Ed Balls was very effective yesterday, ridiculing George Osborne’s National Insurance “holiday.” This is one of the government’s new employment programmes, letting new businesses off paying National Insurance Contributions for the first 10 employees hired in their first year. Back in 2009, the Conservative Party claimed that it would create 60,000 jobs in two years, but by the time of last year’s Budget this had risen to 400,000 businesses (and presumably more jobs) benefiting. The government was so worried that this offer was going to be over-subscribed that they excluded businesses in London, East Anglia and the South East, and even so, budgeted to spend £50 million in 2010-11, rising to £370 million in 2012-13.
Well, how’s it going? As Mr Balls pointed out, figures the Treasury tried to slip out on the quiet showed that the actual figures so far are 3,000 businesses and an estimated 6,000 workers. Total cost so far? £5 million.
Ahem …
The TUC has argued for some time that the government has talked up the National Insurance holiday to a ludicrous extent. It isn’t actually harmful – some jobs will be created, but it doesn’t come anywhere near matching the scale of the problem. And it certainly doesn’t compensate for the vandalism of closing down the Future Jobs Fund. Of course, it’s possible that this is just a slow start, eventually it’ll be a great success and I’ll have egg on my face.
But somehow I don’t think so.
Showing posts with label Ed Balls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Balls. Show all posts
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Friday, 6 May 2011
The clouds in last night’s silver lining
With results from parish, borough and AV voting now declared, the guest writer today continues the autopsy on Labour's performance in local elections. The guest writer today is Atul Hatwal, associate editor of Labour Uncut.
As Ed Miliband surveys the results after his first major test as leader he will have mixed emotions. Great in England, good in Wales, bad in Scotland and rapidly forgotten on AV.
A curate’s egg, whatever one of those might be.
While the dynamics of devolved government mean the results in Scotland and Wales are driven by regional factors, and AV is done for a generation at least, it’s the English local elections where the tea leaves for the next general election can be best read.
England is where Labour needs to win the key seats, and its England where Labour has proportionately lost most voters since 1997. Ostensibly, the results give a sound basis for hope.
Not quite street party territory, but at least a couple of glasses of sherry.
On this happy path, the numbers of new Labour councillors elected take Labour back to respectable mid-2000s levels of representation in local government. Gains in a single election on this scale have not been seen since the mid-1990s.
This is not to be lightly dismissed. Revival in local government is an essential pre-requisite for national success.
Then there’s the overall vote share. While not spectacular, it was much improved over the election last year and progress at this rate would lead to a solid Labour majority at the next general election.
But still, there’s doubt.
Can a national result be extrapolated from local elections? Is this really a foundation for victory built by winning back Labour sceptics? Or a house of cards made from passing protest votes?
A few months ago in this column, I highlighted Labour’s poll challenge by looking at three specific questions asked intermittently by YouGov in their daily and weekly polls, and tracked their responses over the previous three months. These questions examined voters’ attitudes to the defining issues for the next general election.
The updated results to Labour’s poll challenge hold the key to interpreting last nights mixed election results.
The three YouGov questions look below topline voting intentions to reveal how voters feel the government is hitting them in the wallet, their view of how the government is cutting the deficit and who they prefer as a leader – David Cameron or Ed Miliband.
The public’s answers over this year have involved responses from tens of thousands of people and give a clear view of the scale of the problem.
To misquote William Cobbett, I defy you to agitate a man on a full wallet. The higher the wallet line, the better things are for the government. Because it focuses on peoples’ perceptions of their own financial future it gives quite a different response to doom and gloom about the general economic state of the country.
The wallet line has remained largely constant this year. In January, 74% of people didn’t view the coming year as posing a major financial drama. In April this had risen a little to 75%.
In key Labour battlegrounds such as London and the Midlands, there are the early rumblings of actual optimism. The latest figures show that well over 40% think the worst is over and that the situation will either get better next year or at least stay the same.
That’s three-quarters of Britain thinking that things aren’t actually so bad and almost half of the public in key English regions, rich with key seats, thinking things can only get better.
This doesn’t suggest an electoral situation ripe for people to reverse their vote from the general election last year.
But, while worry about personal finances is often a driver of change, it is not sufficient alone. Winning the economic argument is what is needed, and can make the difference on its own.
This is what the middle band on the graph tests. The deficit is the defining economic issue of the day and the public’s attitude to how the government goes about cutting it will be a key determinant in how people vote at the general election.
The results here for Labour are worst of all.
On this central economic argument, Labour has not only failed to make ground, it has fallen further behind. At the start of the year, the majority who felt the way the government was cutting the deficit was necessary compared to unnecessary was 17%. In April, this had grown to 28%.
Well over 50% of the public consistently believe that the government approach to cutting the deficit is necessary.
And voters remain in no doubt as to who to blame for these cuts.
In January, 41% of voters blamed the last Labour government for the cuts, compared to 25% blaming the current government and 24% blaming both. In April, it was virtually the same. 41% blamed the last Labour government, 25% the current government and 23% both.
The public’s basic position is that Labour is responsible for the deficit and the government’s cuts are necessary. If anything, people are becoming more, not less, convinced of it over time.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of economic policy, purely in political terms this is a huge problem. From the mid-1980s through to 1992, Labour made an economically cogent but politically suicidal case for higher taxation.
The deficit is this decade’s tax.
Ed Balls is a big beast who knows how to take the fight to the Tories. He’s added vigour and aggression to Labour’s attack on the economy. But when he became shadow chancellor, he set himself the measure of putting Labour “on the front foot” on the economy.
Three months into his tenure, beyond the rough and tumble of day to day debate on the economy where Labour’s performance has improved significantly, the party is now more distant than ever from being trusted on this defining economic question.
Perceptions of Labour as a realistic government in waiting are further undercut by the leader gap.
At the start of January, Cameron’s lead over Miliband as peoples’ preference for PM was 12%. By the end of April, this had been pegged back slightly to 10%.
While this measure is going in the right direction, the level of reduction in Cameron’s lead begs the question – why so little?
Miliband’s press operation has been much sharper since the appointment of Tom Baldwin and Bob Roberts at the start of the year, he has been getting the better of Cameron at prime minister’s questions on an increasingly regular basis and the government has gifted Labour a conveyor belt of gaffes and U-turns.
Forests, defence, the NHS, schools, universities – virtually no corner of public policy has been left without a government crisis entirely of its own making.
If, after all that, Cameron still has a double digit lead among voters as the preferred PM, its hard to think what will shift the numbers decisively.
Looking at the three elements of the graph in the round, the overall picture is not a pleasant one for Labour.
It describes an electorate for whom the personal financial salience of the cuts is limited. Where Labour is seen as the cause of the problem and opponents of the solution. And where leadership is something only Cameron can provide.
In this context, the happy path that starts with these English election results ultimately leads back to the general election of 1992, or maybe even 1987.
The reality is that yesterday’s result in England was a blind trail of protest votes. People aren’t enamoured of this government, and showed it. But the local elections weren’t a choice between Labour and Conservative; they were a chance to vent at the government.
Based on the underlying factors picked-up by the wallet line, the argument gap and the leader gap, any pressure on Labour in a real election and the poll lead will collapse. Unless Labour can shift these key drivers, future mid-term victories or upturns in the headline polls will just be more false hope.
The sad truth is, one year on from the start of the Tory-led coalition, Labour’s journey has taken it back to square one.
As Ed Miliband surveys the results after his first major test as leader he will have mixed emotions. Great in England, good in Wales, bad in Scotland and rapidly forgotten on AV.
A curate’s egg, whatever one of those might be.
While the dynamics of devolved government mean the results in Scotland and Wales are driven by regional factors, and AV is done for a generation at least, it’s the English local elections where the tea leaves for the next general election can be best read.
England is where Labour needs to win the key seats, and its England where Labour has proportionately lost most voters since 1997. Ostensibly, the results give a sound basis for hope.
Not quite street party territory, but at least a couple of glasses of sherry.
On this happy path, the numbers of new Labour councillors elected take Labour back to respectable mid-2000s levels of representation in local government. Gains in a single election on this scale have not been seen since the mid-1990s.
This is not to be lightly dismissed. Revival in local government is an essential pre-requisite for national success.
Then there’s the overall vote share. While not spectacular, it was much improved over the election last year and progress at this rate would lead to a solid Labour majority at the next general election.
But still, there’s doubt.
Can a national result be extrapolated from local elections? Is this really a foundation for victory built by winning back Labour sceptics? Or a house of cards made from passing protest votes?
A few months ago in this column, I highlighted Labour’s poll challenge by looking at three specific questions asked intermittently by YouGov in their daily and weekly polls, and tracked their responses over the previous three months. These questions examined voters’ attitudes to the defining issues for the next general election.
The updated results to Labour’s poll challenge hold the key to interpreting last nights mixed election results.
The three YouGov questions look below topline voting intentions to reveal how voters feel the government is hitting them in the wallet, their view of how the government is cutting the deficit and who they prefer as a leader – David Cameron or Ed Miliband.
The public’s answers over this year have involved responses from tens of thousands of people and give a clear view of the scale of the problem.
To misquote William Cobbett, I defy you to agitate a man on a full wallet. The higher the wallet line, the better things are for the government. Because it focuses on peoples’ perceptions of their own financial future it gives quite a different response to doom and gloom about the general economic state of the country.The wallet line has remained largely constant this year. In January, 74% of people didn’t view the coming year as posing a major financial drama. In April this had risen a little to 75%.
In key Labour battlegrounds such as London and the Midlands, there are the early rumblings of actual optimism. The latest figures show that well over 40% think the worst is over and that the situation will either get better next year or at least stay the same.
That’s three-quarters of Britain thinking that things aren’t actually so bad and almost half of the public in key English regions, rich with key seats, thinking things can only get better.
This doesn’t suggest an electoral situation ripe for people to reverse their vote from the general election last year.
But, while worry about personal finances is often a driver of change, it is not sufficient alone. Winning the economic argument is what is needed, and can make the difference on its own.
This is what the middle band on the graph tests. The deficit is the defining economic issue of the day and the public’s attitude to how the government goes about cutting it will be a key determinant in how people vote at the general election.
The results here for Labour are worst of all.
On this central economic argument, Labour has not only failed to make ground, it has fallen further behind. At the start of the year, the majority who felt the way the government was cutting the deficit was necessary compared to unnecessary was 17%. In April, this had grown to 28%.
Well over 50% of the public consistently believe that the government approach to cutting the deficit is necessary.
And voters remain in no doubt as to who to blame for these cuts.
In January, 41% of voters blamed the last Labour government for the cuts, compared to 25% blaming the current government and 24% blaming both. In April, it was virtually the same. 41% blamed the last Labour government, 25% the current government and 23% both.
The public’s basic position is that Labour is responsible for the deficit and the government’s cuts are necessary. If anything, people are becoming more, not less, convinced of it over time.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of economic policy, purely in political terms this is a huge problem. From the mid-1980s through to 1992, Labour made an economically cogent but politically suicidal case for higher taxation.
The deficit is this decade’s tax.
Ed Balls is a big beast who knows how to take the fight to the Tories. He’s added vigour and aggression to Labour’s attack on the economy. But when he became shadow chancellor, he set himself the measure of putting Labour “on the front foot” on the economy.
Three months into his tenure, beyond the rough and tumble of day to day debate on the economy where Labour’s performance has improved significantly, the party is now more distant than ever from being trusted on this defining economic question.
Perceptions of Labour as a realistic government in waiting are further undercut by the leader gap.
At the start of January, Cameron’s lead over Miliband as peoples’ preference for PM was 12%. By the end of April, this had been pegged back slightly to 10%.
While this measure is going in the right direction, the level of reduction in Cameron’s lead begs the question – why so little?
Miliband’s press operation has been much sharper since the appointment of Tom Baldwin and Bob Roberts at the start of the year, he has been getting the better of Cameron at prime minister’s questions on an increasingly regular basis and the government has gifted Labour a conveyor belt of gaffes and U-turns.
Forests, defence, the NHS, schools, universities – virtually no corner of public policy has been left without a government crisis entirely of its own making.
If, after all that, Cameron still has a double digit lead among voters as the preferred PM, its hard to think what will shift the numbers decisively.
Looking at the three elements of the graph in the round, the overall picture is not a pleasant one for Labour.
It describes an electorate for whom the personal financial salience of the cuts is limited. Where Labour is seen as the cause of the problem and opponents of the solution. And where leadership is something only Cameron can provide.
In this context, the happy path that starts with these English election results ultimately leads back to the general election of 1992, or maybe even 1987.
The reality is that yesterday’s result in England was a blind trail of protest votes. People aren’t enamoured of this government, and showed it. But the local elections weren’t a choice between Labour and Conservative; they were a chance to vent at the government.
Based on the underlying factors picked-up by the wallet line, the argument gap and the leader gap, any pressure on Labour in a real election and the poll lead will collapse. Unless Labour can shift these key drivers, future mid-term victories or upturns in the headline polls will just be more false hope.
The sad truth is, one year on from the start of the Tory-led coalition, Labour’s journey has taken it back to square one.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Wherefore art thou Labour?
I am totally convinced that if you called an election today and at the same time hog-tied David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith, laid them on a bed of fraudulent expense claims in a seedy brothel and then called every national newspaper, Labour would still find a way to lose the election!
Take yesterday for example. Labour had it made – Spelman had to return to the House of Commons and apologise because she got the forestry sale wrong. In the same day, Iain Duncan Smith was forced to back down about the housing benefit reduction for long-term unemployed.
Did Labour come out fighting and baying for blood? Of course not – first they sent in Mary Creagh to waffle on endlessly about how Labour were bigger and better tree-huggers than the Conservatives. By the time she had finished, half the elected members were cheerfully snoozing away and all you could hear in the chamber were gentle snores coming from one or two of the leading lights in the 1922 Committee.
Labour didn’t even get excited when Iain Duncan Smith presented his welfare reform bill to parliament – this is despite the fact that many will suffer. Clause 51, for example, contains proposals, as yet scarcely noticed, that seriously jeopardise the income of many disabled people. Consider a stroke victim, who may have paid national insurance for decades before incurring a severe impairment from which there is no prospect of recovery. If they have even a low-paid working spouse, the bill will cut their money off cold the moment that 12 months have passed.
According to forensic analysis by Tim Leunig, an economist at the London School of Economics who has recently been appointed to the leading liberal think tank Centre Forum, it could leave large families even in deeply unfashionable corners of the capital trying to scrape by on £3 per person each day. And the entire bill is underpinned by a recasting of the rules on indexation, which will steadily make the poor poorer. Instead of being pegged to the total cost of living, benefits will in future be pegged to the cost of shopping, thereby stripping the rising price of keeping a roof over one's head out of the general calculation.
But did the Labour benches howl, rant and scream? Nah – they sat there whimpering, like a dog with a cut paw. They looked and behaved in a way that suggested they felt impotent and in many respects they are. Ed Miliband has proven to be almost laughable at PMQs – a guaranteed butt for the jokes and sarcasm pouring from David Cameron’s drippingly wealthy lips. As for the rest of them? Well Ed Balls has been something of a non-event – many predicted fire and brimstone. What we have had so far is more akin to tepid and mediocre. Yvette Cooper, supposedly one of the key brains in the Shadow Cabinet and a possible future leadership candidate, has been conspicuous by her silence. Not that there has been much going on in the world for her to talk about – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iran Bahrain, and of course, Afghanistan.
Then of course there is Liam Byrne. You may know the name but not remember why – he is actually the shadow secretary for Work and Pensions. Now, this week they announced the unemployment figures and the statistics made for pretty unpleasant reading - 2.5m people unemployed, the number of people in full-time work down 5,000 on the previous year, 2.2m people economically inactive because they are on long-term sick leave and 15% of people work part-time do so because they can’t find full-time work.
If the overall statistics were bad, they were dreadful when it came to the 16 to 24 year olds – 965,000 are out of work, a rate of 20.5%.
Against this, Chris Grayling emphasised there had been an increase of 40,000 new job vacancies in the three months to January. What he didn’t tell the House was these figures include openings for those taken on temporarily to conduct the 2011 census. If you exclude these vacancies, the actual increase was a meagre 8,000.
Now I may have blinked, but I don’t recall Byrne savaging the Tories about these results. Oh sure, they grunted a little and made polite moans in the appropriate places, but very few Tories would have felt a need to quake in their boots.
If Labour is going to have the audacity to call themselves the Opposition, they need to do just that – oppose. This doesn’t mean languishing on the green leather of the House of Commons chamber dozing off. It means vociferously and actively standing against all legislation attacking working class people.
It demands they stand against the government when they want to squeeze the poor, whilst dishing out £2bn to multinational corporations to run the Community Payback scheme.
If Labour is going to have any chance of impacting on the Tories it needs to re-evaluate its entire approach. This will mean dropping the “Mr Nice Guy” image and becoming tougher and more willing to resist. A number of Labour activists are already active in anti-cuts groups, but this need to seep through the sytem to the party leadership. Labour must take a more vital role in the Coalition against the Cuts and the Right to Work movement.
Has Ed Miliband got what it takes to lead such a party? This morning I am not so sure.
Take yesterday for example. Labour had it made – Spelman had to return to the House of Commons and apologise because she got the forestry sale wrong. In the same day, Iain Duncan Smith was forced to back down about the housing benefit reduction for long-term unemployed.
Did Labour come out fighting and baying for blood? Of course not – first they sent in Mary Creagh to waffle on endlessly about how Labour were bigger and better tree-huggers than the Conservatives. By the time she had finished, half the elected members were cheerfully snoozing away and all you could hear in the chamber were gentle snores coming from one or two of the leading lights in the 1922 Committee.
Labour didn’t even get excited when Iain Duncan Smith presented his welfare reform bill to parliament – this is despite the fact that many will suffer. Clause 51, for example, contains proposals, as yet scarcely noticed, that seriously jeopardise the income of many disabled people. Consider a stroke victim, who may have paid national insurance for decades before incurring a severe impairment from which there is no prospect of recovery. If they have even a low-paid working spouse, the bill will cut their money off cold the moment that 12 months have passed.
According to forensic analysis by Tim Leunig, an economist at the London School of Economics who has recently been appointed to the leading liberal think tank Centre Forum, it could leave large families even in deeply unfashionable corners of the capital trying to scrape by on £3 per person each day. And the entire bill is underpinned by a recasting of the rules on indexation, which will steadily make the poor poorer. Instead of being pegged to the total cost of living, benefits will in future be pegged to the cost of shopping, thereby stripping the rising price of keeping a roof over one's head out of the general calculation.
But did the Labour benches howl, rant and scream? Nah – they sat there whimpering, like a dog with a cut paw. They looked and behaved in a way that suggested they felt impotent and in many respects they are. Ed Miliband has proven to be almost laughable at PMQs – a guaranteed butt for the jokes and sarcasm pouring from David Cameron’s drippingly wealthy lips. As for the rest of them? Well Ed Balls has been something of a non-event – many predicted fire and brimstone. What we have had so far is more akin to tepid and mediocre. Yvette Cooper, supposedly one of the key brains in the Shadow Cabinet and a possible future leadership candidate, has been conspicuous by her silence. Not that there has been much going on in the world for her to talk about – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iran Bahrain, and of course, Afghanistan.
Then of course there is Liam Byrne. You may know the name but not remember why – he is actually the shadow secretary for Work and Pensions. Now, this week they announced the unemployment figures and the statistics made for pretty unpleasant reading - 2.5m people unemployed, the number of people in full-time work down 5,000 on the previous year, 2.2m people economically inactive because they are on long-term sick leave and 15% of people work part-time do so because they can’t find full-time work.
If the overall statistics were bad, they were dreadful when it came to the 16 to 24 year olds – 965,000 are out of work, a rate of 20.5%.
Against this, Chris Grayling emphasised there had been an increase of 40,000 new job vacancies in the three months to January. What he didn’t tell the House was these figures include openings for those taken on temporarily to conduct the 2011 census. If you exclude these vacancies, the actual increase was a meagre 8,000.
Now I may have blinked, but I don’t recall Byrne savaging the Tories about these results. Oh sure, they grunted a little and made polite moans in the appropriate places, but very few Tories would have felt a need to quake in their boots.
If Labour is going to have the audacity to call themselves the Opposition, they need to do just that – oppose. This doesn’t mean languishing on the green leather of the House of Commons chamber dozing off. It means vociferously and actively standing against all legislation attacking working class people.
It demands they stand against the government when they want to squeeze the poor, whilst dishing out £2bn to multinational corporations to run the Community Payback scheme.
If Labour is going to have any chance of impacting on the Tories it needs to re-evaluate its entire approach. This will mean dropping the “Mr Nice Guy” image and becoming tougher and more willing to resist. A number of Labour activists are already active in anti-cuts groups, but this need to seep through the sytem to the party leadership. Labour must take a more vital role in the Coalition against the Cuts and the Right to Work movement.
Has Ed Miliband got what it takes to lead such a party? This morning I am not so sure.
at
23:18
0
comments
Labels:
David Cameron,
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
Liam Byrne,
unemployment,
youth,
Yvette Cooper
0
comments
Labels:
David Cameron,
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
Liam Byrne,
unemployment,
youth,
Yvette Cooper
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Do politicians really care?
Well now we have it from the horse’s mouth – the middle classes are going to suffer too. According to Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, the middle classes are unaware of the scale of government spending cuts that will hit them this year.
In other words, Tory England is going to hurt about as much as it does for us oiks, who survive on a day to day basis. No great surprise there! The news comes hot in pursuit of other reports that Birmingham City Council is to axe 7,000 jobs as part of their cuts programme.
Birmingham has always been a candidate for mass redundancies, particularly as the Council is Tory-led, with significant back-up from the Lib-Dems. In fact, the Council has never been noted for its care for its workforce (see a more detailed report here) and these announcements will have a profound effect on working people in Birmingham.
Clarke is right to point out they will suffer as a result of these cuts, but he should have told the whole truth – everyone will hurt, and in a very big and painful way. So, why did he isolate just the middle classes? Easy, you only have to look at the fact he gave the interview to the Daily Telegraph to find your answer. He is desperately trying to shore up Tory votes and where better to reach out to middle class Tories than in their very own rag?
In three months time local elections will fall again and good money is on a landslide loss of seats for both Tories and Lib-Dems. Look at any map and see which councils they run and you quickly realise the close links they have with the middle classes – Woking, Westminster, Stafford, Basingstoke and Shrewsbury and Atcham – not exactly poverty crisis points dominated by an ‘underclass’ of poor.
But wouldn’t it be nice if one day a Tory or a Liberal Democrat politician were to turn around and fight for the rights of the working classes? Of course that’s not going to happen – after all, what does David Cameron, have in common with the average worker, or single parent. His estimated (albeit disputed) personal wealth of £30m places him in a totally different league. Indeed, in his Cabinet, Cameron has eighteen millionaires, including Nick Clegg, although in his defence, little Nick only owns about £1.8m.
All of this led Sadiq Khan to suggest these rich Tories were unable to empathise with the average worker. Speaking to James Kirkup of the Daily Telegraph, he said:
That they are rich is relevant because of the lack of empathy. I’m not saying that they can’t empathise – but they just don’t get it.
For them, tightening your belt is taking two holidays a year instead of three . . . or having one au pair rather than two. I think it is a problem if you have a cabinet that doesn’t understand the real challenges that people face. If you have a background that is one-dimensional and have not had the life experiences or understood what sacrifice means to ordinary punters, I would say it is difficult.
But Khan needs to be careful. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has an estimated personal wealth of around £4m, Ed Balls is the son of a professor, and attended a fee-paying school; Harriet Harman went to St Pauls and her aunt is a countess; and Shaun Woodward is a multimillionaire with homes in several countries.
In short it seems none of the party leaders have much in common with any of us working folks. They all live in safe financial cocoons, with chauffeur-driven transport, where foreign holidays are expected and their annual clothing budget is probably more than the average person pays in a decade.
Not sure about my readers, but I haven’t been away for a holiday for three years and when I did, it was to Devon (don’t knock it – gorgeous county and wonderful people). Last year I spent approximately £100 on clothing – and that includes socks and underwear. I don’t drive, so I have to rely on busses and my monthly pass costs me £40. I was looking forward to getting an older person’s bus pass soon, but my local area seem likely to scrap that.
I’m not complaining about my life – more would be nice, of course, but I am happy with things the way they are. What angers me is when politicians try to tell me they know what its like to be me. Or how those with far more money than me tell me they know what is like to worry about money.
Yesterday I toured around the power companies, because if I stayed with my current supplier I would have to pay £12 more a month. If Messrs Cameron, Osborne, Clarke and Clegg can tell me they did the same I will sit back and shut up.
Until then I have a right to be angry.
In other words, Tory England is going to hurt about as much as it does for us oiks, who survive on a day to day basis. No great surprise there! The news comes hot in pursuit of other reports that Birmingham City Council is to axe 7,000 jobs as part of their cuts programme.
Birmingham has always been a candidate for mass redundancies, particularly as the Council is Tory-led, with significant back-up from the Lib-Dems. In fact, the Council has never been noted for its care for its workforce (see a more detailed report here) and these announcements will have a profound effect on working people in Birmingham.
Clarke is right to point out they will suffer as a result of these cuts, but he should have told the whole truth – everyone will hurt, and in a very big and painful way. So, why did he isolate just the middle classes? Easy, you only have to look at the fact he gave the interview to the Daily Telegraph to find your answer. He is desperately trying to shore up Tory votes and where better to reach out to middle class Tories than in their very own rag?
In three months time local elections will fall again and good money is on a landslide loss of seats for both Tories and Lib-Dems. Look at any map and see which councils they run and you quickly realise the close links they have with the middle classes – Woking, Westminster, Stafford, Basingstoke and Shrewsbury and Atcham – not exactly poverty crisis points dominated by an ‘underclass’ of poor.
But wouldn’t it be nice if one day a Tory or a Liberal Democrat politician were to turn around and fight for the rights of the working classes? Of course that’s not going to happen – after all, what does David Cameron, have in common with the average worker, or single parent. His estimated (albeit disputed) personal wealth of £30m places him in a totally different league. Indeed, in his Cabinet, Cameron has eighteen millionaires, including Nick Clegg, although in his defence, little Nick only owns about £1.8m.
All of this led Sadiq Khan to suggest these rich Tories were unable to empathise with the average worker. Speaking to James Kirkup of the Daily Telegraph, he said:
That they are rich is relevant because of the lack of empathy. I’m not saying that they can’t empathise – but they just don’t get it.
For them, tightening your belt is taking two holidays a year instead of three . . . or having one au pair rather than two. I think it is a problem if you have a cabinet that doesn’t understand the real challenges that people face. If you have a background that is one-dimensional and have not had the life experiences or understood what sacrifice means to ordinary punters, I would say it is difficult.
But Khan needs to be careful. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has an estimated personal wealth of around £4m, Ed Balls is the son of a professor, and attended a fee-paying school; Harriet Harman went to St Pauls and her aunt is a countess; and Shaun Woodward is a multimillionaire with homes in several countries.
In short it seems none of the party leaders have much in common with any of us working folks. They all live in safe financial cocoons, with chauffeur-driven transport, where foreign holidays are expected and their annual clothing budget is probably more than the average person pays in a decade.
Not sure about my readers, but I haven’t been away for a holiday for three years and when I did, it was to Devon (don’t knock it – gorgeous county and wonderful people). Last year I spent approximately £100 on clothing – and that includes socks and underwear. I don’t drive, so I have to rely on busses and my monthly pass costs me £40. I was looking forward to getting an older person’s bus pass soon, but my local area seem likely to scrap that.
I’m not complaining about my life – more would be nice, of course, but I am happy with things the way they are. What angers me is when politicians try to tell me they know what its like to be me. Or how those with far more money than me tell me they know what is like to worry about money.
Yesterday I toured around the power companies, because if I stayed with my current supplier I would have to pay £12 more a month. If Messrs Cameron, Osborne, Clarke and Clegg can tell me they did the same I will sit back and shut up.
Until then I have a right to be angry.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Cameron v. Miliband - who will win?
Another week of PMQs is over and, as usual, Cameron reduced the debate to personal snipes against the Labour leader. It is a regular tactic and he as applied it on many occasions as a mechanism to deflect attention away from himself and back onto the opposition.
It adds little or nothing to the debate, but it has been a useful tool to silence Miliband. It is therefore not surprising the Guardian reports that polls suggest only 25% of the population thought Ed Miliband would make a better prime minister. Not that Cameron should feel too smug, because only 38% voted for him.
The polls also indicate support within the Labour party isn’t overwhelming for EM. Indeed, if they are to be believed, 38% of Labour members – and 42% of people who backed the party are uncertain about Miliband as a possible prime minister.
By any stretch of the imagination these aren’t welcome statistics. Of course, we know psephologists and number crunchers love to play games and polls are seldom a true reflection of the national picture. What they indicate is that young Ed isn’t doing as well as he would have perhaps hoped.
Naturally, some opponents are already saying things would have been different if his brother had been elected. Perhaps, but would the soul of the Labour party have been safe in his hands? On reflection, I doubt it – what we would have seen is a continuation of New Labour, but with different labelling.
At PMQs today, Ed faired well and managed to score a few decent broadsides into Cameron’s hull. However, the good ship Conservativism is far from sunk and EM will need to dramatically up his game if he hopes to play with the big boys.
One rain doesn’t make a monsoon, but I hope that at least it heralds the start of the rainy season. At the moment I am left with the niggling doubt EM was given a good result on a platter. He will not be so fortunate in the weeks to come and will need to show a far hardier, earthy quality in his responses.
He might like to take a few lessons from Ed “rottweiler” Balls in this respect – a little thuggery in EM’s delivery would go a long way to push the party forward and reinforce his position as the leader of the loyal opposition. Add to that more spontaneity and you may find the electorate will warm to him, and find him less wooden.
One thing is for sure – Ed Miliband cannot continue the way he is going and that opposition to Tory cuts alone will be enough to win the next General Election. May 2010 demonstrated we have become far more media-centred when it comes to party leaders. Labour tried to paint Gordon Brown as a man with knowledge, wisdom and the courage to take Britain through this crisis. He may have had all those qualities, but the electorate were unconvinced and found Brown stiff, aloof and unapproachable, whilst Clegg was seen to be likable and trustworthy.
Time has shown the latter to be incorrect, but it still doesn’t give the Labour party the excuse to repeat the same mistakes with EM – he needs to be groomed (and quickly) to become far tougher, far more forceful and far more clearer in his delivery.
He has a long way to go.
It adds little or nothing to the debate, but it has been a useful tool to silence Miliband. It is therefore not surprising the Guardian reports that polls suggest only 25% of the population thought Ed Miliband would make a better prime minister. Not that Cameron should feel too smug, because only 38% voted for him.
The polls also indicate support within the Labour party isn’t overwhelming for EM. Indeed, if they are to be believed, 38% of Labour members – and 42% of people who backed the party are uncertain about Miliband as a possible prime minister.
By any stretch of the imagination these aren’t welcome statistics. Of course, we know psephologists and number crunchers love to play games and polls are seldom a true reflection of the national picture. What they indicate is that young Ed isn’t doing as well as he would have perhaps hoped.
Naturally, some opponents are already saying things would have been different if his brother had been elected. Perhaps, but would the soul of the Labour party have been safe in his hands? On reflection, I doubt it – what we would have seen is a continuation of New Labour, but with different labelling.
At PMQs today, Ed faired well and managed to score a few decent broadsides into Cameron’s hull. However, the good ship Conservativism is far from sunk and EM will need to dramatically up his game if he hopes to play with the big boys.
One rain doesn’t make a monsoon, but I hope that at least it heralds the start of the rainy season. At the moment I am left with the niggling doubt EM was given a good result on a platter. He will not be so fortunate in the weeks to come and will need to show a far hardier, earthy quality in his responses.
He might like to take a few lessons from Ed “rottweiler” Balls in this respect – a little thuggery in EM’s delivery would go a long way to push the party forward and reinforce his position as the leader of the loyal opposition. Add to that more spontaneity and you may find the electorate will warm to him, and find him less wooden.
One thing is for sure – Ed Miliband cannot continue the way he is going and that opposition to Tory cuts alone will be enough to win the next General Election. May 2010 demonstrated we have become far more media-centred when it comes to party leaders. Labour tried to paint Gordon Brown as a man with knowledge, wisdom and the courage to take Britain through this crisis. He may have had all those qualities, but the electorate were unconvinced and found Brown stiff, aloof and unapproachable, whilst Clegg was seen to be likable and trustworthy.
Time has shown the latter to be incorrect, but it still doesn’t give the Labour party the excuse to repeat the same mistakes with EM – he needs to be groomed (and quickly) to become far tougher, far more forceful and far more clearer in his delivery.
He has a long way to go.
at
06:55
0
comments
Labels:
Cameron,
Conservative,
Conservativism,
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
Labour,
PMQ
0
comments
Labels:
Cameron,
Conservative,
Conservativism,
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
Labour,
PMQ
Thursday, 20 January 2011
.. And its goodbye from him
The news tonight that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alan Johnson has resigned from his post must come with deep sadness to anyone with an ounce of moral conscience and caring for their fellow human beings.
Johnson was never destined to be a great chancellor and at a political level, the Labour party will not regret his passing. However, at a personal level it would be hoped that every member, at whatever level, will tonight be wishing him and his family every good wish and prayer. No doubt the media will go out of their way to invade his privacy over the coming days and this writer wishes all his family well as they preapre to face this unfortunate onslaught.
But his departure is good news for the Labour party and his replacement, Ed Balls will undoubtedly give Osborne cause to be quaking in his boots tonight. Until now Cameron and Osborne have been able to rely on clichéd soundbites, deceit and a generally condescending attitude to barge their policies through.
They will not be so fortunate with Balls – he is a political bruiser. Now, Osborne is sufficiently talented to not be too concerned about that – but what will worry him is the fact that Balls has more knowledge and experience in his little finger than Osborne can muster throughout his entire political life.
Couple these two attributes together and you have grounds for the Tories to be worrying. The news this week that inflation could soar well above OBR forecasts, coupled with evidence that VAT is biting harder than the Tories had hoped will be pounced on by Balls.
His appointment as Shadow Chancellor is welcome news to those who have been opposed to Tory austerity measures. Osborne will need to be well-briefed if he is going to be able to have even half a chance of looking credible as a chancellor. Like the hunter he is, Balls already has Gove’s scalp under his belt. Now his eyes will be focused on Osborne.
Let the hunt begin.
Johnson was never destined to be a great chancellor and at a political level, the Labour party will not regret his passing. However, at a personal level it would be hoped that every member, at whatever level, will tonight be wishing him and his family every good wish and prayer. No doubt the media will go out of their way to invade his privacy over the coming days and this writer wishes all his family well as they preapre to face this unfortunate onslaught.
But his departure is good news for the Labour party and his replacement, Ed Balls will undoubtedly give Osborne cause to be quaking in his boots tonight. Until now Cameron and Osborne have been able to rely on clichéd soundbites, deceit and a generally condescending attitude to barge their policies through.
They will not be so fortunate with Balls – he is a political bruiser. Now, Osborne is sufficiently talented to not be too concerned about that – but what will worry him is the fact that Balls has more knowledge and experience in his little finger than Osborne can muster throughout his entire political life.
Couple these two attributes together and you have grounds for the Tories to be worrying. The news this week that inflation could soar well above OBR forecasts, coupled with evidence that VAT is biting harder than the Tories had hoped will be pounced on by Balls.
His appointment as Shadow Chancellor is welcome news to those who have been opposed to Tory austerity measures. Osborne will need to be well-briefed if he is going to be able to have even half a chance of looking credible as a chancellor. Like the hunter he is, Balls already has Gove’s scalp under his belt. Now his eyes will be focused on Osborne.
Let the hunt begin.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Why the Tories feel safe
Since May 6th, the Conservatives (I largely discount the Lib-Dems now, because they are now part of the Tory machine) have been in power and have already made savage swipes at our welfare system. Although the Tories once insisted frontline services would not be affected, we are regularly hearing each day of redundancies in our schools, hospitals and police forces.
Despite this, a recent MORI poll for the Economist showed the public viewed Osborne’s Budget as one of the six best since the 1970s. Even more disturbing is that fact that now the Tories are languishing on a 40% share of the voteand Labour is largely unchanged since the election – even though our public services are now seriously under threat.
Several reasons spring to mind to explain this bizarre situation. Firstly, it seems the public are satisfied to bury their heads into their hands and assume “if it’s not affecting me, then it’s OK”. So, if you aren’t unemployed, or living on little more than a basic living wage, then you may feel you are not being dramatically affected by the recent austerity measures. Indeed, evidence from a number of think tanks suggests large numbers of people now classified as middle class will only experience a minor change to their standard of living, so there is some truth to their analysis.
What these people fail to see is how the next round of cuts, expected in the autumn, will affect us all. All pointers suggest the cuts, along with VAT increases, will substantially change the way many of us live our lives. Our hospitals will be less efficient, our schools will have more children in each classroom as the number of teachers is reduced, with less police officers on patrol there will be more crime. Oh ... and the skill level of our workforce will deteriorate as the government and private sector fail to invest in training and skill development. All of this happening in a nation with constantly rising unemployment.
Now you may wonder why Labour hasn’t been doing more to expose this to the electorate. After all, there is a leadership election on and it offers an ideal time to flaunt our more radical policies as we expunge ourselves of the New Labour project. Unfortunately, the entire election process has been taken over by the ‘management team’ at Victoria Street, leaving most party members and, it seems, the broader public disillusioned by the entire process.
If you don’t think the candidates are being stifled by the party machine, then ask yourself why is it the candidates are either absent, or silent at PMQ every Wednesday? It’s all very well each of them organising a petition to oppose some aspect of Tory policy, but why are they not shouting from the rooftops – this is wrong! A few tweets each day and the odd television appearance are pretty half-hearted measures.
Instead, we are forced to endure another three months of Harriet Harman as acting leader – a political lightweight by any stretch of the imagination. Thank goodness parliament goes into recess in a couple of weeks – at least we won’t have to face the agony of watching Cameron systematically destroy her. Her pleas of “he isn’t answering the question ...” are starting to bore even the most dedicated Labour party member and I am almost beginning to assume it will never get better.
I was one of those people who argued for a long debate over the summer to decide on our future leader, but I am starting to question whether I was right. The hustings are a joke, offering no real chance for the candidates to debate the issues and instead they only allow them to roll out bland ‘non-statements’ of where they stand politically.
David Miliband is fighting for the centre ground and seems destined to win, so is already being crowned by many, even before the vote. Ed Miliband is vying for the soft left vote with his “I wasn’t in parliament, so you can’t blame me” approach – pretty weak as he was and adviser and then later a member of parliament during the period – so his hands are just as tainted as any of the other candidates. As for Ed Balls, well he hasn’t really said very much, other than how he wants to blame all those nasty immigrants for taking our jobs – a bit unfair perhaps, but it isn’t far off the truth. Poor old Andy Burnham seems to have already acknowledged he is one of the runners-up and hardly makes a peep in the hope he can appear the strong, silent type.
Good old Diane Abbott was set to carry the mantle of the left and if she is the best we can offer, then we had all better pack up and go and play dominoes. Let’s be frank, her defence of sending her child to a £10,000 per annum private school is indefensible, even though we may understand why, as a parent, she felt it necessary. More importantly, raising the subject at every husting is dreadfully boring – and seems to achieve very little. If only she would just shout out mea culpa and be done with it.
With all this in mind, is it any wonder Cameron feels confident? If Labour fails to get its act together in the next few weeks, we can look forward to the Tories being in power not only for the full term of this parliament, but for the next as well. So, our MPs and leaders must be held to account. We should be asking why there is no real debate in the election hustings. Why are the candidates not attacking Cameron at PMQ? Why are MPs not joining with our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement to mobilise opposition to the cuts? And how can we rescue the party before Harriet Harman and all the old guard from the New Labour era edge us towards disaster?
Above all, we must see RESISTANCE!
Despite this, a recent MORI poll for the Economist showed the public viewed Osborne’s Budget as one of the six best since the 1970s. Even more disturbing is that fact that now the Tories are languishing on a 40% share of the voteand Labour is largely unchanged since the election – even though our public services are now seriously under threat.
Several reasons spring to mind to explain this bizarre situation. Firstly, it seems the public are satisfied to bury their heads into their hands and assume “if it’s not affecting me, then it’s OK”. So, if you aren’t unemployed, or living on little more than a basic living wage, then you may feel you are not being dramatically affected by the recent austerity measures. Indeed, evidence from a number of think tanks suggests large numbers of people now classified as middle class will only experience a minor change to their standard of living, so there is some truth to their analysis.
What these people fail to see is how the next round of cuts, expected in the autumn, will affect us all. All pointers suggest the cuts, along with VAT increases, will substantially change the way many of us live our lives. Our hospitals will be less efficient, our schools will have more children in each classroom as the number of teachers is reduced, with less police officers on patrol there will be more crime. Oh ... and the skill level of our workforce will deteriorate as the government and private sector fail to invest in training and skill development. All of this happening in a nation with constantly rising unemployment.
Now you may wonder why Labour hasn’t been doing more to expose this to the electorate. After all, there is a leadership election on and it offers an ideal time to flaunt our more radical policies as we expunge ourselves of the New Labour project. Unfortunately, the entire election process has been taken over by the ‘management team’ at Victoria Street, leaving most party members and, it seems, the broader public disillusioned by the entire process.
If you don’t think the candidates are being stifled by the party machine, then ask yourself why is it the candidates are either absent, or silent at PMQ every Wednesday? It’s all very well each of them organising a petition to oppose some aspect of Tory policy, but why are they not shouting from the rooftops – this is wrong! A few tweets each day and the odd television appearance are pretty half-hearted measures.
Instead, we are forced to endure another three months of Harriet Harman as acting leader – a political lightweight by any stretch of the imagination. Thank goodness parliament goes into recess in a couple of weeks – at least we won’t have to face the agony of watching Cameron systematically destroy her. Her pleas of “he isn’t answering the question ...” are starting to bore even the most dedicated Labour party member and I am almost beginning to assume it will never get better.
I was one of those people who argued for a long debate over the summer to decide on our future leader, but I am starting to question whether I was right. The hustings are a joke, offering no real chance for the candidates to debate the issues and instead they only allow them to roll out bland ‘non-statements’ of where they stand politically.
David Miliband is fighting for the centre ground and seems destined to win, so is already being crowned by many, even before the vote. Ed Miliband is vying for the soft left vote with his “I wasn’t in parliament, so you can’t blame me” approach – pretty weak as he was and adviser and then later a member of parliament during the period – so his hands are just as tainted as any of the other candidates. As for Ed Balls, well he hasn’t really said very much, other than how he wants to blame all those nasty immigrants for taking our jobs – a bit unfair perhaps, but it isn’t far off the truth. Poor old Andy Burnham seems to have already acknowledged he is one of the runners-up and hardly makes a peep in the hope he can appear the strong, silent type.
Good old Diane Abbott was set to carry the mantle of the left and if she is the best we can offer, then we had all better pack up and go and play dominoes. Let’s be frank, her defence of sending her child to a £10,000 per annum private school is indefensible, even though we may understand why, as a parent, she felt it necessary. More importantly, raising the subject at every husting is dreadfully boring – and seems to achieve very little. If only she would just shout out mea culpa and be done with it.
With all this in mind, is it any wonder Cameron feels confident? If Labour fails to get its act together in the next few weeks, we can look forward to the Tories being in power not only for the full term of this parliament, but for the next as well. So, our MPs and leaders must be held to account. We should be asking why there is no real debate in the election hustings. Why are the candidates not attacking Cameron at PMQ? Why are MPs not joining with our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement to mobilise opposition to the cuts? And how can we rescue the party before Harriet Harman and all the old guard from the New Labour era edge us towards disaster?
Above all, we must see RESISTANCE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
