Miliband has no strategy

Article in the New Statesman. Lord Glasman, the peer behind 'Blue' Labour, has been somewhat critical of the current direction of the Labour Party.

On the face of it, these look like bad times for Labour and for Ed Miliband's leadership. There seems to be no strategy, no narrative and little energy. Old faces from the Brown era still dominate the shadow cabinet and they seem stuck in defending Labour's record in all the wrong ways - we didn't spend too much money, we'll cut less fast and less far, but we can't tell you how.

 

 

Labour is apparently pursuing a sectional agenda based on the idea that disaffected Liberal Democrats and public-sector employees will give Labour a majority next time around. But we have not won, and show no signs of winning, the economic argument. We have not articulated a constructive alternative capable of recognising our weaknesses in government and taking the argument to the coalition. We show no relish for reconfiguring the relationship between the state, the market and society. The world is on the turn, yet we do not seem equal to the challenge.

The article is a good read.

Labour in being clueless when it comes to the economy shocker.

I have it on good authority that the Tories intend to steal some of Labour's language and arguments about responsible capitalism and predators and producers. Miliband's conference speech was mocked but supposedly these ideas have been polling well with focus groups and the Tories are worried. If anything some of his strategy has been too successful -and they want to seize this territory.

Well, he would say that as the guy behind blue labour!

But I do agree with him, Ed Miliband has failed the grasp the public's imaginations, but then so has David Cameron(only Nick Clegg out of the three has captured the publics imaginations, first in a good way, then in a terrible way). He needs to define himself, and he has a while to do so yet. There have been promising periods like the phone hacking affair, but he really should be doing better because compared to past PM's David Cameron is a bit of a lightweight.

Miliband is still a goggly-eyed dweeb but its a wrong to say he has no narrative. He took a gamble at Conference and it appears to be paying off of sorts. Glasman's just bitter. His nanosecond of fame has expired and he's back to fermenting revolution in Crouch End.

Miliband is still a goggly-eyed dweeb but its a wrong to say he has no narrative. He took a gamble at Conference and it appears to be paying off of sorts. Glasman's just bitter. His nanosecond of fame has expired and he's back to fermenting revolution in Crouch End.

I agree with this, but no one is listening is the problem.

The next election should be a real imagination capturer.

You have the pompous one, the liar and the geek.

Take your pick.

Milliband reminds me of a nerdy computer technician. Image is everything in politics, and he ain't got it.

Milliband reminds me of a nerdy computer technician. Image is everything in politics, and he ain't got it.

Mmmmmm, at the moment he doesn't. I wish image wasn't everything and people looked at the content as well. Reminds me most of IDS, he had a ridiculous 'quiet man' image. Rubbish leader.

Mmmmmm, at the moment he doesn't. I wish image wasn't everything and people looked at the content as well. Reminds me most of IDS, he had a ridiculous 'quiet man' image. Rubbish leader.

First impressions in the public mind can be everything. He is a dead duck.

First impressions in the public mind can be everything. He is a dead duck.

Perhaps, but perceptions can change and the public have short memories when it comes to politics. We'll see where we are in a year. I don't think he'll get dumped until 2013-2014 because who else is there?! Alan Johnson would have been good.

Perhaps, but perceptions can change and the public have short memories when it comes to politics. We'll see where we are in a year. I don't think he'll get dumped until 2013-2014 because who else is there?! Alan Johnson would have been good.

Well, that's all dependant on your starting viewpoint mate.

Perhaps, but perceptions can change and the public have short memories when it comes to politics. We'll see where we are in a year. I don't think he'll get dumped until 2013-2014 because who else is there?! Alan Johnson would have been good.

Give over. they tried to change brown (by telling him to smile) and he came across even worse.

Give over. they tried to change brown (by telling him to smile) and he came across even worse.

I wasn't talking about Brown? For what it is worth, there was a time when Brown was popular! But yes, in the end, complete public relations disaster. But I don't really understand where your comment came from.

Perhaps, but perceptions can change and the public have short memories when it comes to politics.

Short memories about policies? Yes.

Short memories about distinctive personality and character traits? No.

Short memories about policies? Yes.

 

Short memories about distinctive personality and character traits? No.

I guess that is true, but I still think over time perceptions can change. Look at Brown or Clegg, though I am trying to think of someone who went from bad to good right now and I'm lost! Will have to think about that, there must be someone.

I don't think anyone really thinks anything at all about Miliband at the moment. He is the invisible man and has not really asserted himself.

I guess that is true, but I still think over time perceptions can change. Look at Brown or Clegg, though I am trying to think of someone who went from bad to good right now and I'm lost! Will have to think about that, there must be someone.

That only really happens in Home and Away, and with frightening regularity.

Labour would be a party that could attract my vote, but my local Labour MP has just a lot of time moaning about what the Tories are doing without providing any clear solutions themselves. The problem is, that last part is the important bit.

Can Ed turn it around? Possibly, but I suspect not. Many of us thought Kinnock might overhaul Major. An unpopular government with fresh memories of the poll tax and all the trouble that went along with it. Image is important, and has been since the age of television.

Here's some food for thought.

Nixon performed much better in the subsequent debates (and appeared better thanks to the "milkshake diet" his aides put him on to fatten him up). But, as Schroeder says, the damage had been done. "You couldn't wipe away the image people had seared in their brains from the first debate.

How the Nixon-Kennedy debate changed the world

That only really happens in Home and Away, and with frightening regularity.

 

Labour would be a party that could attract my vote, but my local Labour MP has just a lot of time moaning about what the Tories are doing without providing any clear solutions themselves. The problem is, that last part is the important bit.

 

Can Ed turn it around? Possibly, but I suspect not. Many of us thought Kinnock might overhaul Major. An unpopular government with fresh memories of the poll tax and all the trouble that went along with it. Image is important, and has been since the age of television.

 

Here's some food for thought.

 

 

How the Nixon-Kennedy debate changed the world

Fair points. I guess he'll probably be shafted in a couple of years then if he doesn't improve. Labour have no need to rush though. Keep an eye out for some of the 'young things' like Chuka Umuna and Rachael Reeves as well as the old few such as Yvette Cooper and such.

It's kind of remarkable given Brown's image that David Cameron failed to win the election. Imagine what could have happened if David Miliband had some balls and went for the coup pre-election.

They picked the wrong Miliband.

They picked the wrong Miliband.

Or...they picked the 'wrong' Milliband at the 'right' time.

Picking the 'weaker' brother early in a parliament where they knew their previous record on the economy wouldn't be held in a particularly good light, and then replace him with the 'stronger' brother a year or so before the next election when certain sections of the general public are likely to be crying out for a fresh dynamic political leader, could turn out to be a masterstroke by the Labour party....

Milliband reminds me of a nerdy computer technician. Image is everything in politics, and he ain't got it.

Agree with your analogy of Miliband but I disagree with your assertion that image is everything in politics..

Conviction, Vision and Drive are more important.

Cameron and Clegg are image obsessed but they are still shallow without giving any true steer as to what they stand for - In fact it seems they want to be all things for all people.. And its just as wishy-washy as Nasal Ed !

All 3 of them are carp...

Most of you will have already seen this, but it sums up Miliband's appeal, or lack thereof. Just in case you don't pick it up, these strikes are wrong while negotiations are going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI

FFS, It's like getting a talking Action Man that has one phrase and is a bit wimpy.

He has 4 problems in my opinion.

Firstly;He ran against his brother and is seen as having “knifed him in the back”. Whether true or not that perception resonates with a lot of the public. That is why the Cameron putdown of “it’s not like we’re Brothers” the other day at PMQ played so well. The image of him stitching his brother up, will take a long time and a lot of good work to remove from the public’s mind.

Secondly; On a mayor issue, that the Labour party should be supporting, he seems hamstrung. because he owes his job to the unions, he doesn’t want to be seen as a puppet to them. Therefore he half heartedly sits on the fence over pension reforms and union action over cuts. He comes across as weak and indecisive over strikes and protests against cuts.

Thirdly; Due to Alan Johnsons unfortunate situation he has had to put Balls as shadow chancellor. Balls is a pretty good politician, taking the fight to the Tories, but he reminds people of the past. He was named and shamed in the RBS bailout report, which closes down an avenue to attack the Tory's over anything to do with banks. He is also a reminder of Brown and his right hand man when Brown made cock up after cock up. He is too wedded to the past economically, but too powerful for Milliband to over look a second time in the role. A better and braver thing would have been for Milliband to make his wife Shadow Chancellor, he could hardly resign over that, and would not be briefing against her ( as I’m sure he would of ,had Milliband given the job to someone else). Balls is a economic man through and through. To over look him a second time was impossible for Milliband to do, given his weakness amongst his own MP's.

Fourthly; He comes across poorly. I think Cable and Boris, do as well. But they come across poorly in a way the public seem to like, whereas Milliband comes across as a gimp. Not nice, properly not how we should judge politicians, but a fact of political life nowadays.

Or...they picked the 'wrong' Milliband at the 'right' time.

 

Picking the 'weaker' brother early in a parliament where they knew their previous record on the economy wouldn't be held in a particularly good light, and then replace him with the 'stronger' brother a year or so before the next election when certain sections of the general public are likely to be crying out for a fresh dynamic political leader, could turn out to be a masterstroke by the Labour party....

Totally and utterly this.

Totally and utterly this.

They've noticed.

They've noticed.

It's taken them a while. Not too sharp you see.

It's taken them a while. Not too sharp you see.

It's actually quite a good plan. And it'll help ensure that 1992 will remain for some while the last time the Tories secured an overall majority to govern.

Onwards and upwards! as Michael Foot used to say.

Or...they picked the 'wrong' Milliband at the 'right' time.

 

Picking the 'weaker' brother early in a parliament where they knew their previous record on the economy wouldn't be held in a particularly good light, and then replace him with the 'stronger' brother a year or so before the next election when certain sections of the general public are likely to be crying out for a fresh dynamic political leader, could turn out to be a masterstroke by the Labour party....

They picked the wrong Miliband.

I dont think so. Labour picked exactly the right Miliband to take the bullets until theres a hope of them winning an election, as soon as that appears on the horizon Miliband Sr will come galloping back on his white charger. And Ed will be consigned to the dustbin of history, where he so obviously belongs.

edit- apologies to Trousers for repeating his sentiments almost verbatim, didnt scroll down the whole page.

oh, and SNAP!!

Fair points. I guess he'll probably be shafted in a couple of years then if he doesn't improve. Labour have no need to rush though. Keep an eye out for some of the 'young things' like Chuka Umuna and Rachael Reeves as well as the old few such as Yvette Cooper and such.

 

It's kind of remarkable given Brown's image that David Cameron failed to win the election. Imagine what could have happened if David Miliband had some balls and went for the coup pre-election.

I'd put good money on him for the future.

I'd put good money on him for the future.

I'd say your earlier prediction of Yvette Cooper was the more likely candidate, especially now her husband has pledged not to stand and to support her instead. Thats a pretty heavy one-two.

Labour simply do not seem to have any direction at the moment, and this is partly down to them not having a strong enough leader. I am labour through and though, but am not happy with the direction.

The sun are leading with this tomorrow:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4044736/Ed-Milibands-Twitter-slip-in-tribute-to-Bob-Holness.html

I kind of feel sorry for the guy now. I doubt he even wrote the tweet and it could just be a slip of typing as often happens(even if o and a are opposite ends of the keyboard, it can happen).

RIP to Bob Holness though, even if I don't really know who he is as he was before my time.

I love the way labour are now saying things they are going to do when they get back in power.

Millipede is a knob. Its all well and good saying what they are going to do but they should have done a lot of what they are proposing when they were in power for all those years. The should have dealt with banks etc then

Sorry but Millipede, Balls and co do not fill me with any sense of confidence

I love the way labour are now saying things they are going to do when they get back in power.

Millipede is a knob. Its all well and good saying what they are going to do but they should have done a lot of what they are proposing when they were in power for all those years. The should have dealt with banks etc then

 

Sorry but Millipede, Balls and co do not fill me with any sense of confidence

How far back do you want to go? Any current government will say the previous lot didn't do stuff they should have done. Labour said the same about the Tories who were in power a lot longer before Labour.

History accumulates.

BTF I agree about History but labour were in power for how many terms were they in power for > They could have done something about Banker. bonus's etc during their watch after all they were in power when the current banking crisis occurred.

BTF I agree about History but labour were in power for how many terms were they in power for > They could have done something about Banker. bonus's etc during their watch after all they were in power when the current banking crisis occurred.

I think the banking regulation argument has been rehearsed before. Firstly, Thatcher and Regan were the ones who deregulated the banks in the 80s and secondly, the banking crisis had its roots in the US, not the UK. The UK, along with with Europe, got caught up in the tidal wave.

But I do agree that every government makes mistakes and it is to be hoped that they learn from them. If we judged potentially future governments on past records, we'd never have a government to believe in, ever!

I think the banking regulation argument has been rehearsed before. Firstly, Thatcher and Regan were the ones who deregulated the banks in the 80s and secondly, the banking crisis had its roots in the US, not the UK. The UK, along with with Europe, got caught up in the tidal wave.

 

But I do agree that every government makes mistakes and it is to be hoped that they learn from them. If we judged potentially future governments on past records, we'd never have a government to believe in, ever!

The crisis didn't start in the US - confusing causes with the symptoms. It had many causes -many global- and in some ways, the US as the most developed country in the world was the lightening rod for them. Btw, the UK's banking system was more lightly regulated than the US which put competitive press on the yanks to follow suit. Cant underestimate the role of al policy over here in driving a regulatory race to the bottom elsewhere.

The crisis didn't start in the US - confusing causes with the symptoms. It had many causes -many global- and in some ways, the US as the most developed country in the world was the lightening rod for them. Btw, the UK's banking system was more lightly regulated than the US which put competitive press on the yanks to follow suit. Cant underestimate the role of al policy over here in driving a regulatory race to the bottom elsewhere.

The current crisis DID start in the US, with the collapse of the sub-prime market which required bank and insurance company bailouts across the US, Britain and elsewhere. The US banks were under no real pressure from the UK to compete in the sub-prime scandal. It was US regulators' policy, under Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, to allow the banks to do, pretty much, whatever they wanted. Greenspan's oversight included the astonishing fact that one key regulator's office was staffed by precisely ONE person!

Which politicans were critised in the report into RBS?

Who set up the FSA, instead of the BoE policing the banks?

Who knighted Sir Fred Goodwin?

Was it the Americans?

Which politicans were critised in the report into RBS?

 

Who set up the FSA, instead of the BoE policing the banks?

 

Who knighted Sir Fred Goodwin?

 

Was it the Americans?

You can score party-apparatchik political points over which party did what until the cows come home - but the idea that a political party caused the current crisis is absurd. The credit crunch that followed collapse of sub-prime eventually impacted on the governments who bailed out the banks, precisely because sovereign debt is raised in the same (and now fatally squeezed) financial markets as sub-prime borrowers.

The current crisis DID start in the US, with the collapse of the sub-prime market which required bank and insurance company bailouts across the US, Britain and elsewhere. The US banks were under no real pressure from the UK to compete in the sub-prime scandal. It was US regulators' policy, under Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, to allow the banks to do, pretty much, whatever they wanted. Greenspan's oversight included the astonishing fact that one key regulator's office was staffed by precisely ONE person!

Global imbalances, nor least mercantilist trade policy in Asia played a role. The resulting build up of liquidity in the system fed all kinds of lending and asset bubbles in the West -the risks of which were nigh-on impossible to price. Not saying that financial liberalisation, light touch regulation of banks and a barmy faith in the efficiency of markets were irrelevant -they certainly exacerbated underlying tensions; but they were proximate causes. If the history of financial crises shows anything, it is the difficulty of pricing risk properly when any system -whether regulated or deregulated- is faced with an expansion of credit. Japan's banking system in the 1980s was heavily regulated but still got into mess - same with China now.

Which politicans were critised in the report into RBS?

 

Who set up the FSA, instead of the BoE policing the banks?

 

Who knighted Sir Fred Goodwin?

 

Was it the Americans?

Are you suggesting that it didn't all start with the collapse of the sub-prime market and the clever way that the debts had been bundled and sold?

Whilst I accept that you're a blinkered right winger I never had you down as thick.

Brown and his cliche are certainly not without blame, with some decision reckless, bordering on insane, but the reality of the time was that The City, supported by the shadow Tory treasury team, believed the markets and the city to be too over regulated!

Global imbalances, nor least mercantilist trade policy in Asia played a role. The resulting build up of liquidity in the system fed all kinds of lending and asset bubbles in the West -the risks of which were nigh-on impossible to price. Not saying that financial liberalisation, light touch regulation of banks and a barmy faith in the efficiency of markets were irrelevant -they certainly exacerbated underlying tensions; but they were proximate causes. If the history of financial crises shows anything, it is the difficulty of pricing risk properly when any system -whether regulated or deregulated- is faced with an expansion of credit. Japan's banking system in the 1980s was heavily regulated but still got into mess - same with China now.

Strong liquidity, wherever it arise, does not lead inexorably to a bubble. That bubble was created by too-clever-by-half bankers who sliced-and-diced sub-prime mortgages into derivatives to conceal their essential worthlessness, and then sold on in an ever ascending pyramid. All this within the US, with banks in Europe rushing in to the supposed gold rush for fear of losing out. And all of this was done under the watchful eye (!) of the Fed, whose higher echelons were utterly dominated by precisely the same bankers who oversaw the bubble in the first place.

Strong liquidity, wherever it arise, does not lead inexorably to a bubble. That bubble was created by too-clever-by-half bankers who sliced-and-diced sub-prime mortgages into derivatives to conceal their essential worthlessness, and then sold on in an ever ascending pyramid. All this within the US, with banks in Europe rushing in to the supposed gold rush for fear of losing out. And all of this was done under the watchful eye (!) of the Fed, whose higher echelons were utterly dominated by precisely the same bankers who oversaw the bubble in the first place.

It's not a bad thing to admit you need help.

Good luck.

It's not a bad thing to admit you need help.

 

Good luck.

Excuse me?

Strong liquidity, wherever it arise, does not lead inexorably to a bubble. That bubble was created by too-clever-by-half bankers who sliced-and-diced sub-prime mortgages into derivatives to conceal their essential worthlessness, and then sold on in an ever ascending pyramid. All this within the US, with banks in Europe rushing in to the supposed gold rush for fear of losing out. And all of this was done under the watchful eye (!) of the Fed, whose higher echelons were utterly dominated by precisely the same bankers who oversaw the bubble in the first place.

Not they're saying they're mutually exclusive. But excess savings from Asia, a search for yield, low interest rates, ample credit and rising asset prices set the scene for the sh*tstorm and allowed the bankers to party (of course, if excess savings had not been employed somewhere, somehow, the world would have been in recession a lot earlier). This is not a controversial analysis - see Turner's report or read a bit of Minsky who's enjoyed a revival in the wake of the crisis.

Ed was on the Today programme getting a small grilling from Humphries.

He is due to make a speech today setting out his strategy.

Guardian article here.

Ed was on the Today programme getting a small grilling from Humphries.

 

He is due to make a speech today setting out his strategy.

 

Guardian article here.

Ed Milliband: "The consequence of their [the Conservatives'] failure is that the next Labour government, if it's elected in 2015 will inherit a deficit"

Link to the speech that Miliband gave today :-

http://labourlist.org/2012/01/ed-miliband-speech-to-london-citizens/

I imagine it reads a lot better than it sounds. Whether he can get this message to the wider public remains to be seen.