Labour: The debate....

I've heard countless Labour commentators and politicians talking about how they wish Labour could have a real debate about why they lost before embarking upon a leadership contest.

I'm interested to know how such a debate could take place. Would there be a meeting? Would it be through endless articles in the press? Would it be through focus groups? Who says when the debate ends? Who says what the results of the debate are? Is this the point at which a leadership election happens? What happens if the results of the leadership election is at odds with the results of the 'debate'.

I think it's all fatuous. These 'let's have a debate' ideas don't really add up to much.

The good idea of a leadership election is for the contenders to put their cases forward. If they cannot persuade their colleagues, then how are they expected to convince the voters? The party has to be able to believe in the leader and their position and direction. In essence the leadership vote is the debate. The MPs have to work out whether they want to keep to ideological positions or whether they want to win, and the result of the leadership vote indicates where the party is.

It was only when the Tories elected David Cameron that we knew they were serious about being a party of the centre and ready to win. His election was the manifestation of the debate within the Tory party.

Now where I do agree with the commentators is for the delay before embarking on the leadership vote. Harriet Harman should have put the leadership contenders in significant positions on the front bench to challenge the Tories. This is what Michael Howard did after he lost in 2005. It would be even useful to let them all have a go at PMQs. That's not what happened, and Liz Kendall is still Andy Burnham's number two at Shadow Health.

I think Labour are like the Tories circa 2003 rather than 2005 and I think they will need another attempt to get it right.

Squiffy.




 

Ed Miliband Conference Speech: Verdict

What a long, turgid, affair. Oh dear me. By far his worst conference speech.

It was long on anecdotes with Gareth, Elizabeth and all, but it didn't add up to much. For policies, we had some extra money for the NHS, voting for 16 and 17 year olds, a mansion tax and extra taxes on tobacco companies.

You can tell when Labour are operating the core vote strategy, they focus on the NHS. I remember a tweet from Dan Hodges, commentator, and son of Glenda Jackson MP, who said when they start banging on about NHS you know that they know they'll lose. I'm not so sure but I'm not plugged into the party like Dan was. They'll reverse the NHS changes made by the coalition. Does that ring a bell? Yes, when Labour came into power in 1997 they reversed the previous Tory hospital organisation and then 5 years later started to bring it back. Will they ever learn?

The mansion 4 bedroom semi tax has been spent twice now, to bring the deficit down and fund the NHS. A new tax. There's also a new tax on tobacco companies, as if they don't pay a lot anyway with duties. There will no doubt be more bank taxes too.

Whatever the problem, the answer is always the same. A new or increased tax to provide increased Government spending. If not, use borrowing for increased spending.

What was striking was that there was no mention of the deficit. We now know that he meant to mention it, but forgot. It's so easy to forget the most pressing issue affecting the country today. Immigrations was forgotten too. Another doorstep high priority.

Talking of a current issue which Labour has no answer to, the impact of devolution and English votes for English laws, Mr Miliband said David Cameron was trying to divide the nation.

Since the referendum I have felt more and more incensed by repeated claims that we shouldn't rush the answer, and have some constitutional convention. Who rushed into lots of devolution as soon as they were elected last time? Labour. They created this monster of an issue and did not bother to seek out answers to the unbalanced state they created in 13 years of power. It's because it suited them to brush it under the carpet. It's extremely rich for them now to accuse the Tories of trying to solve this problem to their advantage!

Anyway, back to the speech. Oh must I? If this man is Prime Minister next May I may have to go on Prozac. He's the least impressive leader since Iain Duncan-Smith.

Squiffy.


By the way, funny that Rachel Reeves, shadow pension secretary didn't know what the standard state pension was - she thought it was just below £100. I fact it's £113. You'd think she'd know. Yesterday she seemed to not quite know the difference between capital and current spending. This lady is supposed to be in the next group to be leader. Give me strength.