Posts Tagged ‘Labour

09
Dec
11

In, Out, In, Out, Oy!, Oy!, Oy!

The Hokey Cokey

The Hokey Cokey

The headlines are screaming that Britain is isolated and the Labour opposition are blaming the Prime Minister David Cameron. The leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband has tweeted that Cameron vetoing the EU treaty change was a sign of “weakness” – Yawn.

This whole furore is ridiculous. Like all EU countries Britain will act in it’s own interests. Britain is not in the Euro area and so her interests are dissimilar from Euro-zone countries. The root of this is that Britain is not a member of the Euro zone and that was a decision taken under Labour so blaming Cameron is absurd.

Does Mr. Miliband really believe that he would have handled the situation any better? If Britain had a Labour government Mr. Miliband would have found that it was he who had to walk the line between the rival mobs of pro and anti European Brits. He would have had to make the best judgement call he could.

Britain has always been half hearted about Europe. We don’t want a two speed Europe because we don’t want a diminution of Britain’s power in Europe but, at the same time, we are not in favour of the greater integration which is the goal of many other countries.

Britain is a problem for Europe but now that push, has come to shove, Britain has been forced to decide: in or out of the central core. Cameron has chosen out and, given the current state of the Euro, I doubt that Mr. Milliband would have decided differently.

The hysteria of Mr. Milliband’s comments are indicative of Labour’s continuing media focused leadership. Just last week he was pontificating on the comments of Jeremy Clarkson on a TV chat show. We should get this in perspective. Mr. Clarkson is the presenter of a car program. Like him or loath him CLARKSON DOES NOT MATTER. I do not elect and pay politicians to commentate on popular TV shows.

New Labour’s current performance are evidence that they still have not understood that 13 years of spin was a failure. They need to get serious and start identifying solid policy differences between themselves and the Conservatives. And a dose of sincerity would not go amiss.

Star House

Star House

16
Jun
11

When Labour call for tax cuts you have to be suspicious

Cut taxes? Labour? With their reputation?

Cut taxes? Me? With my reputation?

I just watched Ed Balls on Channel 4 News calling for VAT cuts. Labour’s argument is that they agree that they need to bring the deficit down but not so fast. Recently I heard Labour talking about the National Health service. Once again they agree that change is needed but not the change that the government are pursuing.

It’s easy being in opposition. All you have to do is disagree with the government. I don’t think many of us have enough understanding to know whether the governments fast track to deficit reduction is better than Labour’s ideas for going more slowly.

We do know that the opposition are bound to disagree with the government. The truth is that Labour have no alternative and so they are forced to criticise the speed of the process rather than the process itself. This is not surprising since the Labour leadership are a bunch of nobodies.

Both Millibands and Balls have never had proper jobs. They all worked as media monkeys for New Labour before being shoe horned into safe seats. They perform so lamely in opposition because they have no policy ideas of their own. They only know is how to present ideas, know how to play the media. Remember that idiotic attack on Ken Clark a few weeks ago? Any sensible person who listened to Clark’s arguments could not have believed that he meant to make light of rape yet Ed Milliband picked it up and was banging on about it during PMQs the very same day. This was nothing but spin.

I have heard several times in the news that Ed Balls is a “considerable intellect” and that he is generally well clued up on the economy. Last week The Telegraph released transcripts of some of Mr. Balls documents from when he was working for Gordon Brown. I read the document entitled Project Volvo where Mr. Balls lays out his ideas for getting Gordon Brown elected.

Not much evidence of a great intellect there.

In fact, project Volvo was no more than an off the shelf marketing campaign which could have been put together by any marketing graduate. The same approach could have been used to sell magazines or margarine.

I realise that this marketing stuff works and therefore political parties are forced to hire marketing staff. I guess this took off in the UK when Margaret Thatcher hired Saatchi and Saatchi but Thatcher was never so stupid as to confuse marketing staff with politicians. Labour’s mistake was to allow the marketing men to run the party.

You have to be suspicious when you hear that Labour want to cut taxes. So when I heard, this evening, that Ed Balls wanted to cut VAT I did not think that this was part of  a well thought out economic strategy. I thought that he was TALKING BOLLOCKS! Balls knows that reputable bodies such as the IMF and the EU do not agree with him and he knows that the government will ignore his calls. But that is not the point.

Mr. Balls does not expect the government to follow his advise. His call for a VAT cut is merely headline grabbing fluff to cast the Tories in a bad light. More spin. More marketing.

Under Tony Blair the marketing men worked too closely with the leadership. In today’s Labour party the marketing men ARE the leadership. I am even starting to hear of yet another rebranding attempt, this time to be entitled “Blue Labour”.

In marketing terms Labour is now a tainted brand and repairing a brand is a very big job requiring going back to honesty and principles. The product itself must have intrinsic value.

While Labour remain a party led by nobodies like Ed Balls even Saatchi and Saatchi couldn’t repair it.

09
Apr
11

Banks recovery is a cheap trick

Simple strategy: May the public pay

Simple strategy: Make the public pay

I get a little irritated when Labour supporters blame the current financial crisis on the banks as they’re merely trying to sidestep their own incompetence. The generally accepted root cause of the credit crunch amongst Economists is interest rates held too low for too long and the blame for this lays with the chairman of the America Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and, in the UK, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown.

This is not to say that others should not share the blame. We, as individuals, were to blame for knowingly borrowing far too much and, yes, the bankers were to blame for their incompetence in lending far too much and for tying themselves in knots with odd financial instruments such as credit derivatives.

However, I too am angry with the bankers because they are not sharing the pain. It might be argued that the rich, by definition, never suffer during financial crisis but what irks me is the bankers arrogant inclination to actually raise their income by large amounts while everyone else is having to cut back. Today’s Guardian reported that the head of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, received a 51% pay rise!

What planet do these morons think that they’re on?

Bankers argue that they have done a brilliant job in making profits for the banks since the credit crunch and in so doing dug the banks out of the mess they were in. This disingenuous as they have achieved all this merely by the putting their prices up. Competition has dropped out of the market, base rates are ludicrously low let yet loan rates and fees are high.

So who is really paying for the banks recovery and Mr. Dimon’s bonus? You are! Joe bloody public again. The same poor bastard who also paid for the banks bail out. You don’t need to pay a £3m bonus for a trick like that.

Whenever criticised bankers usually reply that you have to pay the market rate or you will lose people. Well, OK, let’s lose some of these people. Firstly, where can they go? Secondly, if they have so little solidarity with their fellow countrymen then bollocks to them and thirdly their past performance IS an indicator of future results so good riddance to them.

07
Apr
11

Voting reform – where’s the debate?

Apathy wins again

Apathy wins again

I received a voting form through the door recently for the upcoming referendum on reform of the voting system. I have no fervent party allegiance but have voted Liberal in the past and have recognised that the Liberals get a bad deal out of our current system. There was an election not so long ago where each of the three main parties got roughly a third of the popular vote  but the Liberals attained only a handful of seats as their votes were spread evenly rather than concentrated in areas where votes could be translated into seats in the House of Commons. Proportional Representation would have given the Liberals a fairer number of seats. However I also recognise that the current “first past the post” voting system has the advantage of allowing people in an area to elect an individual who’s responsibility it is to speak for them in Parliament though the rise of lobby group politics and party whipping can dilute this advantage considerably.

The change that we are being offered in the upcoming referendum is to either keep the current system or change to a Single Transferable Vote system. In the new system we are asked to rank the parties according to our preferences. So we might place a 1 next to Liberal, a 2 next to Labour and a 3 next to Tory. All the 1s are added up and if there is no overall majority then the 2′s are added to the 1s. . OK, so I broadly understand the workings of it but there are many questions. What effect would this have? Would we still retain the individual representing a constituency? I’m sure there are many questions and I’m sure that each system has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.

What I’d like to know is: Where is the debate? Where are the TV documentaries full of university professors discussing each system? Where is the comparison with other countries? Where is the manic news reader with his swing-o-meter producing charts and statistics to show what would have happened in various previous elections if one or the other alternative system had been in place? Where is the Referendum web site explaining the options?

In short: Where is the informed debate?

As far as I can see there is none and I expect that, despite of the support of Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg, the Tories and Labour do not want a change. May the 5th will come and go and most people will be unaware or too uninformed to vote.

The chance to make a major change to British politics will have passed us by because the political establishment and, presumably, the media are happy with the status quo.

Bollocks!

06
Feb
11

More Labour Promises

Labour Promises

More Labour Promises

I hear that Ed Miliband has warned that the young generation have been betrayed by spending cuts. Mr. Miliband is TALKING BOLLOCKS! It is right to be concerned that cuts to education could damage the potential of the next generation but it is absolute hypocrisy for Mr. Miliband to pretend that Labour policies are more friendly to the next generation than those of the coalition government.

It was on Labour’s watch that the UK ran up massive debt and Labour are now opposing every effort to bring the deficit down and repay the debt. The real betrayal of our children would be for us to escape cuts now by borrowing more money to service the debt and just pass the burden on to the next generation.

I also take issue with Mr. Miliband’s idea of a “British promise” that every generation will do better than the last. There has never been such a promise and we should not believe any politician stupid and arrogant enough to make such a promise. Indeed the driving hyper-industrialisation which lays behind this sort of thinking is unsustainable and deceitful. It is deceitful because while it pushes pointless trinkets into our hands it erodes our quality of life by depriving us of space, by driving us to work ever harder and by standardising and commercialisation our environment.

27
Sep
10

Ed Milliband – Toadying pays off

Toadying pays off

Toadying pays off

So Ed Milliband has won the Labour leadership contest and I’m hearing a lot of nonsense about how experienced he is. If he has experience then he has disguised it well. His Wikipedia entry lists his experience thus:

“Born in London, Miliband graduated from Oxford University and the London School of Economics, becoming first a Labour Party researcher, and rising to become one of Chancellor Gordon Brown’s confidants, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury’s Council of Economic Advisers. Miliband was elected the Member of Parliament for the South Yorkshire constituency of Doncaster North in the 2005 general election.”

University – Researcher – Advisor – MP. NIce work if you can get it. One has to ask why anyone considered that a man in his thirties who had never had a proper job would be worth asking for advise let alone parachuting into a Labour safe seat. Like many of the current bunch of political leaders, in all parties, Ed gained power by toadying to the powerful. Having said that, he’s probably a better choice of leader than his brother.

David Milliband was the obvious successor to New Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and favourite to win the leadership. His supporters have been whining that brother Ed only won the contest because the union’s backed him. Hello! The Labour Party was founded by the unions and gets most of it’s funding from the unions. Like them or hate them they have the right, both technically and morally, to pick their leader. Had David won instead of Ed I don’t expect we would be hearing that David had only won because of the support of the party.

I hear that “close friends” of David Milliband claim that he said before the leadership contest that if he didn’t win then he would leave politics. Today the Guardian reported that David’s wife, Louise Shackleton, was “in floods of tears” and “furious about the manner of his defeat”. I am reminded that Tony Blair, after bullshitting us for years that he was “passionate” about everything in politics from schools to hospitals to freedom, he chose to give up his politics and become a banker when he left the Labour leadership.

All this goes to show that the main players in New Labour were, and are, arrogant narcissists interested only in power and not in politics. Good riddance to the lot of them.

01
Sep
10

Labour Leadership – starry eyed, starey eyes and scary eyes

Competition to see who can lie the longest without blinking

Competition to see who can lie the longest without blinking

So here we go………the Labour leadership race. Channel 4 News ran a mini debate between all candidates this evening and fed in some comments from the recently reanimated Tony Blair.

  • Diane Abbott
  • Ed Balls
  • Andy Burnham
  • David Miliband
  • Ed Miliband

All candidates tried to distance themselves from the Brown / Blair debacle. It seems to me that we have David Miliband as the New Labour continuity candidate which I take to mean spending like an irresponsible old Labour government, supporting big business over the individual while increasing the power of the state to control the population using technologies such as centralised databases, CCTV and GPS monitoring of cars.

Then we have Ed Miliband who has mentioned a 50p tax rate and seems to me more an old Labour candidate. Old Labour is not something I relish with it’s economic incompetence but Socialism is an honourable ideal and at least he is relatively straight about his objectives.

Ed Balls is a mystery to me. That this blowhard babbler could even be considered as a candidate for an MP let alone party leadership shows just how much modern politics relies on spin over policies. I don’t trust the way his eyes open wide when he gets fervent and I suspect that he is lying while trying to look the interviewer in the eye and overcompensating.

I respect Dianne Abbot for independence and saying what she thinks and I agree with her on some policies mostly related to foreign policy. However, I expect that she is one of those Labour MPs who are excellent at fighting injustice but inexperienced and naïve when it comes to managing.

I don’t know too much about Andy Burnham but he seems equally distanced from Blair and Brown and relativity untarnished by the New Labour experiment. Perhaps he could be a good leader. Not that I’d vote Labour for a few terms yet. Labour really need to stop adjusting their policies in order to garner votes and figure out what they stand for.

17
Jul
10

Mandelson reincarnated as a mouthy young Tory

Mouthy Tory

Mouthy Tory

Good grief. I thought that the age of politicians cynically talking out interviews was over. Over the past 13 years Peter Mandelson had developed the art of talking a lot but saying nothing. He honed his techniques of deceit and obfuscation and almost rendered interviews pointless. His goal was to say nothing. I thought that with New Labour out of power we might return to the days when the purpose of political interviews was to give the public a chance to understand the actions of politicians. It seems that Zach Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park, has other ideas.

In fact Goldsmith is not the same as Mandelson. While Mandelson came across and a bit of an outsider Goldsmith comes across as a member of an over privileged elite which considers that the world revolves around them.

He suffers from, what a friend from New Zealand once termed, the sickening over confidence of the English upper classes.

http://thinkpolitics.co.uk/tpblogs/videos/zac-goldsmith-vs-jon-snow-on-channel-4-news/




Enter email address to receive notifications of new posts.

Join 63 other followers

Jonesxxx on Twitter

Images

Dawn

Carl Eldh's statue of Strindberg

Tapestry

Sunrise

tarpaulin

underground

st pauls

Lancing College Chapel - Inside the crypt

lancing chapel

Balham

More Photos

 

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers