@JEO - The Tories have a majority. They can impose whatever they want. However, they have already withdrawn their first, botched attempt. Clearly, it is not as simple as you believe it to be.
No, it is really very simple. The difficulty comes when someone wants to put together a measure that pretends to resolve the issue without actually doing so.
So why are the Tories doing that? There must be reasons. I suspect that one is that it is actually not possible to resolve EV4EL in the absence of consensus. The Tories can seek to impose a solution, but the reality is that it would mean backbench Tory MPs voting to make themselves less powerful.
EVEL is a very simple matter, it requires some backbone and some change in parliamentary drafting but nothing insurmountable if the will is there. I suspect that, as ever with Cameron, the will is not there but there is the desire to pretend that it is. He is after all the true heir to Blair, a snake oil salesman who will say anything to anyone for power's sake.
We started at Temple Tube station and up through the Temple itself (with a stop at the church, of course) and a first drink at the the Cheshire Cheese. That really put the seal on the day - we made it, stopping for refreshment and easement along the way, as far at the Mitre but not into the city proper.
That's pretty much the route from my foundation's HQ to my family's office, so I know it (and the various intermediary rests) well!
If you don't know it, can I recommend the Edgar Wallace on Essex Street?
@stodge The Mail HATE Labour, but have a love/hate relationship with Cameron. The Tories under him aren't nearly as much of a 'won't someone think of the children permanently outraged' party that they'd like them to be. The Mail's ideal Conservative party is cross between Bill Cash, Phil Davies and Claire Perry. What's more interesting, is that the Mail is set to become Britain's biggest selling paper in 2016 - overtaking The Sun, a paper far more likely to love Cameron and Osborne so much they'd claim they can turn water into wine.
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united. Given his own voting record Labour could be well set to become an echo-chamber of constant arguing. Nevertheless, as you say all sides of Labour may actually come up some ideas, which could serve the party well in the long-term (when they elect a credible leader).
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Ed was very left wing. More so than he ever admitted. Reading his Telegraph interview yesterday, it is clear that Balls saw this. It's a shame for Labour that Balls was so loyal really. It is to be hoped that a big lesson was learned by letting EdM run the full five years. But I doubt it. Instead, it's pretty clear that Labour is only ever going to become a serious party of government once the union link ends.
It feels like, if that's true then Ed Balls only saw this while being EdM's shadow chancellor - which is odd, given that they worked together under Gordon Brown for years.
I'm actually someone who doesn't outright reject the purpose of unions in Britain, but I actually HATE UNITE with a passion, and have a strong, active dislike of Len McCluskey. IMHO unions need serious reform. For too long, they've become a platform for jumped up wannabes like Len McCluskey who just want to make Labour some Footesque political party as opposed to actually caring about their members.
I am all for unions. I am totally opposed to Labour's union link though. It is thoroughly destructive.
Unite's corrosive influence on the selection of candidates is particularly worrying. Unions also don't appear to understand that Labour needs an electable candidate in order to win GEs. In other words, not anyone they like.
Re EdM's leftiness - I think it'd be very surprising for a kid brought up discussing Marxism over dinner with Prof Dad, not to absorb it and have his world view defined by it.
That old Jesuit maxim "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" holds true IMO.
Re UNITE - Len seems to view Labour and his union officials as pawns in his own political game. Bob Crow set up his own political party , as well as No2EU org which seemed a much better way to pursue his ambitions here, rather than hi-jack Labour.
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united. Given his own voting record Labour could be well set to become an echo-chamber of constant arguing. Nevertheless, as you say all sides of Labour may actually come up some ideas, which could serve the party well in the long-term (when they elect a credible leader).
snip
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Ed was very left wing. More so than he ever admitted. Reading his Telegraph interview yesterday, it is clear that Balls saw this. It's a shame for Labour that Balls was so loyal really. It is to be hoped that a big lesson was learned by letting EdM run the full five years. But I doubt it. Instead, it's pretty clear that Labour is only ever going to become a serious party of government once the union link ends.
It feels like, if that's true then Ed Balls only saw this while being EdM's shadow chancellor - which is odd, given that they worked together under Gordon Brown for years.
I'm actually someone who doesn't outright reject the purpose of unions in Britain, but I actually HATE UNITE with a passion, and have a strong, active dislike of Len McCluskey. IMHO unions need serious reform. For too long, they've become a platform for jumped up wannabes like Len McCluskey who just want to make Labour some Footesque political party as opposed to actually caring about their members.
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united. Given his own voting record Labour could be well set to become an echo-chamber of constant arguing. Nevertheless, as you say all sides of Labour may actually come up some ideas, which could serve the party well in the long-term (when they elect a credible leader).
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Ed was very left wing. More so than he ever admitted. Reading his Telegraph interview yesterday, it is clear that Balls saw this. It's a shame for Labour that Balls was so loyal really. It is to be hoped that a big lesson was learned by letting EdM run the full five years. But I doubt it. Instead, it's pretty clear that Labour is only ever going to become a serious party of government once the union link ends.
It feels like, if that's true then Ed Balls only saw this while being EdM's shadow chancellor - which is odd, given that they worked together under Gordon Brown for years.
I'm actually someone who doesn't outright reject the purpose of unions in Britain, but I actually HATE UNITE with a passion, and have a strong, active dislike of Len McCluskey. IMHO unions need serious reform. For too long, they've become a platform for jumped up wannabes like Len McCluskey who just want to make Labour some Footesque political party as opposed to actually caring about their members.
I am all for unions. I am totally opposed to Labour's union link though. It is thoroughly destructive.
That similar link with Democrats, particularly at the state and municipal level, is what is killing public sector unions in the US. It cannot but be ultimately corrupting.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Aren't LD conferences much more open to grass roots proposals for debate and voting than either Labour or Conservative? I suspect non-renewal of Trident will be popular, but may not get past the Conference vote.
Indeed one other motion is for the Leader to have a veto on policies for the manifesto, at present conference controls this.
Haven' the LDs always been opposed to Trident?
The last manifesto supported renewal, but with only three subs.
I think that it is an obselete system, but we should keep nuclear capability in other forms. The last Labour government decommissioned our other nuclear weapons in '98, leaving Trident as our only one, and as we have only one sub at sea all our eggs are in one basket.
"... we should keep nuclear capability in other forms...."
Ok, Doc, which? Which forms of nuclear capability should we retain (or rather build from scratch) and why?
I would suggest a modern version of WE117, deliverable in multiple forms with a cruise missile form. Less strategic in form, but more use against our likely enemies.
Laying waste to enemy cities and killing every citizen in them is a very old school Bomber Harris/ Curtis LeMay way of waging war.
Speaking of gurus, EdM had Maurice Glasman - a man who came up with Blue Labour that talked some really sound stuff for Aspirational White Van voters. EdM even gave him a peerage for it.
Then Mr Glasman said that immigration was an issue and was dumped within hours never to be mentioned again.
It was IMO the biggest mistake EdM made at a policy level. I read all the various Blue/Purple/Black Labour proposals and Glasman's blue-collar one was the most coherent defence against Kippers. Back then of course, Labour though Kippers were Tories on holiday.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
LOL I forgot about the 'blank sheet of paper'. Sometimes I really wonder why on earth he stood as a leadership candidate in 2010. It feels like he genuinely wanted to move the party to left (probably where Kinnock was at in 1987-92) but then got scared about the implications and so set-up a policy review in order to try and fudge some ideas together. Ed had more gurus than I had boyfriends in that period!
I also remember Purple Labour (though I can't remember what it was actually about) and 'predistribution' which has got to be one of the randomest political ideas in history.
Surely "Predistribution" breaks down as an increase in the minimum wage and a reduction in tax credits? Didn't we see that somewhere else recently?
Ed's problem was that he only ever talked about concepts, never about delivery of his ideas.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
It removes the manifest unfairness that is being used by the SNP to drive a wedge between the English and the Scots.
Then, when emotions are cooler, you can take a look at the system as a whole
All a Tory-imposed EV4EL does is provide the SNP with further grievance material and invite a change to the procedure once the Tories lose their majority, as they will at some stage - perhaps even as early as 2020. Then you will have another system until the Tories win again. And so on. Grayling has set a precedent that such changes do not even have to be subject to the full scrutiny provided for by an act of Parliament.
What it has also done is provide succour to the SNP by providing them with a grievance. A consensual, inclusive approach endorsed in a referendum would not run this risk. And, if the SNP declined to take part, would put the emphasis on them to explain why they were sitting it out.
Oh, they'd participate. And then denounce the conclusions.
But I'm with @SeanT. You are being thoroughly boring and self-righteous.
Apologies Charles, I thought you were a grown-up. Never mind. You live and learn.
Well given that you've not actually engaged with or responded to any of the valid criticisms that have been made of your proposal, but simply reiterated it, what other conclusion is there?
Re EdM's leftiness - I think it'd be very surprising for a kid brought up discussing Marxism over dinner with Prof Dad, not to absorb it and have his world view defined by it.
same for everyone though, isn't it? at least they were discussing. If you were spoonfed the dailymail for your first 7 years, no doubt you'd still be spouting the same daily mail rubbish...
Why am I mentioning it? Because it is the last. They aren't printing any more hardbacks (the paperback comes out next month and the publishers want to move buyers on to that)
So this is the last chance to buy a hardback first edition (though it will be the eighth or ninth print run, so not a pure first edition). Just FYI. Could be worth, ooh, dozens of pounds in a few decades.
Buy it for your grandkids!
Given the American run is being pulped, is my version worth more or less?
*pokes*
lol. I am immune (almost) to such ribbing. Warum?
Eisige Schwestern is STILL in the German top ten. It came out there in April. Das ist ein sehr serious bestseller.
Re EdM's leftiness - I think it'd be very surprising for a kid brought up discussing Marxism over dinner with Prof Dad, not to absorb it and have his world view defined by it.
same for everyone though, isn't it? at least they were discussing. If you were spoonfed the dailymail for your first 7 years, no doubt you'd still be spouting the same daily mail rubbish...
Re EdM's leftiness - I think it'd be very surprising for a kid brought up discussing Marxism over dinner with Prof Dad, not to absorb it and have his world view defined by it.
That old Jesuit maxim "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" holds true IMO.
Re UNITE - Len seems to view Labour and his union officials as pawns in his own political game. Bob Crow set up his own political party , as well as No2EU org which seemed a much better way to pursue his ambitions here, rather than hi-jack Labour.
Good for Bob Crow (RIP). I didn't know he did that. For the Unions it's easier for them to try and hijack an existing political force, then actually set-up their own political party, in which they know support would be so small you could fill a small room with it.
On Ed Miliband - well, the thing is David Miliband also had the exact same childhood experiences than Ed Miliband is that regard (I learned a lot watching Miliband of Brothers tbh). Yet he was never as left-wing as Ed.
We started at Temple Tube station and up through the Temple itself (with a stop at the church, of course) and a first drink at the the Cheshire Cheese. That really put the seal on the day - we made it, stopping for refreshment and easement along the way, as far at the Mitre but not into the city proper.
That's pretty much the route from my foundation's HQ to my family's office, so I know it (and the various intermediary rests) well!
If you don't know it, can I recommend the Edgar Wallace on Essex Street?
I have drunk in the Edgar Wallace and it is a very fine pub (very fine collection of beer mats and alcohol advertising paraphernalia on the walls), especially in the late afternoon or evening when the crowds have gone. It also has a very informative poster outside giving the history of its name if I recall. I have never taken visitors to it or included it in any of my walks as it is a bit too far to the West.
Thinking about Essex street isn't there another pub just round the back of the Edgar Wallace on the site of the Tudor Duke of Buckingham(?)'s house? Not anywhere near such a good pub but it is on an interesting site and there is a daytime gate to the Temple grounds almost opposite.
I doubt Corbyn would win back Scotland entirely, but he would win back some anti-austerity voters in the Central Belt. Corbyn is unlikely to win in 2020 UK-wide but you can never rule anything out, especially if the economy goes south again and he plays a key part in a winning No campaign in EU Ref
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united.
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Ed was very left wing. More so than he ever admitted. Reading his Telegraph interview yesterday, it is clear that Balls saw this. It's a shame for Labour that Balls was so loyal really. It is to be hoped that a big lesson was learned by letting EdM run the full five years. But I doubt it. Instead, it's pretty clear that Labour is only ever going to become a serious party of government once the union link ends.
It feels like, if that's true then Ed Balls only saw this while being EdM's shadow chancellor - which is odd, given that they worked together under Gordon Brown for years.
I'm actually someone who doesn't outright reject the purpose of unions in Britain, but I actually HATE UNITE with a passion, and have a strong, active dislike of Len McCluskey. IMHO unions need serious reform. For too long, they've become a platform for jumped up wannabes like Len McCluskey who just want to make Labour some Footesque political party as opposed to actually caring about their members.
I am all for unions. I am totally opposed to Labour's union link though. It is thoroughly destructive.
Unite's corrosive influence on the selection of candidates is particularly worrying. Unions also don't appear to understand that Labour needs an electable candidate in order to win GEs. In other words, not anyone they like.
We are about to see the same played out in the USA over the coming year. It's very difficult for a party to elect someone who can bring together the country as well as the party. Look at Labour's reaction to Liz Kendall and new-found hatred of Blair for more information.
Speaking of gurus, EdM had Maurice Glasman - a man who came up with Blue Labour that talked some really sound stuff for Aspirational White Van voters. EdM even gave him a peerage for it.
Then Mr Glasman said that immigration was an issue and was dumped within hours never to be mentioned again.
It was IMO the biggest mistake EdM made at a policy level. I read all the various Blue/Purple/Black Labour proposals and Glasman's blue-collar one was the most coherent defence against Kippers. Back then of course, Labour though Kippers were Tories on holiday.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
LOL I forgot about the 'blank sheet of paper'. Sometimes I really wonder why on earth he stood as a leadership candidate in 2010. It feels like he genuinely wanted to move the party to left (probably where Kinnock was at in 1987-92) but then got scared about the implications and so set-up a policy review in order to try and fudge some ideas together. Ed had more gurus than I had boyfriends in that period!
I also remember Purple Labour (though I can't remember what it was actually about) and 'predistribution' which has got to be one of the randomest political ideas in history.
Surely "Predistribution" breaks down as an increase in the minimum wage and a reduction in tax credits? Didn't we see that somewhere else recently?
Ed's problem was that he only ever talked about concepts, never about delivery of his ideas.
I can't say what predistribution was, either way. Though if your analysis is true then EdM ironically influenced politics far more than anyone thought.
Ed Miliband was never a natural communicator - see predators vs producers. He really should have been an academic.
Re EdM's leftiness - I think it'd be very surprising for a kid brought up discussing Marxism over dinner with Prof Dad, not to absorb it and have his world view defined by it.
same for everyone though, isn't it? at least they were discussing. If you were spoonfed the dailymail for your first 7 years, no doubt you'd still be spouting the same daily mail rubbish...
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
It removes the manifest unfairness that is being used by the SNP to drive a wedge between the English and the Scots.
Then, when emotions are cooler, you can take a look at the system as a whole
All a Tory-imposed EV4EL does is provide the SNP with further grievance material and invite a change to the procedure once the Tories lose their majority, as they will at some stage - perhaps even as early as 2020. Then you will have another system until the Tories win again. And so on. Grayling has set a precedent that such changes do not even have to be subject to the full scrutiny provided for by an act of Parliament.
What it has also done is provide succour to the SNP by providing them with a grievance. A consensual, inclusive approach endorsed in a referendum would not run this risk. And, if the SNP declined to take part, would put the emphasis on them to explain why they were sitting it out.
Oh, they'd participate. And then denounce the conclusions.
But I'm with @SeanT. You are being thoroughly boring and self-righteous.
Apologies Charles, I thought you were a grown-up. Never mind. You live and learn.
Well given that you've not actually engaged with or responded to any of the valid criticisms that have been made of your proposal, but simply reiterated it, what other conclusion is there?
I have responded, but clearly not in a manner that you like. Again, I can only apologise. For my part, I feel that you have failed utterly to explain how changing Commons standing orders to introduce a form of EV4EL that will strengthen the government but weaken the power of English MPs is in any way fair to anyone.
We are about to see the same played out in the USA over the coming year. It's very difficult for a party to elect someone who can bring together the country as well as the party. Look at Labour's reaction to Liz Kendall and new-found hatred of Blair for more information.
New-found? Labour supporters began hating Blair in 2004, really. I think the more left-wing parts of Labour were looking for reasons to hate Blair, and Iraq gave to them. Tbf, I'm not Blair's biggest fan. I'm pretty much critical of his education policy, on some of his health polices, on his dealing with foreign affairs and the EU etc....
Why am I mentioning it? Because it is the last. They aren't printing any more hardbacks (the paperback comes out next month and the publishers want to move buyers on to that)
So this is the last chance to buy a hardback first edition (though it will be the eighth or ninth print run, so not a pure first edition). Just FYI. Could be worth, ooh, dozens of pounds in a few decades.
Buy it for your grandkids!
Given the American run is being pulped, is my version worth more or less?
*pokes*
lol. I am immune (almost) to such ribbing. Warum?
Eisige Schwestern is STILL in the German top ten. It came out there in April. Das ist ein sehr serious bestseller.
Yes, we all remember the pre-1973 ban on selling books by British authors to buyers over the English Channel. Freedom to sell books abroad has been one of the many triumphs of the glorious EEC. How could we ever dream of leaving?
[A joke, by the way. Better say that as SO has made the thread so turgid]
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Aren't LD conferences much more open to grass roots proposals for debate and voting than either Labour or Conservative? I suspect non-renewal of Trident will be popular, but may not get past the Conference vote.
Indeed one other motion is for the Leader to have a veto on policies for the manifesto, at present conference controls this.
Haven' the LDs always been opposed to Trident?
The last manifesto supported renewal, but with only three subs.
I think that it is an obselete system, but we should keep nuclear capability in other forms. The last Labour government decommissioned our other nuclear weapons in '98, leaving Trident as our only one, and as we have only one sub at sea all our eggs are in one basket.
"... we should keep nuclear capability in other forms...."
Ok, Doc, which? Which forms of nuclear capability should we retain (or rather build from scratch) and why?
I would suggest a modern version of WE117, deliverable in multiple forms with a cruise missile form. Less strategic in form, but more use against our likely enemies.
Laying waste to enemy cities and killing every citizen in them is a very old school Bomber Harris/ Curtis LeMay way of waging war.
You want to give up ensured second strike deterrence and take up first strike ability. Well that really would be a break from current thinking. Leave aside the cost of development and the realities of delivery, for a moment just consider the strategic position of having a first strike but no second strike. Then also think about how accurate a nuclear weapon needs to be versus the accuracy that can be obtained by a warhead from a Trident missile. Maybe you need to think this one through a little more.
Speaking of gurus, EdM had Maurice Glasman - a man who came up with Blue Labour that talked some really sound stuff for Aspirational White Van voters. EdM even gave him a peerage for it.
Then Mr Glasman said that immigration was an issue and was dumped within hours never to be mentioned again.
It was IMO the biggest mistake EdM made at a policy level. I read all the various Blue/Purple/Black Labour proposals and Glasman's blue-collar one was the most coherent defence against Kippers. Back then of course, Labour though Kippers were Tories on holiday.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
0. It feels like he genuinely wanted to move the party to left (probably where Kinnock was at in 1987-92) but then got scared about the implications and so set-up a policy review in order to try and fudge some ideas together. Ed had more gurus than I had boyfriends in that period!
I also remember Purple Labour (though I can't remember what it was actually about) and 'predistribution' which has got to be one of the randomest political ideas in history.
Surely "Predistribution" breaks down as an increase in the minimum wage and a reduction in tax credits? Didn't we see that somewhere else recently?
Ed's problem was that he only ever talked about concepts, never about delivery of his ideas.
I can't say what predistribution was, either way. Though if your analysis is true then EdM ironically influenced politics far more than anyone thought.
Ed Miliband was never a natural communicator - see predators vs producers. He really should have been an academic.
Political winners always occupy the centre ground. Blair and Cameron are great examples of this, both moving their parties well onto the opposition turf. The irony for me is that Labour will scream about the tax credit cuts, even though it was the natural conclusion to Ed's own policy.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Aren't LD
Haven' the LDs always been opposed to Trident?
The last manifesto supported renewal, but with only three subs.
I think that it is an obselete system, but we should keep nuclear capability in other forms. The last Labour government decommissioned our other nuclear weapons in '98, leaving Trident as our only one, and as we have only one sub at sea all our eggs are in one basket.
"... we should keep nuclear capability in other forms...."
Ok, Doc, which? Which forms of nuclear capability should we retain (or rather build from scratch) and why?
I would suggest a modern version of WE117, deliverable in multiple forms with a cruise missile form. Less strategic in form, but more use against our likely enemies.
Laying waste to enemy cities and killing every citizen in them is a very old school Bomber Harris/ Curtis LeMay way of waging war.
You want to give up ensured second strike deterrence and take up first strike ability. Well that really would be a break from current thinking. Leave aside the cost of development and the realities of delivery, for a moment just consider the strategic position of having a first strike but no second strike. Then also think about how accurate a nuclear weapon needs to be versus the accuracy that can be obtained by a warhead from a Trident missile. Maybe you need to think this one through a little more.
A second strike capability is only used if your country is in smoking ruins following an enemy first strike. It would make the people in Leicester dying of radiation poisoning and burns a power of good to know that their peers in St Petersburg were in an dying similarly.
A first strike capability deters conventional as well as nuclear attack, and is much more flexible in how it can be deployed, and decentralised across platforms and sites.
If the Russians had a trace on our Vanguard sub, then with Trident we have no second strike capability at all.
Comments
If you don't know it, can I recommend the Edgar Wallace on Essex Street?
That old Jesuit maxim "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" holds true IMO.
Re UNITE - Len seems to view Labour and his union officials as pawns in his own political game. Bob Crow set up his own political party , as well as No2EU org which seemed a much better way to pursue his ambitions here, rather than hi-jack Labour.
Laying waste to enemy cities and killing every citizen in them is a very old school Bomber Harris/ Curtis LeMay way of waging war.
Ed's problem was that he only ever talked about concepts, never about delivery of his ideas.
On Ed Miliband - well, the thing is David Miliband also had the exact same childhood experiences than Ed Miliband is that regard (I learned a lot watching Miliband of Brothers tbh). Yet he was never as left-wing as Ed.
Thinking about Essex street isn't there another pub just round the back of the Edgar Wallace on the site of the Tudor Duke of Buckingham(?)'s house? Not anywhere near such a good pub but it is on an interesting site and there is a daytime gate to the Temple grounds almost opposite.
Ed Miliband was never a natural communicator - see predators vs producers. He really should have been an academic.
New Thread
[A joke, by the way. Better say that as SO has made the thread so turgid]
A first strike capability deters conventional as well as nuclear attack, and is much more flexible in how it can be deployed, and decentralised across platforms and sites.
If the Russians had a trace on our Vanguard sub, then with Trident we have no second strike capability at all.