Capping donations is gesture politics….

The influence of money, its undemocratic sway, is a source of constant political angst to the political classes. In a representative democracy, it is key they are seen as representing the people in at least a theoretically equitable way. If they are not, then the system begins to decay. So, it is constantly mooted that measures be taken to restrict its influence. The Guardian, yesterday, reported on a perennial favourite, the proposal to cap donations to political parties.

This is something I never see happening, for Labour it complicates the union relationship and for the Conservatives it also potentially chokes their main source of income from wealthy big business backers. So, nobody has a real interest in driving it forward and if one side uses it disproportionately to weaken the other, the other side won’t comply on the grounds of it being used as a political weapon. The Liberal Democrats have had their wealthy backers in their time as well, so there is a happy accord of vested interest.

Having said all that, I regard the measure, on its own as gesture politics. It would be relatively easy for Labour to surmount the union problem by simply making levy-payers members and their levy a membership fee. This would have welcome positive implications for Party democracy as well.  However, this proves the point that even with a cap in place, its circumnavigation is relatively easy. America operates donation caps, is anybody seriously telling me money has less influence on American politics?

The reason it has no impact is because of the cost of campaigning in a representative politics. For a cap to be meaningful and fair therefore, measures need to be in place to curtail that cost, like the provision of free advertising space, and mail shoots, and a certain amount of literature per candidate. I am against taxpayers money funding political parties directly (mostly because there is no way to regulate what they spent it on, and principally its unfair we should be forced to give money to parties we don’t support). However, state money being spent on equitable provision of this material is slightly different, ad space could be provided free,for example, merely by instructing the supplier they have no choice around election time.

I know some people wont like this gross infringement on a capitalist’s right to profit from our democratic process, but what can I say? Democracy to me is priceless, and that is the way it should be, so, rather than more gesture politics, we need some real, meaningful change that will free our politics from the grip of money.

President Cameron….

A couple of things struck me about David Cameron’s announcement of the latest government u-turn today – one of them that he clearly doesn’t trust his ministers to take charge of big policy announcements. On the surface this is the case even when it’s a major reversal like it was today in the case of Ken Clarke’s sentencing policy or it has been previously in the case of the ‘NHS Pause’. However, the important thing to remember is although in both instances it was ‘tail-between-your-legs’ time for the ministers in question that’s not necessarily the case for Cameron himself.

I can’t imagine many better photo-ops for a Conservative leader than standing before the nation telling them your over-cuddly and definitely too liberal Justice Secretary has had to climb down on giving a huge 50% reduction in sentences for a guilty plea. It gets better. You are going to increase them for serious offenders. What better was is there to appeal to local Conservative sharks  and their finely-honed Daily Mail mindset?

Cameron is a different kettle of fish to Clegg – he obviously is a competent leader for one thing and it’s not an accident that his approval ratings traditionally poll higher than those of the government. He has more than a dash of Tony Blair about him but remains more understated and subtle in my eyes – his air of aloofness no doubt comes his Eton days. This going to become a huge problem for Labour – burdened currently as it is with the leader it is. Cameron has a Teflon quality which makes it hard to turn this aloofness against him – people will generally not dislike Cameron but hate his government I think. This could be enough, in a tight-race, to save the Conservatives. Whether we like it or not this kind of thing matters in politics today. President Cameron may well yet have more aces up his sleeve….

 

Autumn election anyone?

I’ll be honest, although its not my intention to dispense electoral advice to the Conservative Party; id be stunned and a little bit amazed if they didnt plump for a snap autumn election. At the very  least, the thought must be crossing Conservative minds. I actually don’t think they will BUT if they don’t they will have missed a golden opportunity which will probably not arrive again. Yes, the economy isn’t great but the ‘blame Labour’ line still has enough traction to deal with that; meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats are nothing but a burden and us,well we are an effective lightening rod for public discontent but clearly not, in the public mind, a government in waiting.

In that vein, the latest IPSOS-Mori poll is a disaster. It’s just a poll people will screech but its a poll that comes on the heels of a dire result in Scotland where the question of national governance was raised in its clearest form and, well we all know what happened there. Naturally, headlines will focus on the leadership issue but there is a more fundamental problem – 57% of those polled don’t think Labour is ready to govern as a Party (let alone the rather frightening 69% who don’t think Ed Miliband is ready to be Prime Minister).

Why isn’t Labour seen as a government? Well, to me the obvious answer is that our narrative is fuzzy and incoherent. We may well know what we are all against or the fact we all want to save the NHS but what are we actually for? The reality is that were there to be a snap poll in the autumn and by some minor miracle Labour be in a position to form the next government as a result it would probably be with a slim majority or, even worse, we would be dependant on the oily Liberal Democrats. It would be a fundamentally unstable administration from the off – it would be effectively a rebound relationship for the country. Having been badly burnt by Cameron and Clegg it would rush headlong into the arms of the fresh-faced and nice seeming chap, Ed Miliband, before either the country, Miliband or the Party are properly ready for the relationship.

The Conservatives are still a class act….but what are we?

Not many people in the Labour Party or indeed in the wider country will be surprised by tales of the Conservative Party and its close links to the City. Following hot-on-the-heels of the ‘revelation’ that a substantial amount of funding flows from the City to CCHQ is today’s ‘cash-for-internships’ non-scandal. I say that not because I don’t find it scandalous in and of itself but because put simply it isn’t surprising. The Conservative Party is the party of finance capital and, at its other wing, the slightly neurotic but equally as aspirational middle-classes (with occasional support from aspirational working class voters too).

It’s the latter wing, represented usually by the Daily Mail, that is well, more than a little hacked off by stories like this. It doesn’t want its children to miss out on opportunities like this and resents the elitist and exclusive nature of these practices almost as much as socialists do. This wing is also likely the one that is going to give the current leadership something to think about in the future because David Cameron and his club of jet-setting, Eton-attending, Cameroons are not and never will be one of them in the way Margaret Thatcher was. David Davis realises this and this is why he recently launched a speculative attack on the ‘out of touch’ Cameron leadership. Expect more sparks to fly as the blue rinse brigade moves in time and in earnest against Cameron.

So, where does this leave Labour? I see on LabourList that Ed Miliband is busy giving voice to the concerns of the middle classes again. Nothing wrong with that you may say, after all its a perfectly legitimate goal and achievable aim to win the middle classes to socialism (not sure that’s quite what Ed has in mind though). However, there is something gravely wrong with it being the sole obsession and focus of what the leadership says. Sure, the middle classes are worried and they are right to be but stretching reality to breaking point to claim they are more worried than frantic benefit claimants currently swamping  the Samaritans with calls as their very existence disintegrates before their eyes.

Funnily enough, I don’t hear Ed giving these people as much ‘air time’ and that is a problem not just for Labour but a brewing one for our ‘democracy’. I think it should be of grave concern which way the democratically disenfranchised and downtrodden poor will turn in the future. The middle class has every party courting it from here to kingdom come. One thing they don’t lack is a voice, enfranchisement and offers of representation. However, can we honestly say the same is true for societies most vulnerable and the working classes? No, I don’t think we can. What is more, as the voting public recognises, these people are the hardest hit. The cuts will push the middle classes into poverty however, for those already at the bottom the abyss that opens up before them is of a much darker and deeper kind. Homelessness, ill-health, unemployment, crime, death even….the stakes are relatively so much higher.

In the long-term, this failure on our leaderships part will have severe consequences for not just Labour but parliamentary ‘democracy’ and the darker abyss will soon enough stop being so discriminating….

Ed’s dangerous liaisons with Nick….

So, apparently our illustrious leader has been having secret meetings with Nick Clegg. Apparently they are not discussing the finer points of leadership (which, given their respective popularity ratings, they probably should be) but how Labour and the Liberal Democrats can work together on areas of ‘mutual interest’.  In a style that we have come to expect from this leadership this is in some regards brazenly arrogant and presumptions. How, when it comes to AV, can Mr Miliband offer our ‘co-operation’ when supporting AV is not the Party’s policy but his own and the leaderships?

Nonetheless, I am sure all this will please the literati that lives in the pages of the liberal press. However, Labour members have every reason to feel, well, a little ticked-off especially as a fair proportion of them are about to enter bruising election campaign against the Lib Dems and are probably sick of hearing the ‘yellow peril’ trash Labour’s record on everything from here to eternity. First it must be pointed out that this is yet another Ed Miliband u-turn. Here is what Ed thought of Nick just a few months ago:

Nick Clegg,” he says icily, “is a betrayal of the Liberal tradition. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are texting each other like teenagers in love because they agree with each other. It’s not some forced marriage, they ideologically agree with each other.

Reading this you can’t help but think, in his head Miliband imagines himself as the ‘unbroken thread’ of ‘liberal tradition’ as opposed to the traitor Clegg and in actual fact, Labour tradition as well.  I digress. Even if we accept Miliband is entitled to change his mind, which he is, it would be nice to have an explanation and for him to drop the pretence this has been his attitude all along. The only time I have been in favour of such a union is when, as a Liberal Democrat, I desperately wanted to leave and return to Labour but wasn’t quite ready to make the leap. So, psychologically, arguing for the two to unite made sense in a way that only denial really does.

Ed’s attitude however, makes no kind of logical sense. In general, his attitude towards the Liberal Democrats as a Party and indeed Clegg personally is becoming a huge embarrassment for Labour. He is beginning to make himself look like a lovestruck puppy that attaches itself to any old passing leg and clings on for dear life in hope more than expectation. I suspect this is amusing for Liberal Democrats but less so for Labour members. One group that definitely is laughing are the Conservatives – read this in The Spectator if you don’t believe me.

Of course, we want the support of ex-Lib Dems but one wonders why people who have just been rather sold down the river would want to see Mr Miliband swooning at feet of the person who just so viscously abused their political trust. They probably don’t and this is why we recruited more ex-Lib Dems when we reflected the pain they felt at the betrayal they had just suffered. Given that Miliband’s advances make little sense in this respect they tend to illicit the nagging suspicion the real agenda is to have a serious go at severing Labour’s historic links with the labour movement.  Not even Tony Blair was stupid enough to have a real go at this particular wheeze but then again he did have a coherent vision for the Party and the country, love it or loath it, and that gave him a sight more about him than Miliband possesses.

What peculiar kind of madness makes Miliband thinks he can succeed? Again, perhaps its desperation. Perhaps he wants this to be his ‘legacy’. Sadly, its a comment on his complete lack of political judgement that he wants to tie Labour to the political equivalent of the Titanic and seems to feel this is a somehow ‘inspired’ move.

Desperation thy name is the Liberal Democrats….

So, Labour won the Oldham East and Saddleworth by election with a majority of over 3,500. You might think this would be a time for sober reflection within the huddled ranks of Nick Clegg’s diminishing yellow army. In fact, most have taken the opportunity to bury their head much more firmly in the sand. Understandable in a way; the reality is obviously far too much for these fragile souls to bear. Traumatised by double-crossing themselves and the increasingly hacked-off people who voted for them the last thing they now want to deal with is the slow, painful, extinction of the party they are clinging for dear life too.

However, that is what is happening. Yes, the Lib Dem vote *share* went up 0.3% in Oldham East and Saddleworth. Two things caused  this though; neither of which will ever be repeated again. One was understandable residual sympathy for Elwyn Watkins who was somewhat unfairly deprived of his moment of glory by a racist bigot who was economical with the truth. The second thing is the tactical votes of Conservatives.

The first thing wont last for ever, even if Elwyn runs again. He lost fairly and squarely this time around. Besides, what are you going to do? Take every Labour candidate up-and-down the land to court so you can play the martyr in every corner of the country? I think not.

Now, I have a little puzzle for our yellow friends.  I am loaned £1 million am I a millionaire? Obviously not but according to the tortured logic of the Lib Dem desperados I obviously am. For the slow-of-thinking let me explain this simple truth – those Conservatives wont vote for you at either the local elections elsewhere or the next general election whenever that may be. You lost over a 1/3rd of your vote to Labour in OES and that was with the ’empathy for Elwyn’ cusion. What do you honestly think is going to happen elsewhere?

Still when all else fails there is always the ‘blame game’ and as LabourList reports it seems to be the new Lib Dem ‘strategy’. One that is so complex it seemingly can be contained on a roughly A5 size piece of card.  The Lib Dem high-command obviously does think their voters are stupid. So stupid in fact that they will forget who is in national government and who is slashing the grant from central government to councils with abandon. Maybe this is an extension of the pathetic whining that is always used to excuse a Lib Dem poor performance – lack of media coverage and exposure (this laughably started to appear as soon as the LD poll rating started to plummet).  The Party which holds the Deputy Prime Minister post and senior ministerial positions simply must be starved of media coverage. The poor lambs. Maybe they do wish they could vanish into thin air but guess what? We wont let them.

Incidentally, after 5 years (or however long) of countering this garbage I would expect no Labour member with an ounce of self-respect to want anything to do with this pariaiah party – led by Calamity Clegg or not. The demise of the Liberal Democrats as a political party will not just rid of us those risible bar charts but also bring the frankly alarming state of high self-delusion amoung Liberal  Democrats to a cruel but necessary end. Sometimes cruelty is kindness and these people deserve at least to be put out of their misery and be allowed to take their place in the real world.

Why I feel (kind of) sorry for the Conservative right….

You have got to hand it to Lord Tebbit who certainly knows how to make grand sweeping statements which capture the very essence of the true blue heart of Conservatism. His call for the ‘punishment’ of the Liberal Democrats and warnings about the ‘wild men’ of the TUC (riding to power, scaly hands clasped firmly around Ed Miliband’s neck presumably) hark back to a age of swashbuckling politics when nobody cared too much for the imaginary ‘centre ground’.

Despite it all, I also cant help but feel a twinge of sympathy for the likes of Tebbit. Comrades within Labour who have leftish politics and/or are trade unionists feel only too keenly the pain of exile from the warm affections of the party hierarchy imposed on them by a cold, calculating and manipulative leadership.  They know what its like to wince when you hear the name of your own Party being taken in vain and associated with all sorts of things which you know run completely contrary to the spirit (and often the letter) of what you know instinctively it believes in in its heart-of-hearts.

For those that forget quickly today was an instructive reminder as the ‘two Ed’s’ desperately tried to outflank the Conservatives from the right on crime and punishment. Mr Balls, far too thuggish to ever convince as a brave defender of civil liberties, argues for an ‘evidence-based’ approach to control orders without producing much actual evidence they work.  Meanwhile, I can partially understand the concerns expressed by Miliband; however, having thought about this I have decided there is no satisfactory way to regulate which prisoners do and dont get the vote. Simply put, I don’t trust judges to administer this in a political neutral way so pending a massive overhaul of our judicial system in favour of the empowerment of juries when it comes to sentancing (as opposed to judges) this is an ‘all or nothing issue’. Either all prisoners have the vote or none do and since I believe in  rehabilitation as a cornerstone of the very nature of justice I would opt for all.

I went on a tangent for a reason. Our approach towards this issue shows we have triangulated light years away from our core values and are lead by the nose by the worst of peoples prejudices like the simple-minded sheep our leaders are. The authentic voices of the radical spirit of the Party are treated with contempt; like curios at the local museum. They are told they are the  ‘reactionaries’ who are ‘inflexible’ and who are failing to ‘adapt to modern reality’ by people who simply don’t have the wit to realise that the flexibility and dynamism that comes from a radical spirit is timeless in its application and relevance and can make the general specific at will.    This is exactly how the likes of Tebbit and the wider Conservative right are treated by Cameron and his motley crew and that is why, although I know they are warriors for the other side, they illicit feelings of grudging  sympathy in me….

How much has really changed in 2010?

If, as the saying goes, a week is a long time in politics then a year must be as long as a lifetime. When I think about 2010, two major political events will stick in the memory; the General Election and the student protests. It is these two events that will, I believe, define 2010 in the history books.

5 days in May

This time a year ago, Labour was still in office although arguably it was in office but not really actually in government. Gordon Brown, who is having a much better end than beginning to 2010, was leading a government which was in a visible state of decay.  This happens after a while to all governing parties; each has their time and their lifespan and when it comes to an end it does so with a certain degree of finality. You could even call this a ‘circle of life’. Labour’s essential problem was that in government it had allowed itself to become a dried out husk and was finally found wanting when it came to the test of the financial crash. In a narrow capitalistic sense it did the right thing in bailing out the banks but it did it with a timidity that has ensured the bailout has effectively been a waste of money. Consequentially,  it has not ended the crisis; only abated it temporarily.

It swallowed the ‘debt crisis’ moral panic whole and this continues to weaken and disarm its ability to articulate genuinely radical solutions to problems that can no longer be solved in a narrow, capitalistic, sense. So it came to be that the early months of the year were somewhat like a waiting game politically; everything spun politically on the axis of the upcoming election.

When it came, the election was notable for the introduction of three televised debates between the leaders. Brown, naturally, fared badly; Cameron was far from reassuring and Nick Clegg was the star attraction. Liberal Democrat popularity peaked and Labour’s chaotic and badly managed (in terms of the ‘air war’ in any case) campaign was sent spinning around in a right tizzy. First, we courted the Lib Dems and the next day we condemned them. All of this added to the impression that Labour’s internal compass was very badly broken indeed and an unimpressed electorate unsurprisingly responded  by kicking Labour out of office.

We partially owe not suffering more losses to a strong ‘ground war’ – heroic and brave campaigning efforts where Labour had MP’s mitigated the expected swing against the Party. Herein lies something of a lesson for 2011 and well beyond. However, we also owe it to the fact that our opposition was weak and unconvincing. David Cameron should have delivered his Party a landslide and more frank Conservatives will, I am sure, admit that. Nick Clegg  failed to capitalise on his personal showing and in a not unexpected reversal rapidly developed the opposite of the Midas Touch – turning everything he touches to electoral poison.

Nothing about the now infamous ‘5 days in May’ is surprising least of all the fact that the Liberal Democrats did what they did. Gordon Brown incidentally acquitted himself with great dignity during this time and is now deservedly being rehabilitated as a serious politician with plenty of interest to say. Nick Clegg and his Party however acquitted themselves with the conspicuous lack of dignity, humility and anything else positive that is now their trade mark in government.

Losing the shine…

What has genuinely surprised me about this government is how quickly the shine has come off. Personally, I didn’t expect that to start to happen until at least the beginning of next year. However, it is already suffering negative opinion poll ratings and the Liberal Democrats are slightly less popular than several highly unpleasant diseases. What does amuse me is the proponents of the Coalition assuming they will have 5 years so can afford some unpopularity now. As we have seen towards the end of this year; people will not wait until they are allowed to vent at the ballot box, they are more than prepared to take matters into their own hands. So, the assumption of a full five-year term is a bold one indeed but more of that later.

Internationally, its hard to think of significant change. The conflicts in Afghanistan and between Israel and the Palestinians have rumbled on in familiar grooves.  Neither looks particularly close to ending; no matter what politicians say. Iran has continued to be an issue and a situation which is filled with menace as are the tensions along the Korean Peninsula. Overall, the pattern of the slowly crumbling influence of what was the ‘Western’ world continues and there is nothing stable and solid in its place. In time, this will lead to serious faultiness becoming fissures in the international order and this both destructive and creative tension  will create cracks which the cunning can exploit leading us, frankly, heaven knows where. This is aided and abetted by the continuation of the tragi-comedy of the ‘War on Terror’.

Australia hosted the most exciting electoral contest outside of our own with Julia Gillard’s Labor needing the support of the Greens and Independents to maintain a somewhat desperate grip on power. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has struggled in America to make the kind of impression he would like and that naturally resulted into the evaporation of the popular enthusiasm (and of the Democrats Congressional majorities) at the ballot box in the mid-terms . Having promised so much he will now have to settle for delivering considerably less. The dangers of building up a ‘movement for change’ like this which is heavily reliant on rhetorical flourish is a lesson Labour has to learn but its something that right now seems to have totally escaped Ed Miliband.

A New Era…

Ed’s election was supposed to usher in a new era for Labour but judged by that criteria it has been a spectacular failure. Rather than heal the wounds of the past it has exacerbated them. The Parliamentary Labour Party is annoyed it has a leader it patently does not want. Labour’s members are also becoming increasingly disenchanted too if this survey is anything to go by; while the trade unions are justifiably asking why they bothered supporting a candidate that can’t even be bothered to treat them with dignity and respect.

Ed has nobody but himself to blame for this; much like Obama, he ran a campaign strong on rhetoric but that has delivered a lot less than it promised.  I regret supporting his campaign but of the available field there was not much better on offer. Had John McDonnell ran though I would have felt differently about that and my regret would have been two-fold, both voting for Ed and not supporting John. Labour is ending this year in a manner similar to how  it ended last one and that is not a comforting thought. The Party is strong but the leadership is a problem and may well become an issue much sooner rather than later.

It’s not all doom and gloom though; there are plenty of positives to end the year with, both the election of Len McCluskey to the leadership of Unite and the emerging student movement. Len, unlike Ed, has shown he is not scared of being corralled by the media and will plainly speak as he sees. I think this will endear him to many more than his opponents, who obviously include Ed Miliband among their number,  would like. He also has a good grasp of the importance of democracy to progressive politics, which is unquestionably a good thing.

The student movement may be quite for now but it will be back, that is for sure, and the real plus is that a whole generation is politically maturing in a climate where they are made keenly aware of the limitations of our emaciated democracy. Also, they are clearly not afraid to take the fight for more of this precious commodity all the way and this generation will soon make the effects of its actions felt in all political parties.  The election of McCluskey also signals that this will also make  itself felt in the wider labour movement.  It would be wrong to ‘mistake the first month of pregnancy for the ninth’ but the fact is that 2010 saw at least the conception of change which is both permanent and radical in this country and the wider world.

Whether that is carried through, to term, will depend, as it always does and always will on both the individual and collective agency within these new movements as well as theoretical direction they try to travel. My submission is that social justice and consistent democracy, two inextricably linked ideas, should be the guiding lights of the new movements. If they are then I think 2011 could easily surpass 2010 as a year of change and this time it will be change for the better…

How did my ’10 for 2010′ fare?

I do intend to write a proper review of the year this time around but it seems a little out of synch to do that yet. However, we can see how my predictions for 2010 fared. So, without further ado….

1. The Conservative majority after the General Election will be between 0 and 30.

Full marks here. They, of course, fell short of achieving an overall majority themselves.

2. Liberal Democrats will occupy between 45-50 seats after the election.

At one point this was looking like it would be wildly off but was closer than all that. I was right that in terms of seats occupied they would make no progress and in fact lose seats however, they currently occupy 57 seats which represents a loss of 5 on where they were.  However, since that’s suggested and not stated it’s a nul point here though….

3. In the General Election; both Caroline Lucas and Nigel Farage will be elected.

Half a mark again because Lucas was elected to represent Brighton Pavillion but Farage bombed in Buckingham; there is an interesting piece on Political Betting about this here which delves into some of the reasons for UKIP under-performing in Westminster elections and rather leads you to conclude they will struggle to ever get an MP elected.

4.In the local elections, Liberal Democrats will lose control of Liverpool and Leeds but retain Sheffield.

I was being over-kind to the Liberal Democrats here because they failed even to retain control of Sheffield. This is a precursor of what is to come with Liberal Democrat councillors about to become as rare as a cheerful turkey at Christmas in the north of England after May 2011. Half a mark.

5.A virtual unknown (at least a junior minister or below) will replace Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour Party.

This rather depends on how generous you want to be. Ed Miliband certainly was known but he certainly was not as well known David Miliband and I don’t think his position at Environment can, on one level, be deemed as junior (though its traditionally one of those lower down the imaginary pecking order of ministerial posts). However, the general gist, which is correct, deserves recognition so I think this worth half a mark.

6.Nick Clegg will not be leader of the Liberal Democrats by the end of 2010.

Clegg is sadly still in position but this is one of those ones that I would put on ice because I think it may well be good for 2011.

7. As Iain says, Iran will be bombarded but my prediction is it will defiantly be Israel and not the USA who does. In response, China and Russia will form a new defence organisation to rival NATO.

Both me and Iain Dale got this one badly wrong because although sabres continued to be rattled there was no serious military action against Iran. Indeed, the current ‘hot zone’ in these terms is the Korean Peninsula. Having said all that again I would put this one on ice, maybe not for 2011 but eventually…..

8. A demonstration against the war in Afghanistan will attract over a million people.

Totally wrong. Afghanistan has virtually vanished as a major political issue and protests against it don’t have wider appeal than the ‘usual suspects’ mainly because people are broadly satisfied with the withdrawal pledges that have been made.

9. By the end of 2010 the Conservatives poll rating will start to decline.

Again, this is wrong. Labour is moving into the lead but this is not because of the Conservatives declining in any major way. It’s on the back of the spectacular collapse of their yellow wing.

10. Britain will show moderate economic growth (no more than 1.5% overall) and optimism will start to sharply decline at the end of the year.

Although I don’t have the precise figures (still waiting for final quarter) its obvious I was far too optimistic in terms of the upper limit and consumer and business confidence is indeed slip-slidey so I think that is worth a full mark.

So, the final score is 3 1/2 out of 10 (or 4 if you want to be generous re 5)…..

Mr Miliband’s sleight of hand…

I thought we were over this; I thought we were passed treating politics like a slightly more sophisticated game of Scrabble and that our media policy was moving beyond the Malcolm Tucker age. How wrong could you be? Look at events today for a perfect example of what I mean. A memo mysteriously leaks revealing that Ed Miliband has, forthwith, deemed the use of the word ‘Coalition’ taboo; from now on, its going to be a Conservative-led government with a right-wing agenda.

At first you think, so what and then you start to wonder. You see, its possible for a party to move somewhere without actually moving anywhere at all. Don’t want to actually be a radical opposition? The solution is simple. Manipulate public opinion to make them think your opponents are actually the ‘ideological’ and, by implied criticism,  slightly barking ones. This isnt a shift of focus to attacking the Conservatives at all; what it is is actually a rather cunning ploy by Mr Miliband to convince his own Party he is going somewhere he patently has no intention of taking them.

Labour will look like a ‘left-wing’ opposition because it will define its opponents as ‘right-wing’ and therefore the term will assume a relative value. Many in the Conservative Party can attack the British National Party from the left but that doesn’t make them ‘left-wing’. Mr Miliband, however, seems to have lost even the small increments of boldness that he seemed to possess during the leadership contest.

We have a problem. I am becoming less and less convinced that this leadership is capable of taking Labour Party in the places it needs to go. I doubt its ability to lead the Party in a way that will rise to the challenges presented too it; of new movements, and vicious attacks on ‘our’, naturally Labour, people by a government which governs on behalf of the very wealthy and very elite. Also, the challenges of a resistance to these attacks which is growing-up outside of Labour.

Whether it lacks the will or means (due to the manner of its election and an inability to face down the PLP) is pretty much an academic question at this stage. Whenever, the next election comes we need to present a programme that brings together two interrelated but crucial elements when it comes to rebuilding after the crash and the cuts. Consistent democracy to give politics back to the people and social justice to both empower people and remind the City of a simple truth; it is the servant not the master of this country and it provides for us, not the other way around. I don’t think this leadership will give us such a programme so the only solution to the problem is for the left in Labour, which still is organised and thinks like leaves on a roaring river of events, to unite and fight for such a programme; in the process renewing our internal democracy and our Party so it is fit to govern once again.