Home » Posts tagged 'Steve Richards'
Tag Archives: Steve Richards
What does Ed Miliband really think?
Steve Richards, political columnist for the Independent, recently produced a fascinating portrayal of Ed Miliband. If you missed the programme, you can listen to it here on the BBC website.
I have always felt that David Cameron is in office, but not in power. He failed to win the General Election, despite widespread media backing and a deeply unpopular final Labour administration. More significantly, I feel that David Cameron is a manager, and not a leader; and a very poor one at that. This production, “What does Ed Miliband think?”, is in my opinion a very timely radio documentary by Steve Richards, as Ed Miliband takes stock of his first two years as leader of the Opposition and leader of the UK Labour Party. In recruitment, the philosophy is that you choose an employee based on his or her known interests and competences, as a ‘predictor’ of future success in that job.
Steve Richards early on cites the ‘responsible capitalism’ of the Labour Conference of 2011. I remember that speech, but I didn’t take away the prominent soundbite of ‘predator capitalism’. I was midway through a MBA at the time, and the territory of ‘responsible capitalism’ had already been known to me. The concept of a responsible corporate citizen is a very important one here in the UK, and in the US, and has a formidable academic history. I think part of the reason it was so badly received by commentators was that some phrases in the speech might have been imprecise, but also because the background to this theme had already been poorly known. I think it was brave of Ed Miliband to bring up the big argument of why it is insufficient simply for company directors to maximise shareholder dividend, ignoring the sentiments of the general public (including even consumers).
Ed Miliband is quizzed bluntly by Steve Richards about rail franchising. The complaint about the lack of policy detail is appropriately confronted by Richards, and is one that I know vexes many other members of Labour. There is a detailed policy review underway, but areas where Miliband wishes to appear to distance himself from New Labour are clearly identified. This in marketing terms is about producing a ‘unique selling proposition’, with the majority of Labour geeks (rightly) balk at. Here, it is perhaps relevant what Ed Miliband is not, rather than what he is. What he isn’t is a ‘PR man’, a criticism which Ed Miliband indeed threw at David Cameron last week in Prime Minister’s Questions. Ed Miliband is taking his own to produce a coherent political philosophy, whilst clear to disengage himself from the New Labour ‘brand’. This, I suspect, will be a popular move, even it has been previously described as bordering on populist. When I first met Ed Miliband at his final hustings at Haverstock Hill, I remember asking himself about inequality. He was genuinely very disappointed about Labour’s record on inequality, and has amused to hear my observation that neither the word ‘inequality’ nor ‘poverty’ featured in the index of Tony Blair’s “The Journey”.
The personal friendship with Lord Wood is an interesting one, as the portrayal previously had been of a rather ‘geeky loner’ who had been dwarfed by the academic shadow of his father, Ralph. Indeed, Ed Miliband clearly has elegantly articulated reservations about globalisation and institution themes of Blue Labour. However, it is the argument which Richards then assumes is one which I find intriguing. Miliband is compared to Thatcher (during the opposition years), and Miliband talks about a parallel of how he wishes to ‘rise to the challenge’. Again, I feel that this is where a knowledge of the management and leadership literature really helps. What Miliband is describing is ‘charismatic leadership’, of a figure which the public picks out as a candidate to steer them through a time of political, social, and economic turmoil. Charles Moore’s criticism that there is no goal, such as attacking the power of the trade unions or getting inflation down, is perhaps valid. These are very early days though. Ed Miliband’s “get out of jail” card has recently, ‘we cannot predict what the economy will be like in three years time”, which is indeed true when you consider that we may shortly be entering a “triple dip”. It could be that Ed Miliband does find an easily identifiable issue, such as boosting the constructive industry to provide new housing, or breaking up oligopolies such as banks or utilities such that greater value is returned to the consumer as well as the shareholder.
The lack of policy details, thus far, is one that continues to trouble Labour activists. The ‘opaque’ process, it is described, means that there could be “unexploded bombs”, which might explode accidentally near the time of the General Election. I agree there is a clear direction of travel, in that Ed Miliband wishes to avoid a strangehold of the markets; before the next election, there does need to have a clear narrative of public sector services. However, the £2bn reorganisation of the NHS is currently ‘work in process’, and therefore it is difficult to pre-empt how best to respond, when not all of the key statutory instruments, such as the Regulations for section 75 Health and Social Care Act, have not been “laid” before parliament. Both Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham have provided that they cannot possibly do another “top-down reorganisation”, but will instead ask existing structures to do different things, such as less competition and more collaboration. I think this is a practical approach to be admired. I also feel that freedom to produce policy possibilities in private is an excellent way to encourage creativity. In innovation management, it is a well known finding that many duds are produced before a golden egg is delivered; at this time, Ed Miliband is right to encourage innovation and creativity in policy making.
Last year’s Conference speech, 2012, was very well received, but Philip Collins and Neil O’Brien highlight that some issues were simply unaddressed, for example the deficit. In a sense the moment has ‘passed’ in that the public seem to have made their opinion up that the Conservatives are more trustworthy on the economy, despite the fact that Labour ran a deficit comparable to Ken Clarke and Norman Lamont prior to the global financial crisis. Instead of banging its head against a wall repeatedly, Labour may be better off on concentrating on a vision that the country can believe in, and other details will fall into place. Steve Richards’ discussion deliberately did not discuss other factors affecting the ‘mood music’, such as Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, or UKIP, and it is possible that other big topics, such as the Eurozone, could affect Ed Miliband’s path of travel.
In summary, Steve Richards’ latest radio documentary is an interesting, even very entertaining, discussion of the current problems, opportunities and challenges facing Ed Miliband at the moment. I don’t have a political background by education whatsoever, but certainly a management training in marketing, innovation and leadership does make sense of various issues which Ed Miliband has to tackle. In as much as they are “facts”, the “facts” are currently that no party has ever been successful at increasing its share of the vote after winning an election, and one-term oppositions are vanishingly rare. However, how the current Coalition came to power is indeed unusual, as is how Ed Miliband became Leader of the Labour Party ‘against the odds’. Ed Miliband’s progress in many ways thus far has been unusual, and I suspect, as before, many things will simply fall into place for him. I really enjoyed this documentary.
Osborne is a D-rate tactician, not a master strategist – remember Ireland?
On talking about Jagger, “Mick can write!” exclaimed Keith Richards in his autobiography. “It’s unbelievable how prolific he was. Sometimes you’d wonder how to turn the fucking tap off.” This has been written about at great length in the strategy of innovation literature (see for example this seminal article by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker.)
That is in fact meant to be hallmark of people who have extraordinary gifts as innovators. True innovators, considered to be at the heart of the recovery that never was in the UK, are prepared to have a few ‘dead ducks’ in the hope that one or two brilliant ideas will survive. Unfortunately, there is no sign of Osborne turning the f*-ing tap off just yet. And great innovating strategist he is not.
There has recently been much greater scrutiny amongst the Tory commentators of this accepted teaching that George Osborne is a ‘master strategician’. There is no clear sign of what this strategy is, for example in economics, his ‘day job’. One thing that you can say confidently about Osborne, however, is that he is very good at concealing his cock-ups. Thankfully, Duncan Robinson in “The Staggers” of the New Statesman provides a ‘hard copy’ of how Osborne had famously bragged about the wonders of Ireland as an economy, which Robinson accurately summarised on account of: “Ireland boomed instead on a toxic mix of cheap credit, lax banking regulation and by becoming a borderline tax haven.” George Osborne, who is addicted to bragging, claimed, “Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking.” It’s virtually impossible to find a copy of this article – so if you have a copy of it please do let me know.
Some people on the Right would actually like Osborne to turn the f*ing tap off. He has become a ‘falling star’ in the sky of the Tories, as Fraser Nelson, elegantly put it, with one of the most catastrophically delivered Budgets ever in history (which Fraser describes as “shambolic”). There wasn’t any screw-up too minor or major for this Budget, ranging from pasties, to attacks on philanthropists, raids on pensioners, to name but a few. Osborne succeeded in protecting the high earners, who are not part of the ‘squeezed middle’ however Ed Miliband has finally decided to define this. Osborne should like to be perceived as Corporatilist with a big C – his Big C ethos is best illustrated by Robinson’s view of the Osborne Ultimatum on tax: “We should learn from Ireland’s mistakes. Unfortunately, however, Osborne wants to copy them — at least judging by Osborne’s cuts to universities, the 3.4 per cent reduction in the education budget and his continued obsession with reducing corporation tax — to the point where companies could end up paying less tax than their cleaners.”
George Osborne’s economic policy has failed, in a perverse opposite to ‘not mending the roof when the sun was shining’, rather ‘not spending on a new roof when it was bucketing down with rain’. You don’t need to have read Keynes’ 1948 ‘General Theory’ to understand how Osborne produced a textbook plan for producing a recession. This strategy has failed Britain. ‘Master strategists’ decided how to allocate resources effectively and how to build a competitive advantage; for example, spending time on campaigning against Scottish independence, a position supported by Labour, fails on both counts.
Osborne is instead the Conservatives’ chief thrower of custard pies. He is throwing so many custard pies, he is hoping one does land on Ed Balls, but this is a dubious desperate tactic; as per an article by James Forsyth, in a frenetic ‘J’accuse’, Osborne remarks, “They were clearly involved.” In this way, he comes the closest of the mentality of an innovative strategist. Steve Richards is correct, as is James Macintyre, to observe leadership qualities in Ed Miliband, in being right to capture the agenda of those who wish to implement ‘responsible capitalism’. Miliband’s speech in 2011 at conference I feel will go down in history as seminal. It has laid the foundations for the judge-led inquiry into the media which has been most instructive in exposing the corrupt phone-hacking. The majority of the country, according to a You Gov poll, want a public-inquiry into the banking industry, feeling that a parliamentary-inquiry would effectively sanction a ‘cover up’. Recent polling has also provided that George Osborne is perceived as one of the worst Chancellors in recent history.
The media has thus far been running a media ‘democratic deficit’, with Nick Cohen correctly observing that the agendas of writing the Corporatilist articles in the Right Wing press being at odds with the majority of readers who comment on them. The irony is that corporates don’t want a toxic culture either, with Prof. Porter, Professor of Strategy at Harvard Business School, who makes Osborne’s understanding of strategy look like O-level standard (keeping ahead of the times with Michael Gove), will be the first to tell you (see his seminal article in the Harvard Business Review). Corporates attract greater investment if they are pursuing ‘responsible capitalism’ policies, and this is now a well established fact in business. Furthermore, no business, in an international arena, will wish to invest their resources in a country, which Nick Cohen elegantly refers to as, “a pirate state which you visit, rob or be robbed but never to conduct honest business”
The problem is that the custard pie thrown at George Osborne will either miss or it won’t stick. It may be a useful short-term tactic, as argued by Steve Richards today, but it lacks credibility. Ed Balls has vigorously denied it, and Bob Diamond in his evidence yesterday did not play the ‘It’s all Labour’s fault‘ joker. An independent inquiry, led by the judiciary not the legislature essential for legal ‘separation of powers’, is the only way of finding out how a toxic culture can go unnoticed by CEOs of powerful corporates, and why banking is so much for the benefit of its shareholders rather than its customers. We need answers to this – in summary, Ed Miliband is right, and George Osborne is so very wrong.
