Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech

Home » Posts tagged 'Conservatives'

Tag Archives: Conservatives

Eastleigh reminds us all that all the Conservatives need to do is lose



 

 

Eastleigh was a remarkable by-election. It reminded us that, for Labour to win the General Election, all the Conservatives need to do is lose.

It cannot be considered fatal to ‘One Nation’ that Ed Miliband failed to win a seat which was 285th on his list of targets. What is remarkable is that the voters of Eastleigh did not give a “bloody nose” to the sitting incumbents, who include the Liberal Democrats. Despite a maelstrom of accusations and counter-accusations regarding Chris Huhne and Chris Rennard, local voters, albeit in fewer numbers, decided to give their vote to the Liberal Democrats. Even more strikingly, they did not “blame” the Liberal Democrats for policy failures for their senior partners. The Conservatives failed to win this seat, not simply because they failed to produce an ‘attractive offer’ to the British electorate, but also some voters are beginning to blame them for noteworthy policy mistakes. There is a huge repertoire of policy mistakes to choose from, but it is remarkable that former Conservatives who have voted for UKIP appear to have done so for two particular reasons. Firstly, they don’t give a damn about David Cameron’s “caste iron” guarantees about Europe. Secondly, they do BLAME George Osborne for snatching a triple-dip recession from the jaws of a fragile recovery bequeathed to them in May 2010.

“If at first you don’t succeed, blame Labour” has become an all-too familiar mantra, but people are increasingly unconvinced by the mouthpieces who have told them this. The BBC, plagued by an obsession over horsemeat and Jimmy Savile, have failed to report the massive outsourcing and privatisation implications of recent legislation over the NHS. Many in the public are sick-to-death of the tribal partisan line on the economy, which refuses to concede that there was an emergency bailout by the previous administration of the banking sector which led the deficit to explode. They are cognisant, through the social media, that the deficit has not gone down by a quarter, and, as anyone who has been lied to, they feel cheated.

Above all, it is tragic given that the Conservatives have many junior MPs within them that their party currently lacks direction and identity. The economy is a mess, many through Twitter knows the NHS is being auctioned-off to the highest corporate bidder, and disabled citizens are hopeful that they will see their benefits re-awarded on appeal. The fact that people would rather vote UKIP than Conservatives means that the Liberal Democrats votes could stay solid, particularly if Tory-LibDem marginal seat voters don’t blame them for having been forced into a corner on policy decisions. And yet, if the Liberal Democrats win similar seats in the 2015 general election, the Conservatives could be deprived of a working majority.

Contrary to what the BBC would have you believe, the Conservatives failed to win a majority last time. And support for LibDems in traditional LibDem areas is strong, because local activism of LibDem councillors and MPs is impressive. However, Labour find themselves in dangerous territory. They cannot afford to ‘take it easy’, thinking that their economic reputation will be restored if the economy screws up. There is a remote chance that, despite a prolonged experience of austerity-lite, the economy will slowly begin to recover. The truth, whether Labour likes it or not, is that the general public does not trust them with economic prowess; some people even still blame Ed Balls for making somewhat anti-immigration noises at the last election. So why doesn’t Labour campaign on a much stronger card of the NHS? There has become an increasing perception that Labour does not need to shore up their reputation in this regard, as they are ‘the party of the NHS’. This may be hard to sustain as their policy of NHS Foundation Trusts, and insidious marketisation of the NHS with a growing number of Trusts and departments going into an insolvency regime, is shredded to pieces. As a party supposedly representing social justice issues, Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, has all but resigned himself to the sweeping cuts in legal aid enshrined in the Legal Aid and Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act (2012), and parliament has generally been useless due to the arithmetic compared to moves afoot elsewhere, for example Lord Willy Bach’s “fatal motion”. The official Opposition part of HM Parliament seems powerless to stop unelected legislation at the moment, as another “fatal motion”, this time in the Lords from fellow Labour peer Lord Hunt, is one of the only mechanisms possible to stop the new statutory instrument on NHS procurement (SI 2012/057).

As outgoing Bank of England Governor, Sir Mervyn King, previously declared, this parliament was a ‘poisoned challice’. In a way, it is quite good for Labour that they have been given a few years to regroup their forces, and have had the Conservatives do some of their ‘dirty work’, in coping with a moribund economy, inflicting legal aid cuts, and accelerating the marketisation of the NHS. However, Labour has now a fighting chance of producing the arithmetic for a working majority in June 2015, but there is as yet no sense that Ed Miliband will be elected on a landslide. However, one very good thing to have emerged from Eastleigh is that the Conservatives seem to have retained their rather infamous ‘self-destruct’ characteristic, and all that needs to happen, for Labour to succeed in June 2015, is for the Conservatives to lose.

Eastleigh reminds us that all the Conservatives need to do is lose



 

 

Eastleigh was a remarkable by-election. It reminded us that, for Labour to win the General Election, all the Conservatives need to do is lose.

It cannot be considered fatal to ‘One Nation’ that Ed Miliband failed to win a seat which was 285th on his list of targets. What is remarkable is that the voters of Eastleigh did not give a “bloody nose” to the sitting incumbents, who include the Liberal Democrats. Despite a maelstrom of accusations and counter-accusations regarding Chris Huhne and Chris Rennard, local voters, albeit in fewer numbers, decided to give their vote to the Liberal Democrats. Even more strikingly, they did not “blame” the Liberal Democrats for policy failures for their senior partners. The Conservatives failed to win this seat, not simply because they failed to produce an ‘attractive offer’ to the British electorate, but also some voters are beginning to blame them for noteworthy policy mistakes. There is a huge repertoire of policy mistakes to choose from, but it is remarkable that former Conservatives who have voted for UKIP appear to have done so for two particular reasons. Firstly, they don’t give a damn about David Cameron’s “caste iron” guarantees about Europe. Secondly, they do BLAME George Osborne for snatching a triple-dip recession from the jaws of a fragile recovery bequeathed to them in May 2010.

“If at first you don’t succeed, blame Labour” has become an all-too familiar mantra, but people are increasingly unconvinced by the mouthpieces who have told them this. The BBC, plagued by an obsession over horsemeat and Jimmy Savile, have failed to report the massive outsourcing and privatisation implications of recent legislation over the NHS. Many in the public are sick-to-death of the tribal partisan line on the economy, which refuses to concede that there was an emergency bailout by the previous administration of the banking sector which led the deficit to explode. They are cognisant, through the social media, that the deficit has not gone down by a quarter, and, as anyone who has been lied to, they feel cheated.

Above all, it is tragic given that the Conservatives have many junior MPs within them that their party currently lacks direction and identity. The economy is a mess, many through Twitter knows the NHS is being auctioned-off to the highest corporate bidder, and disabled citizens are hopeful that they will see their benefits re-awarded on appeal. The fact that people would rather vote UKIP than Conservatives means that the Liberal Democrats votes could stay solid, particularly if Tory-LibDem marginal seat voters don’t blame them for having been forced into a corner on policy decisions. And yet, if the Liberal Democrats win similar seats in the 2015 general election, the Conservatives could be deprived of a working majority.

Contrary to what the BBC would have you believe, the Conservatives failed to win a majority last time. And support for LibDems in traditional LibDem areas is strong, because local activism of LibDem councillors and MPs is impressive. However, Labour find themselves in dangerous territory. They cannot afford to ‘take it easy’, thinking that their economic reputation will be restored if the economy screws up. There is a remote chance that, despite a prolonged experience of austerity-lite, the economy will slowly begin to recover. The truth, whether Labour likes it or not, is that the general public does not trust them with economic prowess; some people even still blame Ed Balls for making somewhat anti-immigration noises at the last election. So why doesn’t Labour campaign on a much stronger card of the NHS? There has become an increasing perception that Labour does not need to shore up their reputation in this regard, as they are ‘the party of the NHS’. This may be hard to sustain as their policy of NHS Foundation Trusts, and insidious marketisation of the NHS with a growing number of Trusts and departments going into an insolvency regime, is shredded to pieces. As a party supposedly representing social justice issues, Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, has all but resigned himself to the sweeping cuts in legal aid enshrined in the Legal Aid and Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act (2012), and parliament has generally been useless due to the arithmetic compared to moves afoot elsewhere, for example Lord Willy Bach’s “fatal motion”. The official Opposition part of HM Parliament seems powerless to stop unelected legislation at the moment, as another “fatal motion”, this time in the Lords from fellow Labour peer Lord Hunt, is one of the only mechanisms possible to stop the new statutory instrument on NHS procurement (SI 2012/057).

As outgoing Bank of England Governor, Sir Mervyn King, previously declared, this parliament was a ‘poisoned challice’. In a way, it is quite good for Labour that they have been given a few years to regroup their forces, and have had the Conservatives do some of their ‘dirty work’, in coping with a moribund economy, inflicting legal aid cuts, and accelerating the marketisation of the NHS. However, Labour has now a fighting chance of producing the arithmetic for a working majority in June 2015, but there is as yet no sense that Ed Miliband will be elected on a landslide. However, one very good thing to have emerged from Eastleigh is that the Conservatives seem to have retained their rather infamous ‘self-destruct’ characteristic, and all that needs to happen, for Labour to succeed in June 2015, is for the Conservatives to lose.

Chris Huhne, Lord Ashcroft, the Tories, the LibDems and the NHA Party: a perfect storm



The National Health Action Party (@NHAParty) have an excellent chance of winning Chris Huhne’s seat Eastleigh, and here’s the rub, the Conservatives’ very own Lord Ashcroft has provided an excellent explanation why.

Chris Huhne, Lord Ashcroft, the Tories, the LibDems and the NHA Party create a “perfect storm”:

Lord Ashcroft apparently commissioned a poll of voters in Eastleigh ahead of the by-election, due for the 28th February. It showed CON 34%(-5), LAB 19%(+9), LDEM 31%(-16), UKIP 13%(+9).

This therefore shows the popularity of the Conservatives in decline, but not as massively in decline as the Liberal Democrats.

I certainly don’t think Eastleigh voters are unintelligent: I just think they’re incredibly badly informed.

According to Lord Ashcroft from recent polling evidence, “Conservatives lead on getting the economy growing and creating jobs, as well as dealing with the deficit. Moreover, voters tend to credit these policies to the Conservatives, not their junior partners. Overall, Cameron and Osborne are more trusted to run the economy than Miliband and Balls by a wide margin – but Lib Dem voters are no more likely to choose the government team when Nick Clegg is mentioned alongside his coalition colleagues. If voters see the campaign in terms of national issues, then, the Conservatives are in a very strong position.

That Eastleigh voters care about national issues is of massive interest. The general election in 2015 is likely to turn the phrase ‘it’s the economy stupid’ on its head, as ordinary voters prioritise what is happening in the NHS as important. This is of no surprise with Labour and the Conservatives having rewarded failure in a management based culture, where people such as Sir David Nicholson and his ‘set’ have been winners, despite deaths estimated in the region of 400-1200 at Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust.

It is a barefaced lie that the “deficit has been cut by a quarter”, and this is borne out from many different sources which are dead easy to Google. The most recent figures show that current borrowing has fallen by just 6.4 per cent since 2010, while net borrowing has fallen by 18.3 per cent. The coalition reduced net borrowing by 24 per cent between 09/10 and 11/12 but only by slashing infrastructure spending by 42 per cent and tipping the UK into a double-dip recession and, perhaps, a triple-dip recession. The UK Statistics Authority have asked the Government not to repeat the fraudulent claim that NHS spending has gone up, but the Government has ignored their request.

So voting for the Conservatives on the strength of national issues such as the economy is total bunkum.

Even Lord Ashcroft provides himself an adequate explanation for why the NHA Party could in fact do extremely well:

“Despite their disdain for the established parties, voters are very reluctant to vote for independent candidates, however much they may like the idea in principle. Both the main parties could at least form a government, and will have policies in all areas that have some chance of being implemented. In practice, independent candidates largely serve as receptacles for protest votes.

Recent years offer two notable exceptions: in 2001, Dr Richard Taylor was elected in Wyre Forest on a platform of restoring the Accident & Emergency unit at Kidderminster Hospital, and in 1997 Martin Bell was elected in Tatton on a platform of not being Neil Hamilton. These examples show that for an independent candidate to win, they need an issue that is very local, very specific and very popular. They also need the connivance of at least one major party – Labour dropped out in Tatton, and the Liberal Democrats did not stand in either seat. None of these conditions are in place for Dr Peedell’s group.”

The NHS is continuously an important issue, and so is Chris Huhne.

Chris Huhne dramatically changed his plea this week by pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice over claims that his ex-wife Vicky Pryce took speeding points for him 10 years ago. The judiciary absolutely loathe the criminal offence of perverting the course of justice as it threatens the very foundations on which the English legal system is based.

In October 2012, it was reported that, through papers unearthed under the Freedom of Information Act showed, in June 2012 4.8 per cent of patients waited over six weeks for diagnostic tests, against a target of 1 per cent. “Capacity issues in endoscopy, ultrasound and cardiac tests have impacted performance significantly in June. This will incur some small contractual financial penalties for the foundation trust.”

A&E performance in 2011 was reported as extremely bad at Winchester and Eastleigh NHS Trust, where several target breaches around waiting times both for elective treatment and in its emergency department had been reported also. The acute trust was given a red rating for its time to initial assessment in accident and emergency, which was recorded at two hours and 19 minutes for the 95th percentile – against a target of 15 minutes. It was also over the target of a one-hour median wait to treatment, with an average of one hour and 21 minutes.

The NHA party candidacy at Eastleigh will also be a first electoral test for the government’s Health and Social Care Act, which was primarily drafted by the Conservatives on behalf of the corporate lobbyists, but driven through last April only with support from Liberal Democrats like Chris Huhne in the Commons and decisively in the Lords.

Party co-chair Clive Peedell (@cpeedell), a cancer specialist from Teesside, said:

“We believe the Eastleigh by-election offers a huge opportunity to radically alter the nature of our broken political system. For too long the three main political parties have betrayed the trust of the UK public in a tide of political sleaze and dishonesty.

The LibDems in particular have betrayed their grassroots supporters by supporting a Conservative-led coalition that is undermining and privatising our public services with no democratic mandate, and pushing forward an austerity package that will cause long-term damage to our country.”

The effect of government mistruths on voter trust



It is tweeted anyway, and especially every time the gold price hits a new high, that Gordon Brown lost the taxpayer billions by selling the national reserves of gold in 1999-2002.  However, the corollary of this argument may be that George Osborne should have bought the gold back in May 2010 – it need not have cost him anything because he could merely have speculated in the gold futures market.  PFI is another classic example. While originally ‘invented’ by John Major, the adoption of the accounting used in PFI accelerated under Labour. Indeed in April 2011, it was reported that George Osborne has pressed ahead with PFI projects on a multibillion-pound scale despite having dismissed the infrastructure funding mechanism as “discredited” when he was in opposition.  A report on Channel 4 News at the time showed 61 PFI projects, worth a total of £6.9bn, have been taken forward since the general election. This is despite claims that private sector borrowing costs currently make PFI particularly poor value for money. Of course, all political parties tend to put a positive spin on their own particular messages, as Alastair Campbell and Craig Oliver well known, but when the situation becomes that the public cannot trust the media so much, that is when democracy becomes dangerous.

The question of how Labour, and indeed all political parties, have lost support has been progressing gradually over the ways, at probably much at the same rate as the decline in official circulation of print newspapers. People are possibly, however, engaging with “real issues” in private on the social media instead. It cannot be argued, although many people do, that part of the ‘disconnect’ between Government and its electorate has resulted from the Government enacting whatever it wants without an electoral mandate; this is the public perception, for example, of the abolition of PCTs or the enactment of the Health and Social Act (2012) in general. When I attended the fringe meetings at the Labour’s annual conference held in Manchester las year, a statistic kept re-occurring, that during the party’s 13 years in power it lost five million votes. In the Blair landslide of 1997, 13.5m people voted Labour. By 2010 the figure was down to 8.6m.

Over the Christmas period, Lib Dems were urged to spread the message that their Conservative coalition partners “can’t be trusted” to look after normal people rather than the super-rich. A leaked script of the party’s lines to take in the media apparently urged MPs, candidates and councillors to say that only the Lib Dems are committed to building “a fair society”.

The massaging of the truth, rather than genuine and truthful message, is entirely relevant to how Labour can reconnect with some of the potential electorate. Peter Kellner’s analysis provides some helpful information regarding how Labour and Liberal Democrat support have changed recently

“These numbers suggest that many defectors, though not a majority, opted for a left-of-centre alternative to Labour. However, Labour has already won most of these back. This autumn, the number of people who backed Labour 15 years ago but would vote Lib Dem today has slumped from two million to just 300,000. The vast majority who defected to the Liberal Democrats in 2010 have returned to Labour. The party now needs to hold onto them, but the initial reconversion has already taken place. Nevertheless, the total number of remaining defectors stands at three million. That’s still a large group; indeed, it’s ten per cent of the 30m people who are likely to vote at the next election. If Labour can win even half of them back, it will give the party a cushion against any revival of fortunes for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Conservatives latterly have been demanding how the opposition must be “much stronger”, even while it is claimed that they have lost a nearly quarter of their voter base in the last year. The media have elected in general not to cover important issues such as the NHS reforms, or the legal aid reforms affecting the closure of law centres on the high street (while covering in vast detail Abu Qataba). There have been a number of noteworthy examples, however, of where untruths have been spoken, either innocently, fraudulently or negligently. It could be that the impact of each of them is pretty negligible, but when taken as a whole may confirm the general perception of this government being a permanent omnishambles (elegantly referred to, by Isabel Oakeshott, once as “permishambles”). It cannot be good for democracy, whatever the effect at the ballot box, that such massive “whoppers” have been spoken. They might reflect a lack of care by the people producing these alleged false statements, but could equally reflect a complacency that they would be unnoticed by other parts of the media which have become increasingly critical, perhaps in reaction.

You decide.

Revealed: how Osborne manipulated the borrowing figures

(George Eaton, New Statesman, 5 December 2012)

Against expectations, George Osborne announced in his Autumn Statementthat borrowing would fall, not rise, this year. The news cheered the Conservative backbenches and clearly surprised Ed Balls, who was jeered by Osborne and David Cameron as he mistakenly said the deficit was “not rising” (he meant to say it was rising). Borrowing so far this year is £5bn (7.4 per cent) higher than in the same period last year – it seemed there was no escape route for the Chancellor.

So how did he do it? Well, turn to p. 12 of the Office for Budget Responsibility document and it becomes clear that Osborne has performed an accounting trick worthy of Enron. First, he added the expected £3.5bn receipts from the 4G mobile spectrum auction – even though it’s yet to take place. Second, he included the interest transferred to the Treasury from the Bank of England’s Quantitative Easing programme (worth £11.5bn), despite the Institute for Fiscal Studies warning him that it would call into doubt his credibility. Were it not for these two measures, borrowing would be £15bn higher than stated by Osborne. If we add that £15bn to the £108bn figure provided by Osborne, then total forecast borrowing for this year becomes £123bn, £1.4bn higher than last year. Little wonder that the Chancellor was so keen to bag the 4G receipts early.

But while these fiscal somersaults might allow Osborne to claim he’s reduced borrowing, what reputation he had for statistical transparency has been destroyed. In his speech to the Commons, the Chancellor boasted that “it is a measure of the constitutional achievement that it is taken for granted that our country’s forecast is now produced independently of the Treasury”. That claims looks very questionable today.

David Cameron ordered stop saying NHS spending is up

(Daily Telegraph, 4 December 2012)

Mr Hunt, the Health Secretary, should “clarify” claims that expenditure on the NHS had risen in “real terms” every year under the Coalition, the UK Statistics Authority said. The chairman of the authority, Andrew Dilnot, issued the rebuke after upholding a complaint by Labour about statements by the Prime Minister and other senior Tories. Labour demanded that Mr Cameron correct his “misleading boasts” about protecting NHS resources. Mr Dilnot’s letter will be a blow to Mr Cameron, who repeatedly promised to protect the NHS in the run up to the last general election and in numerous public statements since. The health service is seen as one of the Conservatives’ most vulnerable policies after sweeping reforms to the structure of the NHS met with widespread opposition from medical professionals. The reforms eventually became law earlier this year, but only after a bruising fight that forced an unprecedented “pause” in the progress of the Bill through Parliament.

Finally! Exposed! The deficit myth! So, David Cameron when are you going to apologise?

(Ramesh Patel, Huffington Post, 24 October 2012)

The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world. After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7? Watch Also, confirmed by the OECD Those who use cash terms (instead of percentages) do so to scare, mislead and give half the story. It’s common sense, in cash terms a millionaire’s debt would be greater than most people. Therefore, the UK would have a higher debt and deficit than most countries because, we are the sixth largest economy. Hence, its laughable to compare UK’s debt and deficit with Tuvalu’s who only have a GDP/Income of £24 million whilst, the UK’s income is £1.7 Trillion. Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% – a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?

Osborne’s claim that the deficit is down by a quarter is just plain wrong.

(Richard Murphy, Tax Research UK, 8 October 2012)

“The deficit is down by a quarter.” This is not true. No, that’s being too kind to George. That’s a lie. [We have the data] based on budgets from 1998 to 2012 on the current surplus and deficit on spending on and total borrowing (which includes the cost of investment) for the last 15 years, plus projections to 2017.  The figures to 2011-12 are pretty reliable: after that they’re made up. We now know that 2012-13 is now going to be at least as bad as 2011-12: currently borrowing is higher. The deficit reached £156 billion in 2009-10. But that was because Labour spent to make sure that the worst impacts of the crash were beaten off by Keynesian policies that ensured that the economy was growing when they left office. The deficit for 2011-12 was £126 billion, subject to revision either way by a billion or so. This year it will be worse. That’s a 19% improvement on 2009-10. But it’s been done at a cost in terms of investment,

Factcheck: Is Britain a tax credit haven?

(The FactCheck Blog, 31 December 2012)

Iain Duncan Smith has had a long hard go at Labour for their welfare spending. Not for the first time, he says hard working taxpayers are paying for the big-spending ways of the last government. This time, he’s got the tax credits system in his sights. The current – though not for much longer – system was introduced by Labour as a way of bringing down child poverty. Instead, the work and pensions secretary wrote in the Daily Telegraph today: “It tells a sorry story of dependency, wasted taxpayers’ money and fraud.”

The claim

“Tax credit payments rose by some 58 per cent ahead of the 2005 general election, and in the two years prior to the 2010 election, spending increased by about 20 per cent.”

The verdict

We asked the Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which administers work and child tax credits, how much has been paid out since the current system started under Labour in 2003 (before that it was the Working Families Tax Credit). It said that in 2003-04, £16.4bn was paid, and the following year – the one that included the general election to which Mr Duncan Smith refers – £17.7bn. That’s an increase of 8 per cent, not 58.

Copying the Conservatives was not the best form of flattery



 

There has been mutual egotistical adoration at how wonderful certain people are by other wonderful people. David Cameron admires Tony Blair, and Tony Blair admires Margaret Thatcher (or something like that). They say that imitation is the best form of flattery, and, for all the difficult decisions taken by Tony Blair, it is still possible that a donkey might have won against John Major in 1997. A retrospectoscope is a wonderful thing.

 

So what precisely did we emulate or try to imitate? Strangulation is supposed to be copying the best bits of the opposition party, but did we go too far? I suppose the working hypothesis is that the public likes market forces, because by introducing choice and competition, prices go down and quality improves.

 

This of course is a rocking farce. This has not happened in the privatised railway network, and it has not happened in the privatised utilities. An idiot with the most basic knowledge of economics can work out that there are hardly any competitors in these crowded industries, raking up profits for themselves by setting prices in a way that favours them (in the nicest possible way), there is not much choice, and the customer can frankly lump it.

 

So Labour took the bold move of not distinguishing itself markedly from the Conservatives in 1997, securing ‘competitive advantage’ as the corporate strategists would call it. They decided instead to copy a winning formula, on the assumption that once they got into power, they could do what they want. And then did until the clock ran out. In doing so, they did not reverse anti-Union legislation, introduced tuition fees, and introduced market forces into the NHS. Of course, there was much that they did right, for example not allowing so much private industry in the NHS, and limiting the amount a University student would have to pay for their course, but it was essentially an imitative strategy. It was not a collaborative strategy; such a strategy is often seen by parties who go into strategic alliances or partnerships, to increase their market share in business.

 

As a result of this strategy, Labour now, using business principles, offers no competitive advantage to the voters. Sadly for the voters, nor does the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats, as you can only put a cigarette paper between them. This is highly irritating for the voter, because like the privatised industries there is little choice and actually remarkably little competition. The Liberal Democrats are now a party about to go out of business, leaving just two major entities in an oligopolistic market of political parties.

 

There is still a sense of ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’. This is what fans of David Miliband wished might be the ‘midas touch’, because the media apparently ‘loved’ David Miliband, and were virtually euphoric over his possible performance at the despatch box, overcoming David Cameron. This is somewhat akin to Samsung locked-in to their fieresome dispute with Apple. Intellectual law has been trying to stop confusion in the customer’s eyes from arising between Apple and Samsung due to lack of distinctiveness, resulting from a similar global identity, and resulting from representing similar goods or services. In the world of intellectual property infringement, Labour has got as close as it has got to copying the Conservatives, without utterly alienating its core voters including the Unions. It has been the version of ‘vote for us because we’re very similar’.

 

The material difference is here there is genuine affection for the Apple brand, in terms of its dynamism, apparent youth, innovation, flexibility, novelty, to name but a few. The Conservative brand is in fact objectively characterised by economic incompetence, demonisation of the disabled, and a hugely unpopular privatisation of the NHS. Labour will secure no competitive advantage by merely copying the Tories, and in fact could successfully disenfranchise many voters this time for good.

A few U-turns, but a lot of S-bend. It's Beechroftification in Cameron's Britain.



In terms of strategy, it’s an effective one.

ENRON was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, corporate scandal to hit corporate America. It led to a lot of nervous CEOs, investors and shareholders. It led to the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to introduce legislation, so that America would never let this happen again. However, it probably will.

Ed Miliband is right to depict David Cameron as ‘tainted’, but the sleaze engulfing those text messages, ‘Yes You Cam’ leaves a sickie taste in your mouth and makes your stomach churn. It is all about what Labour is dead against – not valuing individual workers, who need protection from Unions, to protect them from being exploited. It stops the Beechroftification, a milder variant of Californication. Ed’s conference speech was all about corporate social responsibility last year, but virtually all high-profile left-wing bloggers were too slow or ignorant to pick up on it.

This Government stinks. It stinks worse than a S-bend. George Osborne violently sneered at Alistair Darling’s running of the economy, without ever saying whether he would have saved Northern Rock. He propelled this country into recession, when it was actually in growth in May 2010. The fact that Ed Balls is trusted more with the economy is a turning point for Labour, and is a rejection of austerity. Ed Balls should thrust upon this a drive to protect workers, in whatever legal way possible, and Labour is electable again.

The causes of recession do matter. It wasn’t Labour’s fault as the Conservatives claimed. Gordon Brown didn’t unilaterally cause a global recession. It was due to lack of regulation of securitised mortgages in corporate America. The same Conservatives who wished to copy our ‘reckless’ spending plans. How we deal with it does matter – putting your eggs all in the Bank of England basket might matter, the same Bank of England which dealt with the BCCI scandal, and whose Governor has fully thrust himself behind the failed Tory policies of late. Finally, it does matter that investment in the UK, especially the construction sector, was killed off, as well as consumer demand murdered, leading to more benefit spend and less amount of tax receipts. George Osborne is wilfully ignorant or wilfully ignorant at his economic ineptitude, or is shamelessly lying with his colleagues when he claims that he is successfully paying off his credit card (which he latterly maxed the other night). The deficit doubled in February, George.

The Government also reeks of complete and utter incompetence, not just over the economy, but also in handling everything from pasties to forests. Unbelievably, Cameron will have snatched failure from the jaws of victory, having not won the election in 2010 and having screwed up the BSkyB bid. He is hanging off the edge of the electoral cliff by his fingernails, and unbelievably I am now certain that this will be an one-term government.

 

If I were in a Con/LibDem marginal, I'd vote LibDem



Yes, I am really angry at Nick Clegg having backtracked on everything I thought he stood for – especially the cuts and tuition fees. Yet, despite my strong reservations, it’s clear that the architects of this faulty plan – especially the deranged Health and Social Services Bill – are the Conservatives. The likelihood is that the referendum to AV will pass a ‘no’ vote, but I feel that if I had a difficult choice between a Conservative and LibDem winning, in spite of my ‘you know where you stand with the Conservatives’, I would much rather not return an unmitigated Conservative local council. This is because I fundamentally disagree with David Cameron and George Osborne, whether it be on the economy, the NHS, education or the Big Society. With some exceptions, I am overall very impressed with those LibDems who have a social conscience. When it comes to the MPs at Westminster, the same difficulty will emerge, and my feeling is that AV won’t make it much better; whilst tactical voting might be more likely under AV, it would be wrong to imply it’s not happening at the moment.

So it really is a difficult one – but the one who has remained unaffected by all this is David Cameron, whose leadership appears to go from strength-to-strength. He was won much unga-bunga factor by waging war against AV, and I suspect he hopes to do the same in Brussels. If he can attract some of the UKIP vote, he may even think to form a minority government with the UKIP party in 2015. The LibDems in the meantime have made their bed, which makes it painfully difficult for some of us. By not voting, we are guaranteed to give the Conservatives a greater share of the vote.

Beware the ides of March



Forgetting AV for one moment..

I think people should be encouraged to vote for the Coalition on their results as well as their aspirations for the future. If it happens that you are not bothered about poor growth, flat interest rates, rising inflation in the short-term, rising unemployment, poor GDP, the majority of universities providing courses for £9000 with minor concessions for the really poor, a debacle over forests, a fast “hatchet job” of the NHS and social care, withdrawal of “Building Schools for the Future”, scrapping of EMA and SureStart, sure, fine, vote Conservatives or Liberal Democrats.

But if you wish to cut the deficit faster, and 100% not 80%, sure vote Conservatives or Liberal Democrat. The thing is you will still have the situation above, or the consequences of it in a few years’ time, and you could see the English economy completely grind to a halt. This will make it even harder for your chosen LibDem and Tory councillors to provide local services in the community.

The LibDems make this minority Tory-led government possible. Unless LibDems voted on bloc, you’d have a debate and you’d have a choice. As it is, you don’t really have any choice at all.

Oh yes, you got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the voting system (a bit). Whooppeedoo.

If we are serious about left progressive politics, we should appear to mean it.



It is easy to blame the demise of ‘left, progressive politics’ on Nick Clegg. This vehement dislike for Nick Clegg is inadvertently encouraged by the spin and media factories of the Liberal Democrats to argue that a majority of people voted for a Coalition – this is not true, as no-one can vote a priori for a hung parliament (as such). I would argue that people wished to vote anti-Cameron instead, in favour of a left progressive agenda. In fact, the last thing they wanted was a Tory Lite in the form of Nick Clegg – but that’s what they’ve got.

This is what worries me about the future. I am still keen on the growth of left progressive politics. Labour conceded a long time its mistakes on the erosion of civil liberties (e.g. periods of detention in terrorism, ID cards), but needs to be aggressive in demonstrating that it had over a period of centuries a commitment to civil liberties, in fact. The Tories simultaneously argue that there has been an erosion of civil liberties and that the Human Rights Act is too ‘liberal’. The Liberal Democrats strongly indorsed the Human Rights Act (1998) before they got into bed with the Tories for political opportunism; the Tories violently opposed the Act, preferring an unenforceable aspirational Bill of Rights instead.

The future includes aspiring Councillors like Lisa Harding. Here is her website:

http://lisaharding.mycouncillor.org.uk/

There is no doubt about Lisa’s commitment to her Party (the Liberal Democrats), nor indeed to her local constituency.

Indeed, a friend of mine on Facebook wrote as follows,

Really, really interesting that was. Thank you. If all councillors showed this much enthusiasm for the history of the place they are representing we’d all be a darn sight better off. Well done Lisa Harding.
There’ll be a cold day in hell before the Lib Dems ever get a vote from me. But with people like this on their team, they should be very proud. I shalll mail this to Mr Clegg and voice my approval after work :)

I will not go as far as to say the Labour Party as a whole should ‘work with’ the Liberal Democrats. After all, we know the rather unpleasant diatribe that Tim Farron and Nick Clegg have produced against Labour’s spending during the world recession. However, I would really like an appreciation that a progressive left agenda can be worked out on human rights. Take for example the disaster that was waiting to happen between the Tories and Lib Dems on control orders. And also – for any chronic patient in the NHS or any parent sending their kid to school in the state sector – such demonisation and vilification of the State won’t be tolerated any longer. The ‘Big Society’ has failed, and there is a reason for that.

Labour needs unity, competence and credibility



Labour’s major potentially fatal flaw is lack of unity. It is essential that whoever Labour elects out of the excellent contenders it stays totally loyal to our new leader.

It is now clear that the most fatal mistake for Gordon Brown was not calling an early election. Gordon Brown’s ‘need for change’, from Ed Balls’ description, was not sufficiently thought through for a full term of government, so therefore Ed Balls gives the clear impression that an early election was essential. All the opinion polling had provided for a peak three months’ following assumption of power, so it was indeed a ‘no brainer’. Hence, reports like this

22 September 2007

Labour is ready for a general election, whenever Gordon Brown chooses to call one, the party’s election co-ordinator Douglas Alexander has said.
His comments came as Mr Brown arrived at Bournemouth ahead of his first party conference as prime minister.

It follows a further round of opinion polls suggesting the party is in an increasingly strong position.

Mr Alexander told The Guardian donations to the Labour party were up and it was ready to go to the country.

That week in Bournemouth, with a backdrop of Labour with an increasing leader, should have seen Gordon Brown go for it. Political commentators have consistently highlighted that two subsequent events demolished Labour’s confidence; George Osborne’s speech on inheritance tax at the Conservative conference, and Gordon Brown’s ill-timed visit to visit the troops abroad. There is no doubt that this ‘lack of election’ was disaster. The inheritance tax was definitely a boost for the Conservatives, and did not go away for the period leading up to May 2010.

Gordon Brown did not have an adequate answer for the question “why no early election?”, as Gordon entered a period of being unpopular. The fact that he did not wish to call an election implanted at that stage the idea that the Labour Party was not unified.

The party needs to prove it has competence and credibility (no more computer child benefit disks going missing, issues about party funding, missing the main signing ceremony for Lisbon). But competence matters – remember when “today was a bad day” for the Conservative government in which Norman Lamont was Chancellor, when Britain came crashing out of the ERM. The buck needs to stop with our new leader, whoever he or she is.

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech