.

            *** Having thought about it, with the least possible resistance and data packet checking and error correction. Not travelling more quickly.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          £200,000 in which country?  While I understand your sentiment, in practical terms would this proposal not encourage significant levels of tax evasion (well, a lot more than goes on at present)?

          If someone is limited to earning £200,000 in the UK, what would you expect their behaviour to be if they currently earn and pay tax upon for example £500,000?  A few individuals may well choose a pay cut, but I suspect many more in proportion would ask their accountant to do something clever to protect the other £300,000 – move it to Switzerland, for example.

          What would be the net effect of such a policy if measured in terms of income taxes received in the Treasury?  (Of course, I would not know, nor may you, but I suspect that the gross receipts of income tax would be lower than is received now).

        • aracataca

          How would we implement it and make it stick? No more Premier League, no more Championship for that matter or First Class cricket or rugby or snooker or Wimbledon. In an age where billions can be sent out of the country at the click of a mouse this might be a good idea but it is just unworkable. 
          The Greens are promising it though in much the same way that the Fib Dems promised to abolish tuition fees.

        • aracataca

          How would we implement it and make it stick? No more Premier League, no more Championship for that matter or First Class cricket or rugby or snooker or Wimbledon. In an age where billions can be sent out of the country at the click of a mouse this might be a good idea but it is just unworkable. 
          The Greens are promising it though in much the same way that the Fib Dems promised to abolish tuition fees.

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

            I see it as a debate opening gambit – how the Greens see it is a matter for them.

            I was interested to hear Lord Skidelsky, the other week, argue for a basic income paid unconditionally to all citizens and set at a high enough level so as to diminish the incentive to work. Skidelsky described how hardly any production was lost when much of Britain’s industry was on a three day week during the miners strike in the 1970s and how, in the 1980s, when Volkswagen undertook a reorganisation to accommodate reducing the working week to 28 hours (to avoid lay-offs) productivity increased.

            My primary concern is not what the 1% will do if denied an ever larger share of available wealth (as has been happening since the 1970s) but how will the 99% react if the growing imbalance is allowed to continue.

            This is useful:
            http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-price-of-inequality

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            “I was interested to hear Lord Skidelsky, the other week, argue for a basic income paid unconditionally to all citizens and set at a high enough level so as to diminish the incentive to work.”

            Does the arithmetic behind this work?

            Alternatively, how much would it cost to diminish the incentive to work, and to what proportion of a nominal workforce?  Presumably, he does not argue in favour of a 100% diminution, nor could he (I imagine) find a coherent argument to address the anger of those who continue to work, in order to pay for those who choose not to.

          • AlanGiles

             ” to address the anger of those who continue to work, in order to pay for those who choose not to.”

            Very very few “choose” not to work, Jaime. We have high unemployment, no growth to speak of, both the previous and present governments are trying to force into work people who are physically or mentally unfit, and to make those over 65 continue to work, Making lads and girls stay on at school till they are 18 artifically reduces youth unemployment to some extent (or delays it by a couple of years).

            At the same time, employers are reluctant to take on people with long standing health problems, ( Both the current and previous gfovernment further reduced the chances
            of the disabled finding work by closing down Remploy factories)  or people over 50.

            I think there are many people who would be justifiably offended by this remark of yours Jaime, when they are sending out numerous job application letters – which also applies to young unemployed people, as highlighted by the Standard articles of last week.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Alan, go back to the point that Dave Stone made, “set at a high enough level so as to diminish the incentive to work”.  That is very clearly not the categorisation of those to whom you refer.  It is an explicit encouragement.

            No offence was meant to those to whom you refer, equally, I am puzzled as to how you take such an offence when the context is very clearly not about those seeking work but unable to find it.

          • Serbitar

            This doesn’t make sense.

            Welfare benefits in the UK are comparatively much lower than other industrialised countries: the UK has some of the lowest rates of social security benefits relative to earnings. Not only that but the value of benefits in real terms has declined due to policy decisions concerning the way benefits are uprated. In the 1970s benefits were increased in line with earnings or prices, whichever was higher, while over the last thirty years they have increased in line with prices only giving a much greater differential between benefits and wages which, if the carrot and stick argument is true, would have “encouraged” people to move off benefits into paid employment, where they would have been much better off, if they could “choose” to do so. Since 1978 wages have grown by about 1.6% faster on average than prices meaning that the gap between benefit claimants and those in secure decently paid employment has widened.

            If disparity between workers and benefit claimants was effective in “encouraging” members of the latter group to jump across the income gulf to join the prosperous former group of earners unemployment and benefit claims should have fallen on trend which they haven’t. Quite the reverse, sadly, I’m afraid.

            Next month the first batch of official statistics for the Coalition’s Work Programme will be published. The Work Programme is a tough new regime invented by the Tories to “force” 40% or more of the long term unemployed into sustainable  work. We will all see in the very near future that it will have failed to have done this big time.

            I do not believe for one moment that anybody can “choose” not to work and live off benefits indefinitely or that low social benefits “encourage” shirkers off benefits into gainful employment when all the evidence says that the opposite is the case.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            “I was interested to hear Lord Skidelsky, the other week, argue for a basic income paid unconditionally to all citizens and set at a high enough level so as to diminish the incentive to work.”

            Does the arithmetic behind this work?

            Alternatively, how much would it cost to diminish the incentive to work, and to what proportion of a nominal workforce?  Presumably, he does not argue in favour of a 100% diminution, nor could he (I imagine) find a coherent argument to address the anger of those who continue to work, in order to pay for those who choose not to.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            “I was interested to hear Lord Skidelsky, the other week, argue for a basic income paid unconditionally to all citizens and set at a high enough level so as to diminish the incentive to work.”

            Does the arithmetic behind this work?

            Alternatively, how much would it cost to diminish the incentive to work, and to what proportion of a nominal workforce?  Presumably, he does not argue in favour of a 100% diminution, nor could he (I imagine) find a coherent argument to address the anger of those who continue to work, in order to pay for those who choose not to.

          • aracataca

            Anything Skidelsky writes is well worth reading. He is an unapologetic Keynesian and in this regard reflects my own views very strongly. The country needs a heavy dose of Keynes but more like the kind of Keynesianism proposed by Stiglitz and Krugman who have updated and revised his approach. Only the most reckless ideologues would call for a further £10billion worth of cuts in welfare with GDP falling at a rate of 0,7% per year  and the average disposable income falling at a rate of 7%per annum. Most urgently we need to address the zombie banks like RBS and Lloyds whose assets are 4-5 times UK GDP but who are kept alive by a government life support machine. These must be broken up and we need a state investment bank within the next 3 years. However, this is quite different from saying that you are going to limit the upper levels of income to £200k per year.
            IMHO  the way to limit very high incomes was, is and always will be through taxation.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            But do his calls as reported by Dave Stone for a free handout to the extent of diminishing the incentive to work strike a chord with you?  To me, they fill me with horror (I am reading some of his stuff this evening, and at first glance, it appears to be completely unrealistic, if idealistic).

            I have, to be fair to Skidelsky, not so far found Dave Stone’s reference, although Skidelsky’s career does seem to be unencumbered by original insight, philosophy or recognition by peers, and his personal politics are all over the place, from some Mosleyite sympathies, confidante of Michael Howard, part Bennite, and a disciple of Roy Jenkins.  His academic tenure is in some depressingly second rate institutions including the polytechnics.  This does not seem like a stable or credible background from which to launch such an “interesting” idea as everyone being paid lots of money by the state for nothing.

            If I want fairy tales, there are the Brothers Grimm.   Economists, if they wish to be taken seriously need to inhabit the real world.

          • aracataca

            You might like to refer to Paul Krugman. He is a Professor at some dump in the US called Princeton University and has won some trinket called the Nobel Prize for economics while Joseph Stiglitz is Professor of Economics at a right second-rate tip called Columbia University. Of course neither of these two men could ever hope to reach the giddy heights of intellectual prowess reached by your good self. Measured against you they are intellectual pigmies.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Krugman and Stiglitz are clearly not Skidelsky, so your “point” is erroneous, if you pretend it to be a point.  The rest of your comment is ad hominem, which does not bother me.  Anyone reading through the thread will quickly realise who is logically deficient.

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

            You can read all about it in considerable detail here:

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Much-Enough-Money-ebook/dp/B0082XLZN8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348528496&sr=1-1 

            Enjoy your indignation!

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

            You can read all about it in considerable detail here:

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Much-Enough-Money-ebook/dp/B0082XLZN8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348528496&sr=1-1 

            Enjoy your indignation!

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

            You can read all about it in considerable detail here:

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Much-Enough-Money-ebook/dp/B0082XLZN8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348528496&sr=1-1 

            Enjoy your indignation!

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

            You can read all about it in considerable detail here:

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Much-Enough-Money-ebook/dp/B0082XLZN8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348528496&sr=1-1 

            Enjoy your indignation!

          • PeterBarnard

            Dave S,

            That well-known pinko, Sir Samuel Brittan, is also favourably inclined to a citizen’s basic income (and he has been for a good number of years), regardless of whether the citizen is working or not.

            I was somewhat amused by Jaime’s comment about “a free handout diminishing the incentive to work …”

            I wonder if he had the residents of Buckingham Palace (and all the hangers-on)  in mind?

        • aracataca

          How would we implement it and make it stick? No more Premier League, no more Championship for that matter or First Class cricket or rugby or snooker or Wimbledon. In an age where billions can be sent out of the country at the click of a mouse this might be a good idea but it is just unworkable. 
          The Greens are promising it though in much the same way that the Fib Dems promised to abolish tuition fees.

  • Serbitar

    Clegg is currently trying to strike a bargain with the Tories, who want to cut at least another £10 billion from welfare: the Liberal Democrats will block further cuts to welfare until the Tories raise taxes on the rich and lower taxes on middle income families.

    The new tranche of welfare cuts would be part met by freezing welfare benefits so that they withered via inflation and direct cuts to certain budgets similar to those we have already seen: we have already heard Cameron hinting about cutting Housing Benefit to the under 25s, stopping child benefit to people with more than three children which could devastate poorer larger families, and reduce Jobseeker’s Allowance by a fixed percentage each year a person is unemployed no matter how hard they have tried to find a job – the usual Tory cruelty already exhibited, targeted at the most needy and helpless, with brass knobs on!

    Clegg has promised to block further cuts unless the Tories raise taxes in the rich. 

    He wants to be seen as the only force in government “holding the Tories back”.

    But I bet if the Tories threw him a bone and agreed to small increases in taxation on the super-rich and/or a minuscule lowering of direct taxation on the fabled “squeezed middle” Clegg would green light further horrendous cuts in inadequate social security payments to the poor claiming all the while that because “we’re all in it together” both ends of the income spectrum must make “sacrifices” in order to “reduce the deficit” for the benefit of all.

    We’ve seen this kind of duplicity and deceit from Clegg before.

    To see it again simply watch this space.

  • johnproblem

    And who will be next on the Apology Podium ?  Is there a gold medal for this sport?  Will more apologies help the economy? 

  • franwhi

    There’s lies, dammed lies and criminal lies. Clegg comes into category 2 but those politicians who led the calls for war in Iraq – where would you put them ? 

  • sdrpalmer

    And remove the beam from one’s own eye…

  • Hugh

    “We were just lucky enough that it wasn’t the only thing people knew
    about Labour, and that people didn’t despise politicians (as much).”

    Actually, I think Blair and Labour from that period should shoulder a fair amount of the blame for the current cynicism. Blair came to power with all that “whiter than white”, new politics nonsense and then a lot of people (the media disproportionately) bought it. When and his MPs proved within about five minutes to have no more integrity than those they replaced it did a fair bit of damage.

    Likewise, at least part of the reason Clegg’s getting a good kicking is not just the broken promise but also his adoption of the same new politics schtick during the election. Again, that was bought to an extent, but the public aren’t quite so dumb that they’re going to fall for it again less than two years later with his “sincere” apology. It was also extremely hammily acted, which hasn’t helped.

  • rekrab

    How long can we bare to witness Clegg talking so much tripe, ridiculously Clegg thinks that raising the tax threshold to £10,000 has been a gain for low wage earners? wrong because their tax credit is cut and in some cases cut completely and what about his hair brain pension plan, for the last two years this government has been implementing changes to the public sectors pensions, making people work longer for less and they’ve cited that people are living longer, then, low and behold Clegg comes out with a plan to let the offspring of pension holders transfer their accrued funds to their children so they can get on the housing market ladder?Jeez! what the hell will they life on? Clegg soup? yuck!!!!!!

  • rekrab

    How long can we bare to witness Clegg talking so much tripe, ridiculously Clegg thinks that raising the tax threshold to £10,000 has been a gain for low wage earners? wrong because their tax credit is cut and in some cases cut completely and what about his hair brain pension plan, for the last two years this government has been implementing changes to the public sectors pensions, making people work longer for less and they’ve cited that people are living longer, then, low and behold Clegg comes out with a plan to let the offspring of pension holders transfer their accrued funds to their children so they can get on the housing market ladder?Jeez! what the hell will they life on? Clegg soup? yuck!!!!!!

  • rekrab

    How long can we bare to witness Clegg talking so much tripe, ridiculously Clegg thinks that raising the tax threshold to £10,000 has been a gain for low wage earners? wrong because their tax credit is cut and in some cases cut completely and what about his hair brain pension plan, for the last two years this government has been implementing changes to the public sectors pensions, making people work longer for less and they’ve cited that people are living longer, then, low and behold Clegg comes out with a plan to let the offspring of pension holders transfer their accrued funds to their children so they can get on the housing market ladder?Jeez! what the hell will they life on? Clegg soup? yuck!!!!!!

Latest

  • News More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    By Mark Ferguson

    Ed Miliband is addressing Google’s Bug Tent tomorrow, and is expected to attack them over tax avoidance. So the slick Downing Street operation presumably want to get out ahead of that, right? Not quite. Here’s a selection of the headlines from today’s papers: ‘Stop moralising about tax avoidance, PM told’ – Guardian p.23 ‘Tougher tax rules would cost jobs, minister warns’ – Financial Times p.3 ‘Cameron avoids showdown over Google tax row’ – Times p.15 ‘No taxing questions as PM [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    By Harriet Harman

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    By Stefan Stern

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    By Rob Marchant

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →