Tory Bashing and Academic waffle are the limits of Ed Miliband’s leadership

The most memorable line in Peter Shaffer’s terrific 1984 film, Amadeus, comes after an audience have been treated to another of Mozart’s spectacular operas. At the conclusion Mozart is warmly congratulated by Emperor Joseph II, only to be told that his latest masterpiece contained “too many notes.” Mozart’s retort is both brilliant and arrogant, asking the Emperor to identify which such notes he should dispense with.

I won’t overburden him and describe Ed Miliband as the Mozart of the political world…but fast forward 200 years and a similar affliction affects the Labour leader.

There is quite simply something of the too many notes about him.

His Labour Party is overflowing with ideas. Full to bursting. Miliband’s stewardship has already come complete with a vision for a fairer, more responsible, capitalism. There’s a whole dossier outlining how he hopes to reformulate the state.

I can’t remember an opposition leader who’s tried to address so many issues all at once. Attacking rewards for failure, bankers’ bonuses, the need to share the spoils of victory, empowering local communities (find me a leader who hasn’t promised this over the last decade). It’s all there.

Early criticism that the party lacks ideas now looks foolish. The real problem is that the party has too many ideas. And yet on the one idea that matters, how it’ll do more with less should it win, it falls worryingly short.

From the moment he took over, Ed Miliband has had a lot to say about everything. His problem has been putting his thoughts down into a coherent sentence. One that someone whose only political act is voting in a general election can understand.

Last weekend, Labour MP John Mann (£) and other party figures finally articulated what any observer with half a brain knows and has been saying for the last couple of years. They warned Miliband of “trying to be too clever.” Now was time for some “understandable” policies.

Mann urged him to start speaking:

“The language of voters in Bassetlaw not academics in Hampstead. It’s talking clear, simple language that people understand. It’s all too clever at the moment. A reshuffle of his speechwriters would help.”

“We're trying to be too clever - too many nuanced messages to too many different people. It needs to able to address my constituents, and people like them around the country in simple unambiguous terms.”

When Ed Miliband wasn’t spending time delivering another academic-type lecture, he was wasting time in the early days of this parliament opposing. Opposing Tory cuts  - all of them – opposing public service reform (in education in particular).

Without articulating alternatives you are no better than a protest party. A party where people can register their discontent and anger.  Not a party ready to govern. Certainly not a party for the undecideds or the non tribals of this world.

Under Ed Miliband, Labour has become more tribal than ever before. Recent keynote speeches have summed up an obvious problem with his leadership: he is at his most comfortable when playing to the gallery. That is, when playing it safe, saying things that his party’s core base want to hear. Saying things that will get a rise, that will get his troops united in their loathing of the Tories and their Lib Dem puppets.

Which can work, but only to a limited extent.  You’re expending energy convincing people who are already convinced.

Last year’s Party Conference speech was a classic case in point. In his 2012 Conference speech, his demolition of the coalition – weakened and bruised after that year’s budget – was inch perfect.

Last year we should have got more of what a future Labour government would look like in another austerity parliament. Instead, we got another episode of Tory bashing. And Murdoch bashing. And NHS pedestal raising.  And of course the members lapped it up. This is why they came. But, they were all going to be voting Labour no matter what Ed Miliband said.

And so it’s continued. Heavily trailed speeches since have followed a similar pattern. If Miliband peaked during Conference 2012, Conference 2013 highlighted a leadership on the slide. The slide hasn’t stopped since.

Tory bashing only gets you so far because in the end, in order to win power, Labour might actually need the support of some of these Tories. And nobody likes to be bashed for long.

The leadership are behaving in much the same way as your average Labour activist on Twitter: uninterested in the constructive criticism and heavily defensive. What the hell do you know, they shout. We’re ahead in the polls. That line of attack is now a few months away from vanishing.

 

This first appeared on Speaker's Chair on Tuesday 25th March 2014

Tory Bingo poster wasn’t aimed at middle class politicos on Twitter all day

There’s no two ways about it. The language is clunky, unsubtle, and at first sights pretty patronising. Helping “hardworking people do more of the things they enjoy.”

“Hardworking people” seems to be the establishment’s attempts at embracing classless terminology. An irritating, over-used term, that simultaneously covers working and middle class folk.

It’s the ‘they’ part of the poster that seems to have got people up in arms.

The implication being ‘they’ are not us. ‘They’ spend their leisure time in the pub or down the bingo hall. Not activities we indulge them, but if it keeps ‘them’ happy, who are we to argue. Here’s your reward for a hard few years: halving the bingo tax and a penny off beer duty. Cheers!

There’s no doubt this poster will do nothing to counter the Tories being out of touch charge. They’re destined to fight the election against this backdrop. They’ll be hoping that out of touch but fiscally responsible trumps the weak and backs away from making tough decisions lot.

Sorry to break this to you dearest Twitterati, but I’m pretty sure the poster wasn’t designed with you in mind. If you spend most of your day on Twitter, commenting on politics, slagging off the Tories and/or Labour, if your only experience of a working men’s club comes from Phoenix Nights, you are definitely not the target audience.

Those who stand to benefit from said cuts will be delighted. They’re certainly not going to be fussed about a poster they’re unlikely to ever see. You see, Twitter isn’t the font of all knowledge, shocking as that may seem to some. Twitter loves to bully people into group-think, but it really isn’t an accurate representation of life out there.

I’m on the damn thing every day, but have always made sure to take a lot of what gets commented and scrutinised on there with a pinch of salt.

Yes, pundits from the Daily Mail to The Guardian have been equally scathing about the poster. Labour will use it in future campaigns as example no. 83 of the scorn Etonians have for the masses. Except, it’ll be a campaign that resonates with the usual suspects: those who despise Tories and always will. Or at least those who would never dream of voting Conservative no matter what they do.

My hunch is that the Tory brass who signed this off were making a direct appeal to traditional, Thatcherite, working class, voters. The ones who propelled her and kept her in office for 11 years. The ones Nigel Farage and his motley crew have been so successful in winning over. For the time being, anyway.

A bit of flack on Twitter won’t distract from CCHQ’s central message: out of the way Ukip. We want our working class supporters back.

This first appeared on Speaker's Chair on Thursday 20th March 2014

Kevin Pietersen: for once the powers that be have made the right decision

Always a drama with Kevin Pietersen. The way he batted, the way he got (himself) out, and the way he theatrically tumbled to the ground when fielding, pausing for effect, looking like he picked up a niggle. Pietersen never did understated. A softly spoken man when chatting to the media, almost bashful at times, in contrast to his expansive and exaggerated drives, pull shots and hooks.

It’s a sad but inevitable day that it’s had to end like this. But Pietersen is lucky he’s been allowed to play for England this long: to get to his 100 caps and pass 8,000 Test runs. He should have been axed after 2012’s ‘Textgate’ saga. How can anyone possibly have a bad word to say about one of the gentlemen of sport, Andrew Strauss?

Many of England’s players have their own newspaper columns where they say not very much. However one column that sticks in my mind came from James Anderson in the Mail on Sunday, soon after Pietersen had been dropped from the final Test against South Africa in the summer of 2012, after the ‘Textgate’ revelations came to light:

“Frankly, as players, all this has been a distraction we could well do without as we approach a massively important final match at Lord’s.

“Going into the match without Kevin wouldn’t be ideal because, as everyone who saw the knock last week will know, an innings like that is invaluable.

“At the same time, no player is ever bigger than the team.

“Kevin talked about having issues within the dressing room. What’s frustrating is that this was, literally, the first we knew about it. Kevin has mentioned nothing to us.”

That last sentence is very revealing. Jonathan Agnew, a pundit who I respect more than any other, has cautioned against speculating about what did and didn’t happen within the dressing room over the last few years. Unless you were there you can’t possibly know. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have a good educated guess.

Mike Atherton, in his Times (£) piece today, notes bluntly, that Pietersen simply ran out of allies:

“Even Alastair Cook, the young captain who had taken Pietersen back into the fold after the retirement of Andrew Strauss, now wants to rebuild an England team without him.

“Cook has come to realise that all that glitters out in the middle is not necessarily gold in the dressing room.”

Atherton adds that all the key figures at the ECB were unanimous in their decision. And the key line:

“Downton had also taken findings from England players after the whitewash in Australia, and there were no voices among the senior players telling him that Pietersen should remain.”

As a huge England fan and a Pietersen devotee (until the last couple of years, anyway) I actually find that sentence quite upsetting. Assuming what Atherton says is true, and cricket journos seem to get closer to the players than in other sports, it doesn’t say much for Pietersen as a member of the team.

There have always been doubts and whispers that he never got on with his teammates. That he was a bit of a loner off the field who didn’t really mix with the others. Again, it’s hard to know for certain how accurate these reports are. But when the same stories emerge time and again you begin to wonder.

There were issues with his time at Nottinghamshire and apparent fallings out with teammates. He left Hampshire after barely playing any matches for them, citing the need to be closer to his family in London. He fell out very publically with England coach Peter Moores when he was captain. They both left their roles soon after. In his autobiography, released in 2011, Graeme Swann wrote:

“There is no doubt that Kev is a good player, a really fine batsman, but he was never the right man to be captain."

A lot of discussion since the news broke yesterday has centered around the likes of Michael Vaughan and the view that every team needs to be able to manage mavericks. This belies the fact that England have been trying to manage this maverick since the very beginning and have done pretty well. They have been more than accommodating.

I would argue that a player of less ability wouldn’t have been tolerated for this long. I’m sure there are times when you can make exceptions and forgive and forget, but Pietersen has been trying the patience of a lot of people over a good number of years. He’s had his chances. Several of them.

In terms of his performances on the pitch, his shot selection has got more erratic, even by his crazy standards. Some of his dismissals in the most recent Ashes were unforgiveable. Agnew argues that:

“He dug deep and fought only once, when he scored 71 and 49 at Melbourne.

“If he had averaged 40 and been caught behind every time, then he may have survived. However, the way he got out in the first three Tests in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth will have played a big part in the decision taken by the ECB.

“Pietersen has always batted however he feels on a particular day, but if he could not get his head down and play for the team when they were up against it, could he ever do so?”

When getting out at Perth, to yet another reckless shot, he tweeted his delight at having reached 8,000 Test runs. The fact that England were on the verge of another trashing, and with it the surrendering of the Ashes, made the timing of the tweet a little insensitive to say the least.

During his summarising over the winter, Geoffrey Boycott commented that far from inspiring his younger teammates, the way Pietersen was batting, the way he kept losing concentration and playing stupid shots, showed he wasn’t really much of an example to others. Worse, he kept getting out the same way, expressing no regret because that’s just how he plays, and then got away with it because he’s Kevin Pietersen.

This isn’t about picking a scapegoat. This is about someone who now seems incapable of playing for the team when the situation demands it, about someone who has gone about alienating his colleagues who no doubt have been a little resentful that he’s got away with things others would surely have not.

It’s the end of the greatest England player I’ve ever had the privilege to see. When batting I never dared leave the room, such was the unpredictable nature of his play. He’s given us years of thrills and excitement. He’s also given everyone involved one hell of a headache. For once, the powers that be have made the right decision.   

This piece was first published by Speaker's Chair on Wednesday 5th February 2014

The NHS needs to adapt to the lives of working people

Most proposed reforms carry with them the promise of a bundle of cash. If we throw X billion at Y problem, the public will see we’re doing something and said problem will be fixed. But the fact that Labour invested huge sums in education and health yet we still have an underperforming state school system, and a health service that often fails to get the basics right, shows the limitations of money.

It’s always been a source of frustration for me that aspects of the NHS don’t seem to cater for those in work, i.e. most of us. If you’re elderly, unemployed, self-employed or a student, you’re fine. You can afford the rigidity the service demands. But, if you work the standard 9-5, Monday to Friday shift, you’ll find a health service not always accommodating to your needs.

This is particularly the case when trying to see your GP, although I’ve never really had my own GP. I always laugh when the receptionist asks who my GP is. I never see the same person twice so your guess is as good as mine is the response I never but should give.

Recent experiences have left me frustrated, angry and bemused at how inflexible and unresponsive our system is. Often it leaves me with the impression that the needs of its staff come way above those of its patients. The NHS should adapt according to how we lead our lives and not bristle every time changes are suggested that attempt to do just that.   

Speak to any working person and I’ll have a small wager that most of them have had one of those ‘why is this so difficult?’ moments. I regularly have one of those moments.

Because people were getting fed up at not being able to phone their surgery and make an appointment to see their GP on that same day, the last Labour government stepped in to remedy that. In typical Labour fashion, they put something right by going to the other extreme. How to attract more GPs? Pay them a whopping salary, tie them in to long contracts, and allow them to opt out of evening and weekend work. Can’t see your GP on the same day? From 8.30am put your surgery number on redial and compete with every other poor sod also frantically trying to get one of the handful of available slots that day.

Now trying to book a GP appointment has become as much of a lottery as trying to get through to Ticketmaster to book concert tickets. Yes I know, most of the latter is now done online, but it’s much more fun dialling the same number over a hundred times in an hour on the off chance that the engaged tone will miraculously become the ringing tone.

If you plan to ring up at 8.30, you need to be organised. Where will you be at 8.30am? Not everyone gets to work at this time. Londoners tend to start later than everyone else. 8.30 is probably going to be too late to leave for work. You may be stuck on the tube at 8.30, or on a crowded bus, or even worse, in an open plan office. You can’t disappear from your desk for an hour with your mobile stuck on redial. But, the best thing about this system is that it doesn’t realise how barmy it actually is.

The last time I took part in this process left me grumpy all day. At work, at 8.30am, ready to start ringing. Incredibly, I got through within 10 minutes. Only about 20 redials needed. I asked if I could have the latest possible appointment. Was I able to come in at 9.30? Wow, that is late, I had no idea my surgery opened that late. Good for them. They didn’t. The receptionist meant in 40 minutes time. I explained that wasn’t possible as I was already at work and reliant on public transport. I would never have made it back in time. I meant later as in not early.

I was offered 11.30am. Again, not convenient. Unfortunately, my working day is longer than 8.30-11am. I was told all the late appointments had been taken. Already? Yes, they’d been booked up in advance. How advanced I enquired? A few weeks ago. If I wanted a late slot, the next available day would be in two weeks. Reluctantly and quietly fuming I asked for one of those. The receptionist told me patients have to ring after 11.30 to make future – non same day - appointments. It was at this moment I leapt aboard my high horse to begin the inevitable rant, but being the polite chap that I am, made sure I prefaced it with a courteous: “look, I know none of this is your fault. It’s the system.”

If for whatever reason you are home all day, you have the luxury of being able to see your GP at anytime. If you don’t, be prepared to say very rude things the next time you hear some Leftist devotee describe the NHS as ‘the envy of the world.’

I know this isn’t something that afflicts all people. Some surgeries offer late night appointments, although often reserved for one day a week. You are now able to book online if you’re lucky.

My new surgery has embraced the internet age and offers this service. However, in order to be eligible to use it, you first need to fill in a form, which can be emailed back. My surgery informed me last week that they currently have no working email address so the form has to be returned in person. Thus, if you want to use the online booking procedure, you need to fill in the form online, print it out, and then traipse to the surgery to hand it in, in person. That is when you have the time to go to your surgery. On a day you’re not working of course. I was also helpfully notified that only some appointments to see only certain doctors would be available online.

When I first joined this surgery I was told that my registration form couldn’t be filled in online but had to be brought back in person. I’d left any suitable ID at home so couldn’t hand it in there and then. Two trips to register were required.

It shouldn’t be this hard. I realise that many people, such as the elderly, don’t have access to the internet, or are uncomfortable at using it, but for those that do, having to revert back to a time where things need to be booked over the phone, and forms need to be handed in, is a right pain in the backside.

When politicians talk about reforming the NHS or any other area of the public sector, it’s the little things they need to get right. The things that shouldn’t cost a fortune.

The NHS is not flexible or internet-friendly enough. The backlash from GPs when the government proposed that all surgeries open weekends and evenings is evidence to me that they’ve had it their own way for far too long. For £103,000 a year (the average salary of a GP partner), the least they should be doing is opening for a few hours on the weekend and until at least 8pm during the week.

Our medical records should be available online. Patients should be able to email surgeries rather than rely on phoning. Steps are already in place to ensure that patients will soon be able to register to see a GP near where they work, or near their children’s school. Ideally, we’d have the option of registering at two practices: one near home and one near work.

It’s true that those of a working age are also the least likely to need a GP, but that doesn’t mean that when we do need one, the process should be tortuous. The hard-working-people-that-want-to-get-on would like to see their GP at a time of their convenience please.

 

This comment piece was first published on Speaker's Chair on Tuesday 4th February 2014

Why I’ve left the Labour Party

Ever since the age of 16, politics has been a constant in my life.  But late last year I realised - party politics just isn’t me.  Maybe that’s something I should have realised earlier.  I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party (twice), and have voted for the Lib Dems and Greens at various elections. Maybe I was just a swing voter all along.  All I knew was, I loved politics, and I wanted to be involved.

But that wasn’t, and isn’t, enough.

My membership of the Conservative Party coincided with a spell as an intern at their HQ. I was told membership was a condition of working there. What interning for the Tories did do was convince me that I definitely wasn’t a true blue, even though I had views on crime and education that would chime with theirs.

I was a Labour activist in Bristol for a time in the 2000s (the exact period escapes me) until I cancelled my membership before moving abroad for three years in 2009. I rejoined the party in the summer of 2012. I cancelled my membership (or more accurately I simply halted my direct debit payments) for the second time in December. The third and perhaps last time I join a political party.

Even as a member I could never quite muster the ‘we’ bit. ‘We’ must be tougher on immigration, ‘we’ must make our policies clearer to the public. We must do this, we must challenge ‘them’ doing that. The intense tribalism of politics is what galvanises some people. The feeling not of merely trying to win, but also of kicking one’s opponents into the dirt. It has the very opposite effect on me.

As a Labour member and activist (and when not one) I have never subscribed to the view that ‘all Tories are scum,’ that the ‘Lib Dems are scum’ for going into coalition with them. I never ‘hated’ my opponents. I may have disagreed with some of their politics (some, not all), but I didn’t wish them ill.  Sometimes they even came up with ideas that I thought merited dialogue, and even – God forbid – a modicum of praise.  Some of the fierce tribalism on display would make a hardened football supporter blush. It’s amazing how many activists are unable to accept that others have different opinions to them. It doesn’t mean they’re bad people.

It was after my most recent stint as a Labour member that I decided I was done with this nonsense. And it is nonsense. Supporting a party through thick and thin, voting for the same party at every election your whole life come what may, is faintly absurd. Because the party you voted for in the 1970s is certainly not the same party you voted for this decade.

Party policies change. Regularly. Public opinion shifts, attitudes harden or soften, and so do party attitudes. To keep backing that same party, or to put it another way, to not entertain the possibility of voting for another party, is a little foolish.

Failing to get selected as a candidate at this year’s local elections in Bristol (I’d been a candidate once before, in 2007, and enjoyed the experience) was what finally did it for me. But if you think this is simply a tale of sour grapes by a snubbed and bitter activist, you don’t know your local politics that well.

Throughout my most recent time as a Labour activist I was witness to almost everything that puts most (sane) people off party politics: the nastiness, the witch-hunts, the online campaigns of character assassination, the rudeness and the factions. Bear in mind all this is within the same party. It also meant inhabiting the same space as some of the most unpleasant people I have ever come across. With ‘comrades’ like these....

The thing I find hilarious about political parties is that they all preach loyalty and stress the importance of working together for a common cause. The reality is loyalty works one way. They get what they can from you and when they’re done they spit you out and move on to the next gullible sod.  And if you dare to challenge their way of doing things, in the interests of diversity and finding a better way, well....

During my interview last year to try and become a council candidate my occasionally less than favourable tweets about the Labour hierarchy were seized upon as a liability. Anyone wishing to question the performance of the shadow cabinet should do so in private, preferably in a darkened room, alone.

It’s blind loyalty that gets you places in politics, not ability or creativity. And certainly not charisma. People with personalities are essentially loose cannons. Parties hate unpredictability. They fear mavericks.

Local politics is simply a microcosm of what happens nationally, but a lot pettier, and with people who think they’re a lot more important than they really are. And, when it comes to local politics, these people are the ones who tend to run the show. Falling foul of the favoured faction pretty much means you’re not going to get anywhere.

Whilst I was waiting for the bus home on rejection evening, admiring the garishly blue Christmas decorations and thinking how lucky I am to live in a city as wonderful as Bristol, I chuckled to myself at how faintly ridiculous so much of politics is. Organisations that have been described as rotten to the core like FIFA or the IOC would be proud at how little transparency and openness is on display when crucial processes such as selecting potentially future parliamentarians take place. Chuckling at how ridiculous (and astonishing) it is that our system allows us to preside over such a closed way of doing democracy.

My rejection was the final nail in the coffin, the final reason in a catalogue of reasons for quitting Labour. In truth I was never really part of them. I never cared as much about ‘we.’ I met some lovely people on the way, mainly older activists (I wonder if that’s significant), but on the whole I won’t miss it. And I have after all only left a political party. None of this diminishes how I feel about politics.

Politics in Britain, probably everywhere, is a strange thing. Something that affects every facet of our lives inhabited by people so ordinary. When I look around all the parties in England I struggle to pick out the people who will inspire me. I struggle to recall that great speech that got everyone talking.

In Ed Miliband I see a good, decent man, but not a future prime minister. As I found out in Bristol, the party wants willing, subservient and unquestioning foot soldiers. Miliband has surrounded himself with much the same. It is this (and a number of other reasons) which will do for him. The dissenters have been confined to grumbling in the media.

Miliband, Cameron, Clegg, it’s not their fault. They’re part of a system. One which hoovers up those who follow the inevitable path of one of either private education, Oxbridge, or a healthy dollop of nepotism. Ideally all three. There are so few personalities in politics, so few people to look up to, and so few bright ideas, because there are so few people who don’t look and sound the same in it. They may as well assign them numbers, it’s that hard to tell them apart.

Being a party activist is ultimately about going along to meetings (where little of worth will be said or achieved), door knocking and leafleting in all weathers, in the knowledge that the people around you all want the same thing: your party in power at all costs. My chastening time in local politics has naturally clouded my views, but even before then I failed at the first hurdle. I didn’t want the same thing as everybody else. Or at least not forever.  And in politics that makes you an outsider.

This post first appeared on Speaker's Chair on Tuesday 14th January 2014

Sharon Shoesmith, David Nicholson, BBC Execs: rewarding failure is now endemic

Rewarding failure is something we’re getting very good at in this country. At the height of the crash in 2008 eye-watering bonuses paid to discredited bank bosses symbolised all that was wrong with extreme laissez faire capitalism. We bailed out the banks, and in turn they thanked us by bailing out their own. To the sum of millions.

Recent years the spotlight has shone on the public sector and on the failings of those at the top. Sharon Shoesmith, the former head of Haringey children’s services, who oversaw the department at the time of the Baby P scandal, has walked away with compensation believed to be around £600,000. Compensation that is for what she saw as her unfair dismissal. She was reportedly after a cool £1million.

Of course she didn’t actually kill one year-old Peter Connelly, but time after time people working under her spectacularly failed even to administer the most basic duties of care. They were there to protect vulnerable children, report any warning signs, and they didn’t. Miss Shoesmith was their boss. Rather than resign with good grace and a heartfelt apology, she felt hard done by. Scapegoated. As head, everyone was answerable to her. She clearly believed she was answerable to nobody.

Sir David Nicholson, the man at the top when the Mid Staffs hospital scandal occurred. For two years he led the strategic healthy authority that oversaw Stafford hospital. A hospital where up to 1,200 people needlessly died after appalling standards of care. Neglect doesn’t even begin to describe how some of the patients were treated. His reward? He’s gone on to become chief executive of NHS England with a salary (including bonuses) just shy of £300,000. When he leaves next March he’ll do so with a £2million pension pot.

George Entwistle, BBC DG for all of 54 days, resigned last November following a disastrous Newsnight report which led to former Tory Treasurer Lord McApline being wrongly accused of child abuse, with the latter’s name and reputation kicked in the dirt for weeks after. Entwistle quit £450,000 richer, on a full year’s salary, rather than the six months he should have got.

It seems that for those in charge taking responsibility no longer applies in any literal sense, but up to a point. When things get hard, all sense of authority conveniently withers away as those at the top make their excuses. As long as they walk away, handsomely remunerated, resigning isn’t really such a big deal anymore.

HS2: Labour are playing games with the government. And enjoying it.

Labour must be enjoying themselves with this HS2 lark. In government they were the brains behind it. In opposition they’ve been for it, sort of for it, wary of it, and now both for or against it depending on which Shadow Cabinet member you speak to. We’re told Ed Miliband is still behind it, but Ed Balls has done everything except pull the plug on Labour’s backing.

As David Cameron admitted, this monster of a project can only succeed with cross-party support. With every caveat imposed by the opposition, the likelihood of it ever getting built gets smaller by the speech.

Labour are well aware that they don’t want to be seen to be anti-business or anti-growth, but they shouldn’t worry. HS2 takes a beating from business leaders on a monthly basis. Opposing it makes economic and business sense.

My feeling is that Miliband is waiting for a moment when he senses the government may be vulnerable, and then be ready to pounce. Shortly after their drubbing at next year’s European elections might do the trick.

It’s indicative of the mess of HS2 that Labour can no longer give it their unconditional backing. And hardly surprising. The last thing they want is this untamed beast waiting for them should they find themselves in government in 18 months’ time.

Energy Prices: Labour still have the best answer

Realistic or not, likely to ever be enacted or not, Labour’s energy price freeze still reverberates around Westminster. The government’s response so far has consisted of telling people to switch suppliers. To who? Now we know they’re all as bad as each other. And expressing its disappointment at the big sixes’ outrageous price hikes. The environment’s now getting it in the neck. Green levies singled out.

Fortunately for Labour, a whopping 80% of the public back their energy stance - who on earth in the poll opposed lower energy bills? Unfortunately for Labour, only 41% think Ed Miliband would carry it through if he became PM. I wouldn’t worry too much though, Ed. The public have long stopped trusting pledges made by any party leader.

This post first appeared on Speaker's Chair on Wednesday 30th October 2013

Forget the swingers. Miliband is staking all on his core vote strategy

You have to admire Ed Miliband. Most would be desperate to rid themselves of the “Red Ed” tag. He seems to take it in his stride. In fact, I think he quite likes it. Being to the left of the public doesn’t seem to faze him. It spurs him on. The public don’t know what’s good for them. He’ll drag them to his way of thinking even if it kills him.

Before his speech, I did my usual “10 things I hope to hear” on Twitter bit. Two were answered. Partly. Number 1: to spell out how he’d help people struggling with the cost of living. And number 9: “two shamefully populist policies.”  I got half my wish on this one.

Whatever the energy companies say, however loudly they protest (the “unreliable witnesses” as Ed has called them), this one will be warmly welcomed by all voters. Whether it stands up in the face of scrutiny, time will tell. We should know once the Tory attack dogs are out in force and the PM’s had his go at conference.

The second – lowering the voting age – reeks of pub politics. A few pals get together down their local and thrash out some raw ideas about how they intend to capture the youth vote. This probably makes most people’s top five. Personally, I’m undecided on this issue, but if pushed, would say that 16 just seems too young to be allowed to vote. Yes, you can die for your country, but only with parental consent.

I was at conference last year (my first) and thought Ed delivered a quite brilliant speech. His attacks on the coalition were down to a tee. I watched this year’s online, and in order to ensure any opinions weren’t polluted by minute by minute commentary on Twitter, turned all social media off. Without having time to gauge the politicos’ instant reactions, my first thoughts were that the Ed I saw last year was an Ed at the peak of his powers. This year’s was an excellent performance: accomplished, smooth, self-deprecating (something Ed is very good at), but one for the activists.

This wasn’t the speech of a future prime minister, but of a Labour leader who bit by bit is remaking the party in his image. Members, supporters, councillors (who seem to be disproportionally on the party’s left wing) lapped it up. This was the Ed they voted for, Blairism and New Labour has been extinguished once and for all.

Ed Miliband is clearly staking everything on winning his core vote, hoping grumbly Liberals fall in line, and that UKIP do their worst to the Cameroons. It’s a huge risk, but a calculated one. Ed is used to taking risks. This is the thing I admire about him. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’ll pay off. Ignore the daily opinion polls. The only poll this year worth paying any attention to was the local election results in May. Labour won 29% of the vote. As they did at the last general election. In three years, they’ve stood still. Time and again it is worth repeating: Labour’s traditional base are an unreliable lot.

Ed knows this too. That was why the Lib Dems got only one mention. There’s no point being too nasty. Many Labour voters want blood. But, in 2015 they’re going to need their yellow friends. As a best case scenario.

The reaction this morning to the energy freeze proposals was to be expected. But, there’s nothing wrong with a bit of economic populism as David Clark over at Shifting Grounds calls it:

“The remarkable thing about these measures is that while both of them [the second, directed at landowners, asking them to either build on or give up empty land] will be attacked by opponents as a lurch to the left, they will nevertheless prove hugely popular with the public.”  

In this respect David Clark is right. The public remain stubborn ‘small c’ conservatives, but retain a mischievous left wing streak. Most would renationalise the railways tomorrow if they could.

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of easy populism. I’ve been pleading to see more of it. The odd tough on crime measure would be nice.

What Ed’s speech has shown is that he has pretty much abandoned trying to woo the swing voter. He obviously thinks they won’t be necessary. He may still capture the ex Lib Dems, but after yesterday’s showing he’ll be able to count on the backing of disgruntled Tories on one hand.

I was pleased to see the environment getting a mention and a nod to one million green jobs, however unrealistic this appears. Green issues have been scandalously sidelined by this government. Short termism always wins the day.

The passages on Murdoch and the NHS shamelessly played to the gallery. I’m afraid I thought some of his comments on the NHS were ill judged. This has not been a good year for health professionals. Whether you believe the coalition wish to privatise the hell out of the NHS or not, shouldn’t detract from recent or past cases of negligence and appalling standards of care that have made headlines.

The reaction by GPs at being told they should work out of hours and on weekends in return for their ample salary has been unedifying. Miliband was right that Labour resuscitated the NHS, but the needlessly overgenerous salaries to GPs and consultants is evidence of money not well spent when times were good.

I’m getting increasingly irritated by the “We Love the NHS” mantra that all Labour supporters feel we must chant ad nauseum. The NHS is a vital institution that needs to be preserved. It does some things extremely well, and others not so. It is not beyond criticism. A little humility for scandals such as Mid-Staffs, which happened on Labour’s watch, wouldn’t go amiss.

My overall worry is that this speech will keep the status-quo as it is. Those who loved it were going to vote Labour anyway. Those unsure of Ed Miliband may have been impressed by his delivery, his warmth, but still scratching their heads as to why they should vote for him. Decent guy, likeable guy, they would have thought, but my future PM? Unlikely.

Again, this leaves us as we were, but now three and a half years on.

What Ed’s performance did do was convince me further that Labour must do all they can to push for the leaders’ debates on TV. I think Ed will come out of them well. This will be essential floating voter territory. A couple more populist ideas are a must. Think public transport and those weary commuters in the South-East. Their votes are sorely needed. Or maybe not, if yesterday is anything to go by.


This comment piece was first published on Labour Uncut on Wednesday 25th September 2013