Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EdM takes on his paymasters
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EdM takes on his paymasters
This is particularly important for opposition leaders because it can often be challenging for them to get any media attention as Cameron found during Gordon’s media honeymoon in 2007. It’s governments that have so much power over the news agenda and then, for 3 months, Brown was making an announcement a day. Dave hardly got a look in and his ratings slumped.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Unleash Hell.
Rather splendid film, I thought.
Not so enamoured of Milibandus Minor, though I must say most of his proposals seem sensible. The lack of detail on timing and a seeming unwillingness to use the law to enforce the changes seems weaselly, and I disagree entirely with banning outside earnings for MPs.
Sounds like the Labour Party we've all come to know and well know.
Makes the plot of Gladiator seem tame by comparison
It is a very odd speech. He lays into his own party: "A politics that was closed. A politics of the machine. A politics that is rightly hated." [He might have added 'A politics which got me elected as leader', but inexplicably he omitted to do so].
Fair enough, that sounds bad. Something Must Be Done. But, as far as one can tell, he proposes to go into the next election with exactly the same politics. With no timetable for change, no concrete proposals on the table, a report by Ray Collins (oops, involved in setting up Unite in the first place), there's really no substance to it, and certainly no urgency. After the 'Ed slays the dragon' build-up, that's very strange.
But the main reason the speech reads so oddly is that it is like a speech which a candidate for the leadership might make, laying out changes he'd like to make in the future in the case that he becomes leader. It's almost as though he's conducting an intellectual exercise of what a Labour Party leader might or ought to do, rather than actually doing it.
Tim does not like Shapps.
Gosh
'Len mccluskey saying he agrees 'in principle' with reforms to affiliated membership'
Of course he does,no detail,no timeline,no mechanism, no change.
Apart from that Ed was awesome.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23231442
"What Ed Miliband is trying to achieve is direct contact with, and the involvement of, a slice of those affiliated members. What he lost in cash from the unions could be replaced with the direct support in terms of time as well as money of those who chose to back the party.
This would allow him to claim to represent hundreds of thousands of working people whilst claiming that the Tories depended on the cheques of the very rich.
The issue of whether union affiliation fees should be treated as lots of individual donations or a cheque controlled by union HQs is one of the key reasons why reform of party funding has never been agreed...
If Labour can change that they might be able to strike a deal with Nick Clegg to reform funding and put the Tories on the spot.
So, those are the positives. What are the negatives?
The unions may not agree to do what's necessary - the CWU leader Billy Hayes has already condemned the suggestion as aping a Tory prime minister from the 1920s.
These reforms could change Labour in the long run but they won't solve its selection problems in the short term (though other reforms the Labour leader is announcing might)
In summary, the prize is great, but the problems are at least as big."
But UNITE did nothing wrong in Falkirk and he won't support any of the specific proposals. They all need "discussion".
Time for an holiday, Ed.
Did I miss anything?
FPT: Thanks for the response on MPs second jobs. Seems like the rules would be very messy and thus resemble Swiss cheese.
My initial reaction to the 2nd job proposal is one of caution, born both out of concern about practicalities and of principle. I would not say I am definitely again the idea of a limit on outside earnings, even the banning of them completely; but at this current moment and with limited detail to hand I feel unable to declare to be completely at one with Miliband on this issue.
Practicalities first. There are issues over how one defines outside interests, a second job and subsequently monitor it. None are likely to be insurmountable but are worth considering further. If there is to be a limit on additional earnings and/or outside activity rather than an outright ban, there are issues over how much time can be spent and income earned. Clearly some jobs take up more time than others, and come with substantially different pay rates.
In terms of the principles, here my considerations are more varied. First, I am naturally a little wary of fuelling further public criticism of MPs and wonder if this move plays well to the gallery, but will result in us losing other things of use to our wider politics. Don’t get me wrong, a number of MPs are firmly isolated from the concerns of the general public stuck in the Westminster bubble, a number have done very little to garner public trust (expenses, lobbying etc) and this is wrong; yet part of me is always a little wary of wielding the big stick of criticism too far. Why? First, because there are many hard working, honest, committed MPs who get tarred with the same brush; and second, because I worry that by poisoning the well in terms of public perception of our politicians that we will only serve to put off the good, committed people we need in politics, those who don’t want to be accused of being ‘all the same’.
The next consideration I had was whether a limit on outside income would in some way diminish the diversity (specifically in working terms) of our MPs. Earn approximately £70,000 per year as a MP, albeit with plenty of perks, or earn substantially more in some parts of the both the public and private sector without some of the criticism that comes with the job. I think we can discount this though, as I genuinely feel that the desire to serve is strong enough, that many people will put on hold or abandon financially successful careers to make a difference as a MP. Today MPs can still make an enormous contribution to their local community and country.
This however connects to Miliband’s point, noted in his speech about serving as MP being a privilege and duty. He is right, but I am not altogether convinced that this position and earning money from a second job are mutually exclusive. It seems a somewhat exclusionary perspective, with little room for nuance. Is an individual’s sense of duty and feeling of being privileged to do a job really undermined by the fact they have another job too? I’m not sure of the logic here.
My next consideration is over experience. Many people would agree that the problem with our politics is it is too insular. The Westminster bubble talk among themselves and periodically seek to connect with the wider population. Our MPs largely look the same in terms of educational and working background. Is there a danger that placing a limit on second jobs might make this worse? Will we not institutionalise further the notion of the professional politician? Yes an individual can gain ‘real world’ experience prior to becoming a MP and then gain more through engaging with outsiders in say, select committees; but I am not convinced this is a sufficient substitute for what can be called ‘lived experience’ – getting out there and seeing things first hand. Moreover experience, can in certain industries more than others, rapidly become outdated. Doesn’t the second job help keep MPs up-to-date and more connected to communities outside of the Westminster bubble?
Don’t get me wrong, there are probably MPs for whom their second or even a third job is not pursued for these reasons. Yet, on the one hand I am not sure how we can ever be completely sure of what their true intentions are and more pertinently I am not sure concern about a few, should lead to the banning or heavy restriction of a practice for all. I guess on this issue I am naturally inclined to be sceptical of implementing restrictions. I also completely accept that tackling the Westminster bubble issue goes well beyond whether MPs do second jobs, and is more about how they engage with the public on a day to day basis and so forth. Yet, still restricting outside income, I am not convinced it will ease the bubble problem.
Ultimately I think I am left with the position that the voters should decide. If they feel their MP is earning too much and working too many hours outside of their MP commitments (here there should be complete transparency of information) they should vote them out of office. If the MPs constituency party is concerned, de-select them. But universal rules, particularly rules designed in the midst of a party leader trying to regain the initiative whilst under pressure, are not something I am naturally inclined to support.
Ed Miliband has raised the issue, it is worthy of debate, more information is required. But for now, I think caution should be the default reaction to his suggestions. I would appreciate any feedback, as I am genuinely trying to make my mind up on this.
'Did I miss anything?'
Yes, Brown said he was going to stop MP's from having second job when he was PM.
Now Brown as an MP has a second job Ed wants to stop it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419
Brilliant, nuanced post. Thanks.
Think EdM pretty much did that today.
The biggest problem I'd foresee is that it would lead to much greater pressure (primarily, but not exclusively, from the right) for higher MPs salaries which would be a great outcome for the Tories: even though their MPs are still more likely that Labour MPs to expect a higher salary, they can blame Ed for wanting to pay MPs more.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
There was a suggestion on here the other day that one way to deal with second jobs is to deduct the monies earned from their salaries down to zero, if appropriate. I think that has a lot to commend it. If an MP strongly believes their outside interest (one or two still do the odd shift as GPs for example) helps them do their main job then fine, they can make that choice.
If they earn more than their salary that is a matter for their constituents.
This whole thing will be messy to define. Whilst it is a trap for the Tories, it could also snatch many Labour MPs as well if they are not careful.
An area in much more need of reform is the revolving door between parliament and private industry after an MP (and especially a minister) leaves parliament. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is far too lax IMHO.
It won't be long before OGH is comparing Ed to Hannibal and Dave to Scipio and Caesar.
Reading back through the previous post, it seems the practicalities issue I raise has been noted widely too. This may be another of those occasions when the party politics of an issue somewhat blurs an issue and even constrains full debate over it.
When it was put to him that Ed Miliband did not want any individuals to be paying money to Labour through affiliation fees unless they wanted to, McCluskey said he agreed with this in principle. He said that he was making a different point in his Guardian article.
"That was completely different. I was talking about the difference between opting into a political levy as opposed to opting out. Ed ... made it clear that the political levy would stay as it is. What he’s talking about is those of our members who pay the political levy, he wants them to have a second option, as it were, to see whether they want to opt in to becoming associate members of the Labour party. And it would be on that basis that unions would pay the affiliation ..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jul/09/ed-miliband-reforming-labour-unions-live
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100225624/ed-miliband-has-lost-control-of-events-how-can-he-be-sure-that-his-party-will-back-him/
"He has dressed up what is a political necessity forced on him by weakness in some tosh about Labour's "special responsibility" to foster better politics for the working classes (as if the middle classes or even the filthy rich don't want good politics as well). "
"The standout announcement, though, is his tilt at MPs' outside earnings "sometimes paying higher salaries than the job of an MP itself". This is classic political chaff, an attempt to get a debate going about the Tories to draw attention away from his own troubles. "
"Mr Miliband is in a political hole. His speech may gain him some reprieve, but he is not in control of events, and is not strong enough to be sure that his party, let alone its union members, will line up behind him."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100225411/how-i-should-have-died-just-before-lunch-today/
"How I should have died just before lunch today"
"But Labour needs to confront the mistakes made in its Blairite past as much as it does its Militant tendency.
That would require genuine leadership, something that Ed has hitherto lacked. For Miliband’s second big problem is himself. He is the Julia Gillard of UK politics – worthy, probably quite nice, but lacking in fibre, unconvincing and fundamentally unlikeable. There’s that strange accent that wanders from region to region in search of words to kill (he is the first man to pronounce the word “year” with three syllables).
There’s the hair that can’t decide if it’s grey, black or Dalmatian dog. And there’s his odd tendency to lose track of the world mid-sentence and break away from his speech to contemplate some elusive spot in the far distance that the rest of us can’t see. Where does your mind go to in those moments, Ed? I like to imagine it’s he sees monkeys frolicking on swings.
What his mind does not contemplate is history, for Miliband eschews this with adolescent ego. He lacks care for Labour’s bifurcated philosophical tradition. One half is its working-class protectionism: patriotic, anti-globalisation, populist, “jobs for the boys” etc.
The other is its socialist romanticism – its endless, often hopeless, quest to banish poverty and end war. The two halves combined produces a British socialism that is less dogmatic than it is spiritual. After the collapse of Marxist economics, the Labour movement’s historic crusade became to civilise capitalism, to foster a society that puts people before profit and encourages the individual to aspire to something more than just making money.
Ed Miliband seems disconnected from this politics of the heart; he prefers to find comfort in detail and wonkery. You get the impression that he goes home at night and snuggles up to a warm bar chart."
Little Ed is reacting as usual and he's reacting to tory and Blairite criticisms. That means he's only setting the agenda within the confines of those areas that his Blairite chums want him to react.
He's talked about Falkirk being a symbol which sort of misses the point that the Brown Blair splits that are swirling around it and Watson's departure were very real. He's hardly going to make those splits vanish by appeasing the Blairites. Like the swivel-eyed loon wing of the tory party they will never be appeased but just keep coming back for more. Unless Ed steps down to make way for brother David they will keep piling on the pressure and the Blairite Hodges of the world will be back to business as usual in a few weeks or less demanding yet more blue labour triangulation on tory policies.
In an effort to try and balance things little Ed's posturing on limiting MPs outside earnings isn't just a broadside at the tories but quite a few of the extremely lucratively paid Blairites as well. Not least of which is the 'man of peace' himself Tony Blair.
I somehow doubt that this is the last we are going to hear about all this as Falkirk and Unite are symptoms not the cause. As long as there are such wide splits over which direction the labour party is taking then there are going to be Falkirks and shadow cabinet members resigning and briefing against each other. Voluntary union opt-ins and MPs raking it in from outside jobs notwithstanding.
No matter.
You can pretend Watson's quitting had nothing to do with the Blairites all you wish but the Hodges are taking over the asylum in the labour party at the moment and the Hodges are just like the GOP lunatic wing. Out of touch, manna from heaven for the opposing parties and permanently unhappy with their own party and leaders.
Don't think anyone knows,but we are about to find out.
'Under an agreement negotiated by Tony Blair, Britain has to opt out of all the measures even if it only wants to end British involvement in one of them. Britain will wait until the conclusion of the negotiations with the EU on the 35 measures it hopes to continue to back before exercising the mass opt out.'
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3188/Perceptions-are-not-reality-the-top-10-we-get-wrong.aspx
The IMF is now predicting UK growth of 0.9% this year, up by 0.3% since its last report in April. More soon.
Though I'm sure Yougov could find a majority for keeping prisoners inside and throwing away the key that doesn't necessarily translate into support for the party advocating it. What's more appealing to UKIPers is just preaching to the choir and when it comes to cruel and unusual punishment Farage will trump anyone.
But what it does do is reconfirm the Tories as the 'Nasty Party' with wavering ex Lib Dems.
4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100
9. Benefit bill: people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m[xi], compared with £5bn[xii] for raising the pension age and £1.7bn[xiii] for stopping child benefit for wealthier households
So instead of correcting the false perceptions we get a weak little Ed and the labour party dithering over which welfare policy to triangulate on to appease the Hodges and the Blairites.
Nothing that posturing on MPs earnings and a union opt-in won't fix then.
IMF revises some f'casts ...
US to 1.7% from 1,9%
UK to +0.9% from +0.6%
EZ -0.6% from -0.3%
Japan 2% (ncrease)
World 3.1% from 3.3%
Will the internet help or hinder ?
I think maybe it's people's definition of 'fraud' that varies. I think many people believe that the system itself allows people who shouldn't be claiming (in their view) to get benefits. Depends how they asked the question though.
"If people are fick and have crap perceptions I'd be tempted to blame the meedja rather than politicos."
I'd congratulate Dave's advertisers. Who'd have thought his 'Broken Britain' message would have worked so well
(or that he'd have to live with the consequences)
That looks interesting as well.
Relatedly, S&P are defending themselves in court against investors who believed their ratings, on the grounds that any reasonable person would have known they were full of shit all along:
http://mobilizer.instapaper.com/m?u=http://bloom.bg/1aRS8aR
It is also graduation week and many new grads come down to be photographed (with parents et al) against the backdrop of the sea and hills.
Today one young lady after being photographed in dress, cap and gown, suddenly slipped off the dress and was photographed in micro-bikini, cap and gown and of course high heels. Brightened up a rather technically-complex afternoon.
How long can this keep miliband on the front foot ?
Is he right, BTW?
LOL
It is a great pity Mrs B is no longer a regular here.
UK to +0.9% from +0.6%
EZ -0.6% from -0.3%
If you are a teacher earning £35-£40,000 you'll wonder why an MP can't survive happily on £65,000. If you're a GP on £105,000 you'll be amazed that they can get by on so little.
Anyone on the average wage of c£25,000 will be staggered at the whole debate!
Only 3 countries among cited, including worryingly emerging economies, see 2013 forecast upgraded: Japan, Canada, UK pic.twitter.com/4QQjrpK9H0
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/354603619317870592/photo/1
UK GDP +0.6% in the second quarter - NIESR view
http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2013/06/uk-gdp-forecasts-round-up-june-2013/ - Bank of England
"ING economist James Knightley says: “[W]e should be looking for a positive GDP figure in the region of 0.4 to 0.5% quarter-on-quarter for the second quarter of 2013. Markit reports that latest “data suggest that economic growth will have picked up in the second quarter compared to the 0.3% increase in GDP seen in the first quarter, shaping up to reach 0.5% if June sees sustained growth."
http://www.poundsterlinglive.com/index.php/breaking-news-articles/178-rbs-forecasting-growth-for-uk-economy-4534534 - RBS
[Edit: also per Tykejohnno, "UK GDP +0.6% in the second quarter - NIESR view"]
I wonder what the IMF breakdown is - does it forecast less than say 0.5% growth for Q2, or virtual stagnation for the rest of the year?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100225653/today-ed-miliband-showed-that-he-doesnt-want-to-be-labour-leader-he-wants-to-be-prime-minister/
Blair, Hodges - just needs Jim Murphy to shout hurrah and he's got the set.
One being the overwhelming public support for a Leveson like response and the other was Clegg recognising that and making it clear he was up for a Leveson style response.
Not so for this posturing. The why will be interesting as Cleggy was 'helpfully' offering little Ed government backing for the union opt-in. Not a good sign when even the toxic Clegg joins in the 'fun'.
Tories would be smart to outflank Miliband by holding new open primaries (as opposed to closed ones). But Cameron fearful of new rebels.
It's not a bad article, actually. If Ed plays this one through then he's relying on the gamble that the unions realise that they have to be seen to go along with his proposals: because if the unions are seen to unseat a Labour leader, it will make the Labour party unelectable, thereby destroying the unions' power. Early signs are that it's working, although a fair analysis might be that he's found a way of securing his position at the expense of the continued relevance of the union movement. Which is a bit of a shame, perhaps, because two parties for sale to the highest corporate bidder is probably less healthy that one for sale to union members and the other for sale to corporate bidders.
I could go on ;-)
Running from the debates aren't an option. He would be slaughtered for such obvious cowardice.
What will happen is that Crosby will use the debates as a focal point to try and get Cammie to spin all his 'Red Ed'' 'unions will eat your children' lines. Because the sad truth for little Ed is that he could wear a Thatcher wig for the next couple of years and adopt every single tory policy for the next election and he will still be hammered by the tory party machine and their tame newspapers for being the next Kinnock and Scargill rolled into one.
That's why Corsby was hired. To do to little Ed what he did to Ken. Nothing will stop that.
I suppose it's possible that all of these are true, but it seems inherently unlikely.
He was going to do wonders for the French economy ;-)
What the hell does that mean? I thought in our justice system a person is either guilty or not guilty, (except in Scotland):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358815/Barry-George-loses-compensation-bid-wrongly-convicted-Jill-Dandos-murder.html
Not shabby.
What has your hero Hollande done ? Dithered - rEd style.
We shall all bow down before the mighty Canada.
Larry Whitty turned down job of implementing Ed M's reform plan as feared was unworkable & groundwork had not been done.