From Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian:
Labour needs to rethink its stance on the coalition's deficit-cutting mania, insisting that the manner, timing and scale of the cuts are all wrong β rather than quibbling about the details. It's time the opposition started opposing.
That’s an understatement.
Why don’t they get it? That’s not just their job, it’s their duty. And we hardly hear a murmur.
No wonder activists are taking to the streets.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Absolutely right. Labour have had a real issue with structuring their criticism of the coalition, but I guess its excuseable with the current leadership situation. At this rate, their voices willbecome largely unheard.
I don’t think Labour need to do much at all at the moment. The LibDems scored an own goal over tuition fees, and now they’re telling their own fans the ball actually didn’t go in the net. Control orders is coming next.
perhaps when ed gets back from his paternity leave, and harriet stops positioning. But they would have to work out what they stand for. Not sure the creaking hull they have become will stand that without sinking.
I’ve been on some LibDem blogs. The relaxation of control orders seems to be as much of a ‘red line issue’ as tuition fees. I disagree with the way control orders have been used myself. Theresa May seems to have swung firmly behind the security services, taking safety in the position that she’ll have to be over-ruled to relax the law. Labour can only sit it out. The coalition agreement says this:
“We will urgently review Control Orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes. We will seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.”
“We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.”
“We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.”
I think Ed needs to show more leadership, basically. For example Alan Johnson seems to be unilaterally dictating economic policy at the moment and it’s quite a Blairite approach. When Ed comes back from paternity leave he needs to take Alan to one side and say, “our approach is going to be this, this and this” and if Alan disagrees then he should be replaced with someone with a more radical approach – for example Ed Balls. Alan is a good communicator but that doesn’t matter a fig if you’re communicating the wrong thing.
@Howard
Agreed
Entirely
Balls was / is the answer
Yes, I find that “Balls” is the answer to a lot of questions!