Miliband approach shows folly of government’s “fairness” promise
Ed Miliband can put stop reading The Times, Guardian, Mail and BBC websites, and stop looking at Twitter, because the news that will have them popping the champagne corks at Labour HQ is that I was very impressed with his tactics and performance at PMQs.
Politically at least it was very clever. But in terms of its contribution to solving the debt problem, it was certainly not.
Prior to May I always wanted to see the Tory get a beating at the despatch box. Obviously since the election the leader of the Tories also speaks for my party, which is very disconcerting and changes the dynamic somewhat… God knows who I should want to win these days. Whoever it is who does win, it’s never us any more.
Ed Miliband made his debut today, and in his forensic, single minded approach demonstrated quite clearly the problems the government has in claiming that what it’s doing with cuts is “fair.” As I said last week, fairness is a dangerously subjective concept, so all Miliband has to do is find a subject for whom a cut is manifestly unfair, keep mentioning that subject, and Cameron can’t say the cut is fair.
That’s exactly what he did today, focusing on Child Benefit. I’ve said before that I think the changes proposed will mean less overall unfairness, because they take money off the wealthiest 20% so that less is taken from the remaining 80%. But it’s not completely fair because of the rough and ready nature of the policy basing income on individual and not household levels.
In general this policy makes things better, but there are many specific examples of things being worse. The overall concept of re-distribution is lost when the actual reality of the cuts hits those people who lose out. All Miliband needs to do is point this out. And he did it very successfully today.
The government needs to find a way to get round this charge, because it’s an easy target that Labour will go for and people will believe. I think the only way is to stop saying that cuts are “fair.” Fair to society perhaps, but not fair to individuals if they lose out. Fairness is far, far easier to disprove than to prove, and we’re lumbered with having to prove something’s fair whilst all Miliband has to do is say “Er, no it’s not.”
What Miliband didn’t do today of course was to identify any cuts Labour might make. In opposing the CB cut (odd that in a time of crisis a Labour leader would oppose a redistributive cut to middle class handouts, but this is where we are…) he adds another £1bn to the money that needs to be found. He didn’t identify where that £1bn would come from. And when asked by Cameron to do so, Miliband said that that it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked the questions, not answered them
I don’t think that’s a get-out when there are some valid questions that he needs to answer too. Maybe he will answer those questions at some point, especially if we challenge him to identify something fairer than the government plans he says are unfair.
If it’s just votes he wants rather than a debate though, he won’t answer anything. By staying silent, he can’t lose.
Rick
Volunteer
Help in election
Report a problem
Join Us
Your views
Register to vote
Postal vote
Email updates
October 13th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Actually I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. I think the people that could swing back to Labour have sussed it out and will ask the hard questions. In the meantime I can see a lot of ways we can campaign on their `three wise monkeys` agenda
October 13th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Richard,
Be careful.
The test of a politician’s loyalty comes not whence he shouts about his party in times of good, but whence he defends his party in times bad.
If you don’t think you can “cut it”, then run now and ask the electorate to vote for your as a Labour councillor. Otherwise, stand up for your beliefs and get voted in as a Lib Dem and stick with it.
You will never be forgiven for venturing beyond these options.
It’s tough being a party of office, isn’t it? You find you have to backtrack, face up to new challenges, exude courage, and make best of your principles in difficult circumstances.
Labour will tell you the Lib Dems face anihiliation at the elections. This will almost certainly never happen. The Lib Dems have a core anti-Marxist anti-Tory voting, public-sector middle-class that is likely to stay put in future elections.
But again, run if you can’t “cut it” now. As you appear to be grapling with short-term emotions and long-term convictions. The former eclipsing the latter.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Gosh, my heart did a little jump when I read the author of that comment. Nick Clegg? The Leader of my party and the Deputy Prime Minister? Wow, I am lucky. Taking time out of a busy day nodding next to David Cameron at PMQs to comment on here? Massive.
Unfortunately, my dreams of hitting the big time have turned to ashes, for it is not Nick Clegg at all.
My suspicions were aroused partly because I doubt my party leader would encourage one of his councillors / parliamentary candidates to leave the party and stand as a candidate for another. And also because even if he was so minded, he’d probably not do it on a public blog.
I appreciated the hilarious “cut it” pun, which is straight out of the “ConDem / Condemn” book of comic gold, but even that couldn’t save you.
Casting to one side the incorrect email address (it’s parliament.uk not parliament.gov.uk as you entered), a quick check of the IP address of your comment tells me that it was sent from the same computer as ones from someone under another name who has previously exorted me to “go and join the Labour party you are clearly so desperate to” and who has queried whether I would “go out of this world feet first with your Lib Dem membership card in your pocket before joining the Labour Party.”
Someone clearly wants me to join the Labour Party. Sadly that someone isn’t me. Or Nick Clegg.
Nick Clegg would also know how to correctly spell the word “grappling”, as in “I spent much of my youth grappling in the bedroom with approximately 30 women.”
So, in the words of more of my former teachers than I care to remember: “You must try harder.”
It’s a shame really because some of the points you raise about standing up for beliefs and the merits of emotion v conviction are interesting and worth discussing. I won’t until you say who you are though (or come up with a better alias than Nick Clegg at least. If I can put some effort it then you can too!).
Rick
October 13th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I thought Miliband was impressive today, for a PMQs rookie. But let’s be honest – it doesn’t take a political genius to draw attention to the faults inherent in the
current CB policy. Actually, I’m baffled. How could a Labour leader (a LABOUR leader – echoes of Kinnock???) firstly attack the ludicrous idea of only removing CB
from single-income households, but then suggest that, rather than go the whole hog, CB should be reinstated to high-earners?
How could a LibDem leader (a LIBDEM leader) firstly promise not to raise Student Fees, but rather abolish them within six years – only to stand up and say that they
should be doubled?
The law is inside out – the world is upside-down! And if we don’t watch out, Cameron will be laughing all the way to the next General Election.
Miliband was absolutely right to say that HE asks the questions, and Cameron should answer them – and not the other way around. Governments make policy,
Oppositions don’t. Governments must defend their policies, and Oppositions must question them. That’s how it works. This particular Opposition is on record as
saying it will be constructive, and Miliband underlined that today. But somebody must speak out against policy which, as you quite rightly stated, is “rough and
ready”, because the LibDems are in the highly invidious position of being unable to speak their own minds.
“Nick Clegg” suggests that people should defend their party during the bad times. True, but anybody who heard Simon Hughes on the Today programme this
morning would realise what a total disaster for the LibDems this could all turn out to be. It was embarrassing. And whilst I don’t think that you Richard, are minded to
“cut and run” to join Labour, your discomfiture is obvious. In fact, despite the inference that leaving one party to join another is somehow “weak” or dishonourable, in
fact it is the exact theoretical model of how our Electoral System works. An MP (or indeed a Councillor) represents primarily the views of his constituents, and
secondly his own beliefs. Political Parties don’t like that concept – hence we have Party Whips. Did Winston Churchill “cut and run”? Did the ‘Gang of Four’ “cut and
run”? The LibDems have an “anti-Marxist” core vote? Now that’s a quite an amusing concept, but not worthy of serious discussion.
The tragedy of this situation is that LibDem MP’s, and LibDem Councillors, may find themselves having a war of words with their own leadership, which could spell
disaster come the Local Elections next May. By the time of the next General Election, those voters who switched to the LibDems might find themselves so
unimpressed with what’s happened, that LibDem support may all but disappear. Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are not stupid – they know all this. They are between a
rock and a hard place. And the words going throught their minds are probably much the same as those penned by Victor Hugo/Herbert Kretzmer (oh no – not Les
Miserables again!!) “If I speak, I am condemned… If I stay silent, I am damned”.
But you told Vince Cable exactly what you thought of his mealy-mouthed missive, and well done you! That’s not weakness, it’s strength. And that’s why people such
as you (of whatever political colour), will always have my respect.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
You put in a lot of effort in to your blog and respond to those who post on it, so you deserve recognition for that.
You are right, the eagle-eyed bloggers can cross reference IPs and identify the ‘Nick Cleggs’ of the world. But this time it really is wifey.
I truly do not think you should join the Labour party. Who would do that in the 21st century? But you need to stop dogging your own tribe and defending its record.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
The entire Clegg family’s on here tonight! Who next from the Liberal fraternity I wonder? W.E. Gladstone, if you’re there, I’m a big fan.
This blog isn’t about defending my “tribe,” it’s about me saying what I think is right. I think more is right with the Lib Dems than the other parties, which is why I am one. And when they’re wrong, as on fees, it hurts all the more. If I think they’re wrong on stuff I’ll say so. Being a party activist shouldn’t mean being an automaton.
Interesting that the new Labour leader made a virtue in his leadership campaign of the fact that he apparently said that Labour were wrong on Iraq when they were going through their own controversies.
Spurs Man – I think you’re wrong on two counts. Firstly, it’s the job of the opposition not just to oppose but to present an opposite set of policies. At the moment we have them opposing everything and presenting nothing opposite at all. So Miliband should be subject to questioning himself because it’s not right for him to pretend to the public to alter their votes when presenting them with nothing to vote for.
Second, Lib Dems can and are speaking their minds. The ones in ministerial positions are finding it hard to because of collective responsibility, but the view from the back benches is being put forward loud and clear by Greg Mulholland, John Leech and others. When something is unpopular in the country, and opposition to it is principled (as on student fees, as with Iraq) it needn’t spell electoral trouble. Quite the opposite perhaps.
And besides, the local elections are in 7 months. Considering how far we’ve come in 5, God knows where we’ll all be then!
October 13th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Let’s be clear – Shadow Ministers offer shadow policies, and when they are formulated, no doubt the Leader of the Opposition will speak about them. Opposition policies are based on the Policies of the Government of the day, and are meant to criticise them, amend them, or support them, depending on the views of the Opposition. The Labour Party is not required to offer the electorate an alternative Manifesto until the next General Election. The Leader of the Opposition asks questions of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister answers them. “Prime Minister’s Questions” – the clue’s in the name.
As for back-bench LibDems speaking out… good! That was exactly my point. But the ones in Ministerial positions aren’t, as you suggest, “finding it hard” to speak openly… they just can’t – exactly BECAUSE of collective responsibility.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
If the opposition policies aren’t yet formed, they aren’t much of an opposition are they? If there was an election called tomorrow, what would Labour be offering as an economic policy? Saying “No, we don’t like any of the cuts” isn’t much of one. I don’t want a manifesto, just a positive idea or two on the biggest issue of the day.
I think it’s fine of the PM, when asked by the Leader of the Opposition for his view on an issue, to give it and ask the same question of the Leader of the Opposition. It’s disengenuous of the Leader of the Opposition to criticise the government’s position on an issue when he has no better position himself (or any position at all).
I think we agree on Lib Dem front-benchers. Most of them agree with the backbenchers but can’t say so. It’s a shame.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
I think we do agree on the front-benchers / back-benchers situation, and it is a shame. Hopefully, it won’t worsen too much, as it will be people like you that will lose out.
As for what an Opposition is meant to do or say… well, there’s a legitimate discussion to be had on that, although whether this is the place for it, I don’t know. What I believe is that whatever Policies the Labour Party have were offered to the Electorate at the General Election, and they were rejected. OK – they could keep on going on about what they would have done, but that would be meaningless navel-gazing. This is where we are; a coalition Government of Tories and LibDems, with their Policies being enacted. For me, the job of the Opposition is to oppose those Policies which ARE being enacted, where the Opposition truly believes them to be wrong (in which case, as in the case of CB, they talk about their alternatives – albeit that I don’t personally understand where they are coming from!); to try and amend bits of Policy which they believe would benefit from amendment; or to support a Policy where they agree with it.
As for the idea of a General Election tomorrow or next month… that’s where the “game” lies. This Government might last a full five years – it may not. But, unless something quite out of the ordinary occurs (and I cannot think of anything), then all parties know that this Government has at least 18 months to 2 years at the very least. And if it does collapse tomorrow? In that case, all the main parties will have a problem getting a Manifesto together – because the truth is, all three parties had their Manifestos rejected last time out.
October 14th, 2010 at 2:32 am
I hardly think it’s reasonable to expect the Opposition to have fully developed policies just five months after a general election, after all, look how long it took the Conservatives to have any policies! They set up quite a few commissions after Cameron became leader, and as I remember, it was a long-running joke for a while (couple of years perhaps?) that they didn’t have any policies to talk about.
That said, of course Labour will have developed some sort of an economic policy soon, in outline at least, and will tell us what it is in response to the spending review next Wednesday. Not long to wait now
October 14th, 2010 at 11:36 am
David Cameron effectively rebutted Miliband E’s arguments, especially with that Milburn quote.