In the shreiking about "the cuts" (No folks, actually it's a cultural revolution but more of that another time), it is said that the two former alchemist Gordon's apprentices now turned comedians,- The Two Eds,- are now agreed that "halving the defecit" is a good enough aim. That's a big step from "Do nothing" which is where they were a year ago. It is some progress considering that when Alistair Darling was taking that line before and during the election ,particularly the Balls Ed was saying that even that wasn't necessary. Obviously he felt there was plenty more money to borrow left in the world.
Let's though nail this "halving the defecit" claim once and for all because neither before the Election nor since have the Conservatives in particular exposed the lie. Goodness knows why as it's a sitting duck.
The fact is that Labour was not talking about,- and isn't now,- any plan to actually reduce the rapidy increasing pile of CUMULATIVE debt and therefore interest on it that they were building up. They are only talking about halving the ANNUAL AMOUNT OF INCREASE of its continued growth which, if they were in power, would have continued relentlessly mounting up, year by year, for at least the next five years.
It is an extraordinary scenario and the Eds' bleats that the Coalition should abandon its attempts to get rid of the ongoing structural defecit and adopt the sort of softly softly policies they were toying with but never got round to doing whilst in power are ludicrous even if expressed santimoniously (Ed 1) or with socialistic venom (Ed 2).They are even more ludicrous when expressed quietly with attempted moral rectitude and considered thoughfulness.These two gents are firmly wedded to denial and burdening us and future generations with paying for their excesses and hopeless spendthrift inefficiencies.What they have not understood is that the days of the "spend more money" via ever increasing "government initiatives" reaction to anything are over.Spending money efficiently and effectively is the way to go .Politicians of all parties struggle with how to do it,and "Yes Minister" civil servants largely resist it, but at least this government is having a go.
Saturday 29 January 2011
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Tedious Noise from The Eds and friends- and a neglectful silence from the Government
The sight and sound of Miliband Minor in Prime Ministers Questions today urging the Government to abandon its "cuts" or defecit reduction programme in favour of Labour's tried and failed borrow and spend policy of buying growth at the cost of burgeoning long term debt and interest payments was a wonder to behold.
Only eight months ago the two Eds, both members of Gordon Brown's famously profligate government followed their master after his final walk down Downing Street. He had a plane to catch to Scotland. Unfortunately they are both London based and had no planes to catch so are still there and in business even if seated on the opposite side of the house. Both appear to be in a state of deep denial that anything other than bankers misbehaving was awry and that the structural defecit which started to build from 2000 onwards was anything to do with Labour,- and notably their own,- policies.
The effect of the spending reductions, VAT increases and reduction in civil service and council staff numbers has only just begun. It was bound to bring an initial period of inflation and no or even negative growth before the economy adjusted and bottomed out. There will be many more months of gloomy figures before a real recovery starts and during this time we can expect the two Eds to continue to howl the same message to the moon.
For their part, the coalition have extraordinarily so far omitted to spell out the basic philosophy (a smaller State) from which their vision flows. Unlike any sensible business embarking on a major change programme ,they have failed to paint in bold, clear,and simple terms how they intend to get from the current state left behind by Labour to the new one or even what the new one really is. How can they the expect people to buy the concept and be prepared to take the short term pain involved? It is a major failure of understanding of how to treat an adult electorate whose trust in politics and politicians is low. It also leaves the Opposition with easy targets.
The shouting from the Labour benches is likely to increase in both volume and frequency now Ed Balls is installed in Number 11. Miliband knows Balls is naturally and aggressively noisy and is likely to fear being overshadowed and appearing weak if he takes a more considered and less high profile approach. Sensibly Miliband would let Balls blow himself out but that would require a lot of confident maturity which he does not appear to have. The new neighbour will worry him and is likely to make him wobble and engage in rowdy street fighting based on denial rather than face the reality of the mess they left behind so recently. The next General Election is most probably four years away and there is no urgency to quickly get back into short term sound and fury on every issue.The Labour Party needs to genuinely reflect and rebuild itself brick by brick and figure out a new future and how to escape rather than return to its union paymasters. Until they come to the same conclusion the rest of us have to put up with the noise while they head back to their seriously outdated roots. It's getting tedious already.
Only eight months ago the two Eds, both members of Gordon Brown's famously profligate government followed their master after his final walk down Downing Street. He had a plane to catch to Scotland. Unfortunately they are both London based and had no planes to catch so are still there and in business even if seated on the opposite side of the house. Both appear to be in a state of deep denial that anything other than bankers misbehaving was awry and that the structural defecit which started to build from 2000 onwards was anything to do with Labour,- and notably their own,- policies.
The effect of the spending reductions, VAT increases and reduction in civil service and council staff numbers has only just begun. It was bound to bring an initial period of inflation and no or even negative growth before the economy adjusted and bottomed out. There will be many more months of gloomy figures before a real recovery starts and during this time we can expect the two Eds to continue to howl the same message to the moon.
For their part, the coalition have extraordinarily so far omitted to spell out the basic philosophy (a smaller State) from which their vision flows. Unlike any sensible business embarking on a major change programme ,they have failed to paint in bold, clear,and simple terms how they intend to get from the current state left behind by Labour to the new one or even what the new one really is. How can they the expect people to buy the concept and be prepared to take the short term pain involved? It is a major failure of understanding of how to treat an adult electorate whose trust in politics and politicians is low. It also leaves the Opposition with easy targets.
The shouting from the Labour benches is likely to increase in both volume and frequency now Ed Balls is installed in Number 11. Miliband knows Balls is naturally and aggressively noisy and is likely to fear being overshadowed and appearing weak if he takes a more considered and less high profile approach. Sensibly Miliband would let Balls blow himself out but that would require a lot of confident maturity which he does not appear to have. The new neighbour will worry him and is likely to make him wobble and engage in rowdy street fighting based on denial rather than face the reality of the mess they left behind so recently. The next General Election is most probably four years away and there is no urgency to quickly get back into short term sound and fury on every issue.The Labour Party needs to genuinely reflect and rebuild itself brick by brick and figure out a new future and how to escape rather than return to its union paymasters. Until they come to the same conclusion the rest of us have to put up with the noise while they head back to their seriously outdated roots. It's getting tedious already.
Sunday 23 January 2011
Ed , Postman's Knock and Balls Various.
It hasn't been a great week for Miliband Minor. In fact it hasn't been a great few months. When he fought the General Election and the Labour leadership contest, Ed came over as a more user friendly alternative to his rather geekish brother. He spoke human, looked cheerful and connected well with people. Once elected his demeanour quickly changed to very serious and largely unsmiling. Presumably some image consultant told him he needed gravitas and this was the way to achieve it. As result he often looks downright miserable and no longer someone who might be fun to spend an evening in the pub, -or anywhere else, -with. He is now a full time member of the joyless socialist front bench ensemble which includes Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper. Can you imagine what a merry evening you would have with those three together,- and that's before you even begin to consider adding Ed Balls and other Labour luminaries?
This week though one can understand why those panda eyes look darker and gloomier than ever. The over zealous activities of Alan Johnson's bodyguard in standing in for his charge,- it seems he took his responsibilities too seriously and they became too all embracing,- led to the departure from the cabinet of the one person who most outsiders felt was a real people.Ed M put him in as Shadow Chancellor specifically to keep Ed B out. Johnson, well suited to other roles such as Shadow Home Secretary , was way out of his depth in this one and must have found it highly stressful and unpleasant long before personal problems came into view. For him, the ability to resign from a no-fit role must be the very welcome silver lining to an otherwise very dark cloud over his private life. Hopefully he will be back, reshuffled into something more aligned with his talents before long.
Ed M now faces a prospect he really wanted to avoid. The Blair/Brown years saw the potential of New Labour rendered disastrously ineffective thanks to the ongoing conflicts between 10 and 11 Downing Street. Part of the problem was the obvious ambition of number 11. After a few months of a Chancellor with no ambition to ultimately challenge him, Ed M now has one with loads of it and a very noisy and high profile one at that.In fact he's got not just one , but thanks to Yvette Cooper being Mrs Balls, a potential powerful alliance of two to worry about. For a while all may be well, but at the back of The Prime Minister's mind will be a nasty sense of unease and brooding uncertainty and even insecurity. It won't help that former appearance of cheery easygoing confidence to return soon .That fact too will help the ambitions of the Balls family.Chilly feeling down the back of the spine this grey Sunday afternoon Ed?
This week though one can understand why those panda eyes look darker and gloomier than ever. The over zealous activities of Alan Johnson's bodyguard in standing in for his charge,- it seems he took his responsibilities too seriously and they became too all embracing,- led to the departure from the cabinet of the one person who most outsiders felt was a real people.Ed M put him in as Shadow Chancellor specifically to keep Ed B out. Johnson, well suited to other roles such as Shadow Home Secretary , was way out of his depth in this one and must have found it highly stressful and unpleasant long before personal problems came into view. For him, the ability to resign from a no-fit role must be the very welcome silver lining to an otherwise very dark cloud over his private life. Hopefully he will be back, reshuffled into something more aligned with his talents before long.
Ed M now faces a prospect he really wanted to avoid. The Blair/Brown years saw the potential of New Labour rendered disastrously ineffective thanks to the ongoing conflicts between 10 and 11 Downing Street. Part of the problem was the obvious ambition of number 11. After a few months of a Chancellor with no ambition to ultimately challenge him, Ed M now has one with loads of it and a very noisy and high profile one at that.In fact he's got not just one , but thanks to Yvette Cooper being Mrs Balls, a potential powerful alliance of two to worry about. For a while all may be well, but at the back of The Prime Minister's mind will be a nasty sense of unease and brooding uncertainty and even insecurity. It won't help that former appearance of cheery easygoing confidence to return soon .That fact too will help the ambitions of the Balls family.Chilly feeling down the back of the spine this grey Sunday afternoon Ed?
Friday 14 January 2011
Oldham By-election,-A win for the coalition!
Today's media are flush with headlines about (old)Labour's win in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election. They have missed the real headline that in fact, taken together the coalition partners actually won. Labour scored 14,718, the Lib Dems 11,100 and the Conservatives who clearly didn't try too hard, 4,481. That means a coalition majority of 1,423. Eight months on from the eviction from Downing Street of Gordon Brown and his running mates including Miliband Minor,and eight months into a new regime who have no alternative but to arrest the spiralling monthly and annual state overspend ,it is no surprise that those addicted to or dependent for their jobs or income on the state cash machine continuing to deliver have walked back to cling desparately to the Labour totem pole. What is a surprise, though one not so far picked up by the media, is that despite "the cuts", the coalition partners have done so well.
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and their parties should be celebrating rather than shaking their heads. Labour on the other hand should be considering firstly admitting their part in creating today's UK (not global, please) situation and beginning to come up with how they would deal with it. From everything we have seen published, their overall spending plans were not very different from those of the coalition so all the "Yah boo" stuff is pointless.Their urging that the cuts should be phased differently is understandable. The Government want to get the worst over in the first two or three years of this Parliament so that the benefits will be beginning to show before the 2015 General Election.Labour naturally recommend ("Too much too soon"they shout) that the next two years should be relatively soft, thus requiring even greater pain in 2014 and 2015 just before the polls. Who would gain most from that we wonder? No self interest in this advice by any chance Ed?
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and their parties should be celebrating rather than shaking their heads. Labour on the other hand should be considering firstly admitting their part in creating today's UK (not global, please) situation and beginning to come up with how they would deal with it. From everything we have seen published, their overall spending plans were not very different from those of the coalition so all the "Yah boo" stuff is pointless.Their urging that the cuts should be phased differently is understandable. The Government want to get the worst over in the first two or three years of this Parliament so that the benefits will be beginning to show before the 2015 General Election.Labour naturally recommend ("Too much too soon"they shout) that the next two years should be relatively soft, thus requiring even greater pain in 2014 and 2015 just before the polls. Who would gain most from that we wonder? No self interest in this advice by any chance Ed?
Thursday 6 January 2011
Ed- the Denier
I hadn't meant to add another to the lengthening Ed series so soon but unfortunately his words to the Times this morning, since repeated on TV and radio , leave no option.
Ever since the election lost by his leader, mentor (and senior) assosciate Gordon Brown,now the usually absentee Member for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, Ed has struggled with and failed to accept Labour's responsibility for building up the huge annual government overspend from 2000 onwards. Indeed he does not seem to recognise that there was an overspend, or that it was of any significance.Instead, echoing his former master, he doesn't seem to see anything as having been amiss until "the global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues". Anything before about 2007/8 seemingly just didnt happen.Later in his article he says "Labour has been clear that we need to reduce borrowing from levels that are far too high" and yet he doesn't admit that these levels were achieved by the former government in which he was a key player. He doesn't mention either that his party had and still has no immediate plans to seriously apply the brakes. They just say "the time isn't right yet". When would it be? When the national debt has trebled from its 1997 level? Quadrupled? And when he talks as always about "fair", does he think that being saddled with paying the soaring annual interest on this ,let alone paying it of, is fair on the next generation of young people, now in their 20s or younger? Does he understand that this is what was happening? Does he care? There is no evidence that he does.
Until Labour can admit that it brought us to the edge of economic disaster it is impossible for them to examine what in their creed always leads them to this state of affairs. Very simply when "The State " is so large, all controlling and expensive it gobbles up such a high share of our GDP that we can only do other things by borrowing. The bigger "The State" grows the more it has to borrow or the economy shrinks and we all get progressively, or rather unprogressively, poorer. This is not advanced mathematics. It isn't even arithmetic. It is elementary school sums. Unlike his brother, Ed is not a reformer or likely to look for the intellectual reason why socialist economies start off by underperforming and eventually failing. Along with colleagues on the left and in the unions ,he doesn't want to accept that is what happens as it questions the viability of their whole philosophy and would force them into a total rethink of their core beliefs. To them the very idea of doing that and looking at what the consumers/voters want from a 21st century political party is unthinkable. As we have said before ,they believe in the supply side of the economy and the consumers getting whatever they choose to dish out.
UK Plc needs a strong and relevant opposition. Labour could deliver one if it went into rehab ,rethought what it's all about and came out newly focused, energised and customer orientated. For rehab to work though,the patient has to recognise the problem and be determined to deal with it.No sign of that yet in Ed's pronouncements and doleful pontifications.
Ever since the election lost by his leader, mentor (and senior) assosciate Gordon Brown,now the usually absentee Member for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, Ed has struggled with and failed to accept Labour's responsibility for building up the huge annual government overspend from 2000 onwards. Indeed he does not seem to recognise that there was an overspend, or that it was of any significance.Instead, echoing his former master, he doesn't seem to see anything as having been amiss until "the global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues". Anything before about 2007/8 seemingly just didnt happen.Later in his article he says "Labour has been clear that we need to reduce borrowing from levels that are far too high" and yet he doesn't admit that these levels were achieved by the former government in which he was a key player. He doesn't mention either that his party had and still has no immediate plans to seriously apply the brakes. They just say "the time isn't right yet". When would it be? When the national debt has trebled from its 1997 level? Quadrupled? And when he talks as always about "fair", does he think that being saddled with paying the soaring annual interest on this ,let alone paying it of, is fair on the next generation of young people, now in their 20s or younger? Does he understand that this is what was happening? Does he care? There is no evidence that he does.
Until Labour can admit that it brought us to the edge of economic disaster it is impossible for them to examine what in their creed always leads them to this state of affairs. Very simply when "The State " is so large, all controlling and expensive it gobbles up such a high share of our GDP that we can only do other things by borrowing. The bigger "The State" grows the more it has to borrow or the economy shrinks and we all get progressively, or rather unprogressively, poorer. This is not advanced mathematics. It isn't even arithmetic. It is elementary school sums. Unlike his brother, Ed is not a reformer or likely to look for the intellectual reason why socialist economies start off by underperforming and eventually failing. Along with colleagues on the left and in the unions ,he doesn't want to accept that is what happens as it questions the viability of their whole philosophy and would force them into a total rethink of their core beliefs. To them the very idea of doing that and looking at what the consumers/voters want from a 21st century political party is unthinkable. As we have said before ,they believe in the supply side of the economy and the consumers getting whatever they choose to dish out.
UK Plc needs a strong and relevant opposition. Labour could deliver one if it went into rehab ,rethought what it's all about and came out newly focused, energised and customer orientated. For rehab to work though,the patient has to recognise the problem and be determined to deal with it.No sign of that yet in Ed's pronouncements and doleful pontifications.
Wednesday 5 January 2011
Nigeria wins Happiest Nation survey
Gasps of incredulity must have greeted the news that Nigeria topped the poll in the recent "Survey of Hope and Despair".It was followed by Vietnam,Brazil, Ghana, China and Kosovo, none of which places seems to offer exactly an easy life.In all of these there exists real hardship and the only reliable form of lifetime support comes, if at all, from the family. Are the poor countries therefore inherantly happier than the rich ones because of the more resilient and "make the best of it" attitudes of their citizens?
Bottom of the poll as the most miserable came France,Iceland,Romania,Serbia and the UK, all of which offer through their social security systems the possibility of a fairly easy life for those unable or unwilling to work. They also give pretty much a cradle to grave guarantee that you won't actually starve. France and the UK provide a lot more than that , together with regulations on minimum wages, health and safety, maximum working hours (and therefore income potential especially for the unskilled) and yet there we are bumping along on the bottom of the misery league.
The only other conspicuous factor is climate. The five most miserable all have cold winter climates.Four of the happiest group are warm year round.
Is the reality therefore that it is better to be poor in a warm country than rich in a cold one and that most of the welfare money poured into the cold ones makes little difference to the happiness of its citizens? Maybe much of that money, deflected away from the overall business of making these miserabalist countries more prosperous, is impoverishing them by removing the impetus to everyone to get up and make the most of life or at least enjoy it? Who's going to dare to fight an election on that platform? One for the "Get a Grip Party"? Meanwhile the optimistic, cheerful and amazingly humourous (unless upset or coming second best in a business deal) Nigerians are seemingly having a ball.Good luck to them,- and congratulations.
Bottom of the poll as the most miserable came France,Iceland,Romania,Serbia and the UK, all of which offer through their social security systems the possibility of a fairly easy life for those unable or unwilling to work. They also give pretty much a cradle to grave guarantee that you won't actually starve. France and the UK provide a lot more than that , together with regulations on minimum wages, health and safety, maximum working hours (and therefore income potential especially for the unskilled) and yet there we are bumping along on the bottom of the misery league.
The only other conspicuous factor is climate. The five most miserable all have cold winter climates.Four of the happiest group are warm year round.
Is the reality therefore that it is better to be poor in a warm country than rich in a cold one and that most of the welfare money poured into the cold ones makes little difference to the happiness of its citizens? Maybe much of that money, deflected away from the overall business of making these miserabalist countries more prosperous, is impoverishing them by removing the impetus to everyone to get up and make the most of life or at least enjoy it? Who's going to dare to fight an election on that platform? One for the "Get a Grip Party"? Meanwhile the optimistic, cheerful and amazingly humourous (unless upset or coming second best in a business deal) Nigerians are seemingly having a ball.Good luck to them,- and congratulations.
Tuesday 4 January 2011
Ed,- The Rather Pathetic.
Most new leaders, however freshly they come to the role, quickly develop and mature in the role, some on their way to greatness but most to at least adequacy.There were similar hopes for Ed Miliband when, thanks to union support, he leapfrogged his brother in the final round of the Labour leadership contest. We may not have expected to see Ed-The-Great yet but the emergence of Ed-The-Rather-Pathetic is disappointing.
Why this unflattering epithet? A political party leader should be there with the big vision. Where the country is going, how it's going to change things for the better and how it's going to get there. We are seeing none of this from Ed and his team. Many are totally silent although they formerly sat with him on the government front bench and do now on the other side of the mace.Where for example are Mr and Mrs Balls? Silence, though maybe on reflection that's no bad thing.
The first salvos of 2011 have not been exciting. Ed is back on the track of "the cuts" (actually Government spending goes up in real terms over the next 4 years) and how devastating they will be particularly to the poor. Labour has for ever been obsessed,-as opposed to caring,- about the poor as well they might be. A socialist party depends on a large unhappy section of the community for bedrock votes. It will therefore subsidise and support poverty rather than taking structural measures such as providing real educational parity between the state and private sectors.Ed does not mention the Labour Chancelllor, Alistair Darling's, aim to take VAT up to 18.5%, only 1.5% not 5% different from the Tory move. Neither does he mention the preferred Labour move to to raise employers' National Insurance contributions which would have further removed incentives to companies to add to their employee numbers. He appears to have the usual leftist mixed views about employers. On the one hand they have merits in providing jobs and tax revenue and giving unions something to do, but on the other they are evil, exploitative, sometimes rich (on the backs of their downtrodden workers of course)and should be milked almost to death to make sure they don't get away with whatever it is they are up to.
Above all there is not a beep from Ed as to how Labour would tackle the structural and increasing Government annual and cumulative debt racked up between 2000 and their fall in March 2010. Worse still, they continue to peddle denial and blame it all on the bankers as if all was rosy until 2007/8. It wasn't. Under Brown and his close advisors, notably Eds Miliband and Balls, UK Plc had been binge borrowing and binge spending. A stronger opposition should have been screaming "Iceberg ahead" from the top of the masts from at least 2001 onwards but, preoccupied with their own problems ,they failed to do so. There is nothing uplifting, new or exciting coming out of Labour right now. Just carping, whinging, going on about the unquantified devastation about to be wrought on the idealised "Hard working families". There is no sign whatever either of acknowledgment of their past financial misdeeds or "Here's what we do now".
As result British politics, especially as reported by the media, are currently intensely boring. Efforts are currently in hand to talk up the effects of the flu and blame whichever nanny is preferred for not telling our good citizens to get a flu jab. The idea that there might be any personal responsibility to do this is of course unthinkable. If Big Brother State hasn't spoken, the the hard working families, single mums, inadequate dads ,poor etc can't be expected to have raised themselves from their couches for the long walk to their local surgeries or the chemist.
All this gets back to political debate and genuine choice depending on two or more players.The coalition is doing its best to make the running, keep impetus up and get things done in the early high energy era of its term before the inevitable resistance or inertia builds up.A strong opposition does not yet exist. Ed picks up the minutiae, rolls them into wet snowballs and lobs them around hopefully.None really hit anything or inspire. Emotionally he would probably prefer to be leading his party from the picket line or protest march but at least he seems to have been dissuaded from that. He is by no means a spent force. He is politically astute even if blinkered by his innate hatred of Tories and all things Tory. He is also ,as his brother knows, completely ruthless when he really wants something. He can not be discounted and may yet arise from the nearly dead. His party may well win next weeks's byelection and claim that their renaissance is under way.They will know though that a protest is different from a real swing.
Ed's much more adult and worldly brother David would have been a different story,- and still may be. Meanwhile Dave, Nick & Co will be be grateful that at this stage of the game they are facing Ed-The-Rather-Pathetic. They will be in no hurry to see him morph into something more like a leader or to be deposed.
Why this unflattering epithet? A political party leader should be there with the big vision. Where the country is going, how it's going to change things for the better and how it's going to get there. We are seeing none of this from Ed and his team. Many are totally silent although they formerly sat with him on the government front bench and do now on the other side of the mace.Where for example are Mr and Mrs Balls? Silence, though maybe on reflection that's no bad thing.
The first salvos of 2011 have not been exciting. Ed is back on the track of "the cuts" (actually Government spending goes up in real terms over the next 4 years) and how devastating they will be particularly to the poor. Labour has for ever been obsessed,-as opposed to caring,- about the poor as well they might be. A socialist party depends on a large unhappy section of the community for bedrock votes. It will therefore subsidise and support poverty rather than taking structural measures such as providing real educational parity between the state and private sectors.Ed does not mention the Labour Chancelllor, Alistair Darling's, aim to take VAT up to 18.5%, only 1.5% not 5% different from the Tory move. Neither does he mention the preferred Labour move to to raise employers' National Insurance contributions which would have further removed incentives to companies to add to their employee numbers. He appears to have the usual leftist mixed views about employers. On the one hand they have merits in providing jobs and tax revenue and giving unions something to do, but on the other they are evil, exploitative, sometimes rich (on the backs of their downtrodden workers of course)and should be milked almost to death to make sure they don't get away with whatever it is they are up to.
Above all there is not a beep from Ed as to how Labour would tackle the structural and increasing Government annual and cumulative debt racked up between 2000 and their fall in March 2010. Worse still, they continue to peddle denial and blame it all on the bankers as if all was rosy until 2007/8. It wasn't. Under Brown and his close advisors, notably Eds Miliband and Balls, UK Plc had been binge borrowing and binge spending. A stronger opposition should have been screaming "Iceberg ahead" from the top of the masts from at least 2001 onwards but, preoccupied with their own problems ,they failed to do so. There is nothing uplifting, new or exciting coming out of Labour right now. Just carping, whinging, going on about the unquantified devastation about to be wrought on the idealised "Hard working families". There is no sign whatever either of acknowledgment of their past financial misdeeds or "Here's what we do now".
As result British politics, especially as reported by the media, are currently intensely boring. Efforts are currently in hand to talk up the effects of the flu and blame whichever nanny is preferred for not telling our good citizens to get a flu jab. The idea that there might be any personal responsibility to do this is of course unthinkable. If Big Brother State hasn't spoken, the the hard working families, single mums, inadequate dads ,poor etc can't be expected to have raised themselves from their couches for the long walk to their local surgeries or the chemist.
All this gets back to political debate and genuine choice depending on two or more players.The coalition is doing its best to make the running, keep impetus up and get things done in the early high energy era of its term before the inevitable resistance or inertia builds up.A strong opposition does not yet exist. Ed picks up the minutiae, rolls them into wet snowballs and lobs them around hopefully.None really hit anything or inspire. Emotionally he would probably prefer to be leading his party from the picket line or protest march but at least he seems to have been dissuaded from that. He is by no means a spent force. He is politically astute even if blinkered by his innate hatred of Tories and all things Tory. He is also ,as his brother knows, completely ruthless when he really wants something. He can not be discounted and may yet arise from the nearly dead. His party may well win next weeks's byelection and claim that their renaissance is under way.They will know though that a protest is different from a real swing.
Ed's much more adult and worldly brother David would have been a different story,- and still may be. Meanwhile Dave, Nick & Co will be be grateful that at this stage of the game they are facing Ed-The-Rather-Pathetic. They will be in no hurry to see him morph into something more like a leader or to be deposed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)