Yesterday was the day when Ed Miliband had to give us his vision for a future Britain under his leadership. It is the starting point for the next four and a half years.
Unfortunately, I found the speech boring and largely forgettable. It didn't inspire me at all, and although I'm not a party supporter, I know that a good speech delivered by Tony Blair would have me gripped.
It was delivered with the gusto of a dead parrot. There was no overiding theme. In a sense it was stiched together like one of Gordon Brown's, but with the content of a detached Nick Clegg (pre-Coalition era).
The one moment that sticks in the mind is his distance from the 'mistake of Iraq' but even that was overshadowed by the stony face of his brother asking Harriet Harman why she was clapping when she had voted for it.
A good speech must inspire, it must use the language that we understand but get away from clichés. As Jim Hacker once said, 'You can talk in clichés, till the cows come home'. There must be an overiding theme and a rhythm which catches you on its hook. Some people have it; Winston Churchill, Barack Obama, Tony Blair and to a large extent David Cameron. Ed Miliband didn't have it yesterday.
The message seemed to be directed at the Labour party and not the country and, while I think the party needs to have a deep think about what it stands for, yesterday was not the time to do it!
Squiffy.
Wednesday 29 September 2010
Monday 27 September 2010
Ed Miliband has to make the right impression
As I thought, the Labour party, has gone for Ed Miliband.
He is already being branded as Red Ed. Tomorrow he will make his first major conference speech. He must make a better fist of it than last year, when it was completely uninspiring.
He will set the tone for his leadership. He tacked to the left to win the leadership, now he must grab the publics attention. He needs to be centrist and send out signals to the south east that he will stand up for middle classes too.
I don't think he will but he may surprise!
Squiffy.
He is already being branded as Red Ed. Tomorrow he will make his first major conference speech. He must make a better fist of it than last year, when it was completely uninspiring.
He will set the tone for his leadership. He tacked to the left to win the leadership, now he must grab the publics attention. He needs to be centrist and send out signals to the south east that he will stand up for middle classes too.
I don't think he will but he may surprise!
Squiffy.
Saturday 25 September 2010
A great afternoon for me. Vettel and Ed
Singapore G.P. qualifying and the results of the labour leadership election.
My prediction is that Vettel will take pole and as I said some time ago, when all the money was on MiliD, I think that Labour will be foolish and elect MiliE.
Fascinating.
Squiffy.
My prediction is that Vettel will take pole and as I said some time ago, when all the money was on MiliD, I think that Labour will be foolish and elect MiliE.
Fascinating.
Squiffy.
Friday 24 September 2010
Why are LibDem voters angry?
I really don't understand why LibDems are unhappy with the coalition. It was on display, again, last night on Question Time. Maybe it is because I'm not a LibDem voter, or maybe because I'm a bit of a realist.
The LibDems were never going to win the election outright, so the only chance for the LibDems to have any power whatsoever was in a power share with one of the big two. In which case, the electoral arithmetic would drive the likely coalition.
If the LibDems had said before the election that they would only do a deal with one of the parties, they would lose a significant portion of their voters and seats and be even less likely to be able to put any of their policies in operation. The party could also split.
The situation now is an inevitable consequence of voting for the LibDems.
For the long term, if the LibDems are going to become one of the bigger parties it will have to supplant one of the others. Their best hope is to try and be the main opposition to the Government of the day as a stepping stone to being in power alone. In which case they should have tacked to the right in the Labour years and to the left now. They tend to go in the opposite direction - along with the prevailing popularity.
Otherwise, if they believe what they say and they really want the "new politics" of coalitions then their followers must be prepared to support, from time to time, a party which are not their natural allies.
So stop bleating.
Squiffy.
The LibDems were never going to win the election outright, so the only chance for the LibDems to have any power whatsoever was in a power share with one of the big two. In which case, the electoral arithmetic would drive the likely coalition.
If the LibDems had said before the election that they would only do a deal with one of the parties, they would lose a significant portion of their voters and seats and be even less likely to be able to put any of their policies in operation. The party could also split.
The situation now is an inevitable consequence of voting for the LibDems.
For the long term, if the LibDems are going to become one of the bigger parties it will have to supplant one of the others. Their best hope is to try and be the main opposition to the Government of the day as a stepping stone to being in power alone. In which case they should have tacked to the right in the Labour years and to the left now. They tend to go in the opposite direction - along with the prevailing popularity.
Otherwise, if they believe what they say and they really want the "new politics" of coalitions then their followers must be prepared to support, from time to time, a party which are not their natural allies.
So stop bleating.
Squiffy.
Thursday 23 September 2010
The case for cuts
Most of my friends are left wingers who don't seem to understand the basics of economics that require us to deal with the deficit. I thought I'd try to explain it in the easiest way that I can.
Imagine you and your wife have been married for 7 years. You both have jobs on £24000 and £30000 respectively. You have lived in your house for years and are just keeping on top of your bills so that have enough for a couple of holidays every year. You have one child who is now at the age where he needs to go to school.
You want to give your son the best of education so you agree with your bank that you can have a yearly loan of £5000 to pay for a full time place in an independent school. You think that a pay rise is on the way for both of you which means that in a couple of years time you'll be able to cover the costs of the education. You can keep up the costs of the interest on the loan of £500 for this year - but you know the interest payments will keep going up without the raise.
Suddenly your wife falls ill and has to work part-time. Her annual salary goes down to £20000. Your bank agrees to fund some healthcare treatment which should make your wife better in the next 3 or 4 years. The bank is getting worried though, it's looking less likely that you will be able pay the money back. But you just about reassure them that your wife will get better and the pay rises are around the corner - you hope.
This is the stage we are at the moment in the UK economy.
You have several choices now:
1) You can ask the bank for a few more pounds and continue living as you are. They may give you some more money, or more likely they will get worried that you are not dealing with the situation properly. Shortly it looks like you will be paying more interest on your school loan than the amount you actually borrowed. They may put the interest rates on your loan up, or if they are really unsure about you they may start to ask for you pay off your loans immediately and send the bailiffs in when you can't.
2) You can cancel your twice yearly holidays and move your son to a day boarding school which only costs £2500 a year. Ok, you have a bit of extra money to handle the interest payments on your loans, but the amount of interest you have to pay is still going up and you just have to hope that your wife gets better soon so that you can get on top of the interest payments. If not the bank will get jittery...
3) You can cut back and send your son to the local comprehensive. The holidays need to go too for the time being. You have to cancel your health insurance and stop visits to restaurants. You still have loans to pay on the healthcare, but you can overpay to pay the loan off quickly. The bank is happy that you are handling the situation and agrees not to send in the bailiffs.
If you can't see why this is like the country, then:
For your combined salary read Government Income.
For your bills read Government expenditure.
For the annual school fees read structural deficit.
For the loans for healthcare read recessionary deficit (part of the automatic stabilizers)
For the holidays read Government schemes.
For the bank read International Credit Agencies and Money Markets.
For Bailiffs read the IMF.
In a nutshell, before the financial markets imploded we were already borrowing money to finance our yearly spending. The impact of recession meant that our income (i.e. tax) reduced while our outgoings (e.g. benefits) went up. Leaving us with a yearly deficit of around £155Bn.
Even when the recession has been dealt with we still have our additional spending in the structural deficit to contend with, but by that point our total loan will be £1400Bn up from £700Bn now - our interest payments will be nearly the same as our yearly benefits payments.
The unions don't want us to do anything, option 1, in which case the international money markets would surely stop lending money to us and call in the IMF.
Ed Balls and his ilk want option 2, in which case the international money markets will get jittery and we just hope the recovery is strong enough to pull us out of our tailspin.
The Government has chosen option 3, they want to stop some of the extra spending and get rid of the structural deficit within 5 years. It will still mean that the total deficit will go up to £1300Bn but you have to make a start.
I know which I favour.
Squiffy.
Imagine you and your wife have been married for 7 years. You both have jobs on £24000 and £30000 respectively. You have lived in your house for years and are just keeping on top of your bills so that have enough for a couple of holidays every year. You have one child who is now at the age where he needs to go to school.
You want to give your son the best of education so you agree with your bank that you can have a yearly loan of £5000 to pay for a full time place in an independent school. You think that a pay rise is on the way for both of you which means that in a couple of years time you'll be able to cover the costs of the education. You can keep up the costs of the interest on the loan of £500 for this year - but you know the interest payments will keep going up without the raise.
Suddenly your wife falls ill and has to work part-time. Her annual salary goes down to £20000. Your bank agrees to fund some healthcare treatment which should make your wife better in the next 3 or 4 years. The bank is getting worried though, it's looking less likely that you will be able pay the money back. But you just about reassure them that your wife will get better and the pay rises are around the corner - you hope.
This is the stage we are at the moment in the UK economy.
You have several choices now:
1) You can ask the bank for a few more pounds and continue living as you are. They may give you some more money, or more likely they will get worried that you are not dealing with the situation properly. Shortly it looks like you will be paying more interest on your school loan than the amount you actually borrowed. They may put the interest rates on your loan up, or if they are really unsure about you they may start to ask for you pay off your loans immediately and send the bailiffs in when you can't.
2) You can cancel your twice yearly holidays and move your son to a day boarding school which only costs £2500 a year. Ok, you have a bit of extra money to handle the interest payments on your loans, but the amount of interest you have to pay is still going up and you just have to hope that your wife gets better soon so that you can get on top of the interest payments. If not the bank will get jittery...
3) You can cut back and send your son to the local comprehensive. The holidays need to go too for the time being. You have to cancel your health insurance and stop visits to restaurants. You still have loans to pay on the healthcare, but you can overpay to pay the loan off quickly. The bank is happy that you are handling the situation and agrees not to send in the bailiffs.
If you can't see why this is like the country, then:
For your combined salary read Government Income.
For your bills read Government expenditure.
For the annual school fees read structural deficit.
For the loans for healthcare read recessionary deficit (part of the automatic stabilizers)
For the holidays read Government schemes.
For the bank read International Credit Agencies and Money Markets.
For Bailiffs read the IMF.
In a nutshell, before the financial markets imploded we were already borrowing money to finance our yearly spending. The impact of recession meant that our income (i.e. tax) reduced while our outgoings (e.g. benefits) went up. Leaving us with a yearly deficit of around £155Bn.
Even when the recession has been dealt with we still have our additional spending in the structural deficit to contend with, but by that point our total loan will be £1400Bn up from £700Bn now - our interest payments will be nearly the same as our yearly benefits payments.
The unions don't want us to do anything, option 1, in which case the international money markets would surely stop lending money to us and call in the IMF.
Ed Balls and his ilk want option 2, in which case the international money markets will get jittery and we just hope the recovery is strong enough to pull us out of our tailspin.
The Government has chosen option 3, they want to stop some of the extra spending and get rid of the structural deficit within 5 years. It will still mean that the total deficit will go up to £1300Bn but you have to make a start.
I know which I favour.
Squiffy.
Friday 17 September 2010
The Question Time Verdict
After last night's performance, the Labour party would be extremely foolish to elect anyone other than David Miliband. He was sensible and looked like a possible Prime Minister. Ed Balls was quite good too.
I still think that Ed Miliband will win it and that is good for me as a Tory. He will lead them to election disaster and David Miliband will probably leave politics.
It's very close to call but I think there are enough lefties in the Labour party who cannot see what a disaster anyone other than MiliD will be.
Squiffy
I still think that Ed Miliband will win it and that is good for me as a Tory. He will lead them to election disaster and David Miliband will probably leave politics.
It's very close to call but I think there are enough lefties in the Labour party who cannot see what a disaster anyone other than MiliD will be.
Squiffy
Saturday 4 September 2010
Tony Blair: The Tory Labour Pm
I've just received my copy of the ex-pm's memoirs and have not read them yet. But it is possible to comment using the press speculation as a guide.
It is clear that TB was an a MP who turned his back on the old Labour policies that he supported when he went into parliament, in order to create a pseudo-Thatcherite Labour party. His instincts these days are very much Tory, he wants to rebalance spending, wants choice to reform public services, and thinks the state has got too big. In essence Tory values, however much he protests.
The overwhelming feeling is of disappointment though. For all the large majorities, and copious amounts of good will, his time in power was largely squandered. Can anyone remember what was achieved in their third parliament?
He was too timid, too pleasing, in the first term. When, quite frankly, he could do no wrong. He could have proposed the Euro, a republic and devil worship and got away with it. It was only in the second term that he decided that he needed to make big reforms, by which time the Government was beset by the personal bickering between the neighbours at No 10 and 11, and also the Iraq war. By the third term he was spent.
It's no good now saying that the economy started getting unbalanced in 2005, he was still the PM. The cowardice in dealing with Gordon Brown meant that the Chancellor could run amuck and wreck the nations finances. For Gordon Brown, New Labour was a way to get elected then put into practice old Labour policies by stealth.
For Tony Blair, he genuinely believed. But his timidity in dealing with Gordon Brown means that his premiership was largely wasted amongst personality politics and feuding.
He says two contradictory things. That he set the direction of economic policy - the same policy that went wrong in 2005. And that Gordon was too brilliant to sack. Why was he so brilliant if TB set the rails on which the chancellor would travel? If the policy went wrong in 2005, who does he blame, himself or the man next door.
Basically, he kept Gordon where he was to keep his own PMship on track. He could not face him down, move him or sack him. So he danced with his rival while the country watched and went down an economic blind alley. The reforms were watered down so much the Government ended up tinkering at edges.
He then says that he knew Gordon would be a disaster as PM, but did nothing to stop him. He disappeared and left the country dealing with the misfit.
What can one say? 1997-2007. What a waste. 2007-2010. What a disaster.
Squiffy.
It is clear that TB was an a MP who turned his back on the old Labour policies that he supported when he went into parliament, in order to create a pseudo-Thatcherite Labour party. His instincts these days are very much Tory, he wants to rebalance spending, wants choice to reform public services, and thinks the state has got too big. In essence Tory values, however much he protests.
The overwhelming feeling is of disappointment though. For all the large majorities, and copious amounts of good will, his time in power was largely squandered. Can anyone remember what was achieved in their third parliament?
He was too timid, too pleasing, in the first term. When, quite frankly, he could do no wrong. He could have proposed the Euro, a republic and devil worship and got away with it. It was only in the second term that he decided that he needed to make big reforms, by which time the Government was beset by the personal bickering between the neighbours at No 10 and 11, and also the Iraq war. By the third term he was spent.
It's no good now saying that the economy started getting unbalanced in 2005, he was still the PM. The cowardice in dealing with Gordon Brown meant that the Chancellor could run amuck and wreck the nations finances. For Gordon Brown, New Labour was a way to get elected then put into practice old Labour policies by stealth.
For Tony Blair, he genuinely believed. But his timidity in dealing with Gordon Brown means that his premiership was largely wasted amongst personality politics and feuding.
He says two contradictory things. That he set the direction of economic policy - the same policy that went wrong in 2005. And that Gordon was too brilliant to sack. Why was he so brilliant if TB set the rails on which the chancellor would travel? If the policy went wrong in 2005, who does he blame, himself or the man next door.
Basically, he kept Gordon where he was to keep his own PMship on track. He could not face him down, move him or sack him. So he danced with his rival while the country watched and went down an economic blind alley. The reforms were watered down so much the Government ended up tinkering at edges.
He then says that he knew Gordon would be a disaster as PM, but did nothing to stop him. He disappeared and left the country dealing with the misfit.
What can one say? 1997-2007. What a waste. 2007-2010. What a disaster.
Squiffy.
Wednesday 1 September 2010
Hague's advisor resigns
William Hague's special advisor has resigned his post after rumours that they shared a hotel room have been spread on the Internet. Christopher Myers says that the rumours are "malicious and untrue".
Why resign then? It makes them look guilty of something even if it's not the case.
Added Later: Thankfully, the resignation is just because Christopher Myers believes that the stress of coping with the media will be too great. I can believe that. It's a shame the rumours have surfaced over something so petty as a shared room, and it has led William Hague to release a very personal statement stating that he and Ffion have been trying, unsuccessfully, for a baby. It's bad that they have had to take this step.
Squiffy.
Why resign then? It makes them look guilty of something even if it's not the case.
Added Later: Thankfully, the resignation is just because Christopher Myers believes that the stress of coping with the media will be too great. I can believe that. It's a shame the rumours have surfaced over something so petty as a shared room, and it has led William Hague to release a very personal statement stating that he and Ffion have been trying, unsuccessfully, for a baby. It's bad that they have had to take this step.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
