I was speechless when I saw this BBC interview with Ed Miliband yesterday. It was one of the most gut-wrenchingly awful media performances I've seen from the Labour Party leader.
Whatever your view on the strikes yesterday, Miliband's muddle was excruciatingly painful to watch. His parrot-like repetition of the same tried and tested lines spoke of a man clearly ill at ease with his script, knowing as he did that he was walking a near impossible tightrope of trying to appease his own party whilst not being painted into a corner by 'middle Britain'. He sounded wooden and stilted and thoroughly un-natural.
The final question was truly awful. Given an opportunity to provide some humanity as a father of children, he just trotted out the same line that he'd worn out over the previous 2 minutes.
Who is Ed's media consultant? Because if someone honestly told him that this was the way to interview then they need really should consider a new career in watching paint dry.
For my sanity Ed and for the sake of your leadership of the Labour Party, sort it out before your Party sort you out instead.
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Miliband. Show all posts
Friday, 1 July 2011
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Miliband & Balls - More Edd the Duck than Ed Murrow
This one will be un-Cole-like brief post but it really is interesting times for the Labour Party.
Goodbye Alan
I’ve always rather like Alan Johnson and thought that he was one of Labour’s best electoral bets to take over from Gordon Brown. But he didn’t stand so we’ll never know. What we do know is that Ed Miliband’s surprise decision to make him Shadow Chancellor barely 3 months ago was a mistake. Gaffe after economic gaffe left him floundering and didn’t give Ed the kind of media coverage that he wanted as he tried to stamp his newly found authority over his bewildered, election battered party.
Balls in more ways than one
He’s a typical, Brownite/Prescottite tribal Labour bully-boy bruiser. His language is the kind that will put people off politics and he’ll rub up the wrong way as many if not more people than he’ll positively persuade with his arguments.
The Ed Show
So, we now have 2 prime Brownite Labourites at the helm of the Labour Party - both of whom happened to be called Ed.
Goodbye Alan
I’ve always rather like Alan Johnson and thought that he was one of Labour’s best electoral bets to take over from Gordon Brown. But he didn’t stand so we’ll never know. What we do know is that Ed Miliband’s surprise decision to make him Shadow Chancellor barely 3 months ago was a mistake. Gaffe after economic gaffe left him floundering and didn’t give Ed the kind of media coverage that he wanted as he tried to stamp his newly found authority over his bewildered, election battered party.
But for all his error prone pronouncements of late, his standing down from the Shadow Cabinet, like with David Miliband before, will be a big blow to Labour. These are two big respected beasts that they can scarcely do without right now.
Balls in more ways than one
As opposed to the inherently more likeable and reasonable Johnson, I’ve still yet to find any redeeming features in the shape of Ed Balls.
He’s a typical, Brownite/Prescottite tribal Labour bully-boy bruiser. His language is the kind that will put people off politics and he’ll rub up the wrong way as many if not more people than he’ll positively persuade with his arguments.
The Ed Show
So, we now have 2 prime Brownite Labourites at the helm of the Labour Party - both of whom happened to be called Ed.
What kind of show are they going to put on for us I wonder.
A more statesmanlike, responsible and reasonable opposition to the Coalition? Or more of the same juvenile, childish behaviour that we have become far too accustomed too since the autumn?
I expect it'll be less Ed Murrow and more Edd the Duck.
A more statesmanlike, responsible and reasonable opposition to the Coalition? Or more of the same juvenile, childish behaviour that we have become far too accustomed too since the autumn?
I expect it'll be less Ed Murrow and more Edd the Duck.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Why I'm not accepting Ed Miliband's offer of joining the Labour Party
I was planning to blog this a few days ago but have been beaten to the punch by Caron's Musings who wrote an excellent critique for why Ed Miliband's latest invitation for Lib Dems to join the Labour Party should be rebuffed.
To follow Caron's lead on this, what would I rather do than join the Labour Party?
Why?
Well, I can't better Caron's observations which are spot on.
I am not illiberal, I am not an authoritarian, I do not want to be ruled by the unions and I am not obsessed with centralisation. I therefore do not want to join the Labour Party.
A Lib Dem through and through
I am a coalitionist in as far as I believe that we need to be grown up enough to work with others to put the country back on the right track.
That doesn't mean that I agree with every policy that this government comes up with. Why should I? This government is mainly made-up of a Conservative Party that I have little time for. But we must accept that compromise is necessary to move the country forward.
I will disagree with the coalition when I feel it right to do so but that will not hide my pride in the fact that we as Lib Dems are putting our policies into government for the well-being of the people we represent for the first time at a UK-wide level for generations.
Labour had their chance and they blew it and you Mr Miliband sat around the Cabinet table when a number of those decisions were made.
I'd rather jump off a pier into the sea than join the Labour Party (I can't swim).
To follow Caron's lead on this, what would I rather do than join the Labour Party?
- Become a Tottenham Hotspur fan (I loathe them);
- Walk along a mountain face precipice, Italian Job style (I suffer from a mixture of vertigo and claustrophobia);
- Wind the clock back and go to school naked as happened far too often in those bizzare dreams we all have as children;
- Sit in a room with David Coulthard for more than 10 minutes (those who know me well know that I have little time for that pompous prat of a lacklustre, talentless ex-Formula One driver);
- Appear on an Iceland advert (probably the worst made adverts in the history of TV advertising).
Why?
Well, I can't better Caron's observations which are spot on.
- Iraq - an illegal war, enough said;
- Implicating this country in complicity with torture;
- Letting down the poorest by increasing the gap between rich and poor;
- Failing to fix the roof when the sun was shining - meaning we all suffer as a result of their economic incompetence;
- Failing to regulate the banks, either before or after the crash;
- Wasting a fortune on illiberal ID cards;
- Their dissembling over the cuts in spending they would have made if they had won the election;
- The appalling mess they made of the Tax Credit system, and their treatment of thousands of poor families, forced to repay thousands they couldn't afford;
- Imposing control orders on people without telling them even what they were being accused of;
- Centralising public services to the detriment of people using them;
- Taking kids' DNA without parents' permission;
- Storing the DNA of innocent people;
- Running an inhumane and often brutal immigration system;
- Making a hash job of House of Lords reform;
- Refusing to carry out their election promise of brining in electoral reform.
I am not illiberal, I am not an authoritarian, I do not want to be ruled by the unions and I am not obsessed with centralisation. I therefore do not want to join the Labour Party.
A Lib Dem through and through
I am a coalitionist in as far as I believe that we need to be grown up enough to work with others to put the country back on the right track.
That doesn't mean that I agree with every policy that this government comes up with. Why should I? This government is mainly made-up of a Conservative Party that I have little time for. But we must accept that compromise is necessary to move the country forward.
I will disagree with the coalition when I feel it right to do so but that will not hide my pride in the fact that we as Lib Dems are putting our policies into government for the well-being of the people we represent for the first time at a UK-wide level for generations.
Labour had their chance and they blew it and you Mr Miliband sat around the Cabinet table when a number of those decisions were made.
I'd rather jump off a pier into the sea than join the Labour Party (I can't swim).
Thursday, 23 December 2010
We Lib Dems may dislike the Tories but Labour can *add expletive* right off
It's a bold, sweeping heading for a blog post if ever I've written one but after another tumultuous week for Lib Dem Ministers, some 'end of year' Coalition considerations must be made.
Torygraph 'Sting'
Over the past few days, Lib Dem Ministers have all found themselves at the end of what has basically been an entrapment process by the Daily Torgraph. The ethics and the legality of what this newspaper has done lies on extremly thin ice (sorry, seasonal pun intended) and could be challenged in the courts. But be that as it may, the repercussions of the so called 'revelations' must be dealt with.
Lib Dems don't like Tories - Shock Horror!
What we have heard have been rather frank, apparently 'off-record' murmurings of discontent from Lib Dem Ministers about their Tory coalition partners.
Well don't be surprised! In what has been an incredible year in British politics, we now find ourselves being governed by a full-blown coalition for the first time in 65 years. These things don't happen every day of the week and the implementation of such an arrangement between erstwhile political foes is bound to throw up many discontents.
What we've heard this week in the main has been a personal uneasiness between Lib Dem Ministers and Conservative colleagues who were until last May, sworn political enemies. Crossing the rubicon and working together as has been done in the public interest won't dispel these tensions overnight. Tensions will remain and so they should. For this is a coalition made up of two sovereign parties, both of whom have their own distinct agendas and ideas on how to best run the country. But neither won the election in May and so had to accept that working together in the spirit of compromise was the grown-up way forward.
Tories don't like Lib Dems? You can bet on it!
It's the knowing that these grumblings are occurring underneath the Tory surface which makes us Lib Dems know that we're doing something right. Indeed, knowing that our Ministers have these deeply held reservations about their Tory colleagues gives us at the grass-roots level a confidence that they are doing all that they can to push Lib Dem influence to the max in their respective departments.
Vince Cable however, went to far. As much as I and most Lib Dem members would've been pleased to hear him speak of a 'war' against Rupert Murdoch, his comments were ill-judged because of the quasi-judicial role in which he found himself. In 'Council code of conduct' speak, he pre-determined himself and it was right that the decision on Murdoch's take over of BSkyB was taken away from him. It's a shame but the right thing to do all the same even though I share Vince's sentiments.
Rank Labour Hypocrisy
But despite this Lib Dem discontent, it is a boring matter of fact that we are doing what is best for the country in working together with the Conservatives to put the country back on the right track.
Ed Miliband's comments yesterday on launching a scheme inviting young people to join Labour for a penny, in a recruitment drive designed to attract disillusioned former Lib Dem supporters, was pathetic. He also extended an olive branch to Lib Dem ministers unhappy with the government's direction, saying he would "welcome" them on the Labour benches.
Is he stupid or something? As much as we don't find working with the Conservatives a bed of roses, at least they had the balls to come together with the Lib Dems to work in the national interest. The Tories could've stuck it out and led a minority-government, called a snap election for this autumn and could well have won a majority themselves as did Wilson for Labour in '74. But they, like the Lib Dems decided to put party rancour aside to put the country back on a more stable footing.
Labour refused to play ball. They refused to be constructive when the time for talking arrived. They refused to be pro-active in offering a non-Tory government alternative. They refused to admit that they had to accept much of the blame for the financial mess that they left the country in. They refused to take responsibility for their actions and were willing, indeed keen, to go back into opposition for their own party political benefit.
Such a reprehensible attitude towards the greater good has severely damaged their reputation with the Lib Dem grass-roots and now, Ed Miliband wants US, Lib Dems to join back with Labour? Is he completely insane? Me, a Lib Dem, to join a party that reneged on the top priority facing all politicians - the well-being of our country? A party that has such a 'clean-slate' of policies that what it adds up too is having no policies at all? A party that destroyed our civil liberties when in government? A progressive party?! Ha! No chance!
Making a Liberal Difference to the Government of the United Kingdom
The Lib Dem MP for Torbay, Adrian Sanders has put down in writing his own observations on the siutation in his blog here. He gives his own insiders view of the problems that we face as a maturing, grown-up party of government.
What particularly strikes true to me though is his comments about better promoting the message of what Lib Dems in government are delivering. He states:
"When constituents and others complain to me about putting the Tories in power I ask them to imagine a Conservative Government retaining a 50p top rate of tax, introducing an increase in capital gains tax, implementing a bank levy to fund child tax credits for poorer families, taking the lowest paid out of income tax altogether, extending the national minimum wage to include apprentices and reducing the age at which the full NMW is paid, increasing the number of social housing allocations above those of the previous Labour Government, establishing a pupil premium to increase the funding for pupils in poorer areas, investing £900 million to reduce tax evasion and amend legal loopholes that allow for tax avoidance, proposing a £140 minimum state pension, setting up a Green Investment Bank, moving towards a House of Lords elected by PR, agreeing to a fixed term Parliament and much, much more.
"And before they can say tuition fees I ask them would a Tory Government have agreed to a fee cap?
"Would they have introduced measures where all students will repay less per month under this Government’s policy than they currently pay? Where the lowest earning 25% of graduates will repay less than they do now? Where the top earning 30% of graduates will pay back more than they borrow and are likely to pay more than double the bottom 20% of earners? Where over half a million students will be eligible for more non-repayable grants for living costs than they get now? Where almost one million students will be eligible for more overall maintenance support than they get now? Where part-time students will no longer have to pay upfront fees benefiting up to 200,000 per year? Where there will be an extra £150m for a new National Scholarship Programme for students from poorer backgrounds and tough new sanctions on universities who fail to improve their access to students from such backgrounds?
"There is so much positive policy and influence to promote, but we can’t get it across to the electorate unless we can show how we made the difference. Getting this information out and understood is part of a giant task that now confronts us to rebuild trust with voters who feel we have let them down, or worse betrayed them".
His final point is key - getting that message out. Because there's no doubt that this Government has a real liberal streak running through it that would not have existed under a purely Conservative alternative or indeed, a continuation of the Labour farce that preceded it.
We need to tell the world and it's dog what we're doing and how we're influencing government policy with those of our own. We may not like the Tories, but the country is in damned better shape for having us in the middle of government with them that if the they or Labour were left in charge on their own.
So here is one Liberal Democrat member who laughs in the sorry face of Ed Miliband. As I mentioned in my blog post here when he was elected leader, Labour made a big mistake in choosing Ed over David. I agree with my sentiments then, even more today.
Torygraph 'Sting'
Over the past few days, Lib Dem Ministers have all found themselves at the end of what has basically been an entrapment process by the Daily Torgraph. The ethics and the legality of what this newspaper has done lies on extremly thin ice (sorry, seasonal pun intended) and could be challenged in the courts. But be that as it may, the repercussions of the so called 'revelations' must be dealt with.
Lib Dems don't like Tories - Shock Horror!
What we have heard have been rather frank, apparently 'off-record' murmurings of discontent from Lib Dem Ministers about their Tory coalition partners.
Well don't be surprised! In what has been an incredible year in British politics, we now find ourselves being governed by a full-blown coalition for the first time in 65 years. These things don't happen every day of the week and the implementation of such an arrangement between erstwhile political foes is bound to throw up many discontents.
What we've heard this week in the main has been a personal uneasiness between Lib Dem Ministers and Conservative colleagues who were until last May, sworn political enemies. Crossing the rubicon and working together as has been done in the public interest won't dispel these tensions overnight. Tensions will remain and so they should. For this is a coalition made up of two sovereign parties, both of whom have their own distinct agendas and ideas on how to best run the country. But neither won the election in May and so had to accept that working together in the spirit of compromise was the grown-up way forward.
Tories don't like Lib Dems? You can bet on it!
What we have heard this week of course are the Lib Dem 'discontents' on being a part of this practical process. But what the Daily Torygraph have decided against doing is shining a mirror against the Tory Ministers in the Government to see how they view this political arrangement. Because the truth of the matter is they won't be happy with it either and why should they?! Before the election they accused the Lib Dems of being a 3rd party irrelevance but now, they've had to share power with us and tht sits very uneasily with the right-wing of the Tory Party in particular.
It's the knowing that these grumblings are occurring underneath the Tory surface which makes us Lib Dems know that we're doing something right. Indeed, knowing that our Ministers have these deeply held reservations about their Tory colleagues gives us at the grass-roots level a confidence that they are doing all that they can to push Lib Dem influence to the max in their respective departments.Rank Labour Hypocrisy
But despite this Lib Dem discontent, it is a boring matter of fact that we are doing what is best for the country in working together with the Conservatives to put the country back on the right track.
Ed Miliband's comments yesterday on launching a scheme inviting young people to join Labour for a penny, in a recruitment drive designed to attract disillusioned former Lib Dem supporters, was pathetic. He also extended an olive branch to Lib Dem ministers unhappy with the government's direction, saying he would "welcome" them on the Labour benches.
Is he stupid or something? As much as we don't find working with the Conservatives a bed of roses, at least they had the balls to come together with the Lib Dems to work in the national interest. The Tories could've stuck it out and led a minority-government, called a snap election for this autumn and could well have won a majority themselves as did Wilson for Labour in '74. But they, like the Lib Dems decided to put party rancour aside to put the country back on a more stable footing.
Such a reprehensible attitude towards the greater good has severely damaged their reputation with the Lib Dem grass-roots and now, Ed Miliband wants US, Lib Dems to join back with Labour? Is he completely insane? Me, a Lib Dem, to join a party that reneged on the top priority facing all politicians - the well-being of our country? A party that has such a 'clean-slate' of policies that what it adds up too is having no policies at all? A party that destroyed our civil liberties when in government? A progressive party?! Ha! No chance!
Making a Liberal Difference to the Government of the United Kingdom
The Lib Dem MP for Torbay, Adrian Sanders has put down in writing his own observations on the siutation in his blog here. He gives his own insiders view of the problems that we face as a maturing, grown-up party of government.
What particularly strikes true to me though is his comments about better promoting the message of what Lib Dems in government are delivering. He states:
"When constituents and others complain to me about putting the Tories in power I ask them to imagine a Conservative Government retaining a 50p top rate of tax, introducing an increase in capital gains tax, implementing a bank levy to fund child tax credits for poorer families, taking the lowest paid out of income tax altogether, extending the national minimum wage to include apprentices and reducing the age at which the full NMW is paid, increasing the number of social housing allocations above those of the previous Labour Government, establishing a pupil premium to increase the funding for pupils in poorer areas, investing £900 million to reduce tax evasion and amend legal loopholes that allow for tax avoidance, proposing a £140 minimum state pension, setting up a Green Investment Bank, moving towards a House of Lords elected by PR, agreeing to a fixed term Parliament and much, much more.
"And before they can say tuition fees I ask them would a Tory Government have agreed to a fee cap?
"Would they have introduced measures where all students will repay less per month under this Government’s policy than they currently pay? Where the lowest earning 25% of graduates will repay less than they do now? Where the top earning 30% of graduates will pay back more than they borrow and are likely to pay more than double the bottom 20% of earners? Where over half a million students will be eligible for more non-repayable grants for living costs than they get now? Where almost one million students will be eligible for more overall maintenance support than they get now? Where part-time students will no longer have to pay upfront fees benefiting up to 200,000 per year? Where there will be an extra £150m for a new National Scholarship Programme for students from poorer backgrounds and tough new sanctions on universities who fail to improve their access to students from such backgrounds?His final point is key - getting that message out. Because there's no doubt that this Government has a real liberal streak running through it that would not have existed under a purely Conservative alternative or indeed, a continuation of the Labour farce that preceded it.
We need to tell the world and it's dog what we're doing and how we're influencing government policy with those of our own. We may not like the Tories, but the country is in damned better shape for having us in the middle of government with them that if the they or Labour were left in charge on their own.
So here is one Liberal Democrat member who laughs in the sorry face of Ed Miliband. As I mentioned in my blog post here when he was elected leader, Labour made a big mistake in choosing Ed over David. I agree with my sentiments then, even more today.
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Labour's Big Fat NO to Wales
Welsh Labour will not be happy tonight. Not happy at all.
Labour's Shadow Cabinet elections have just been announced and not one of the 19 'winners' are Welsh MP's.
49 Labour MP's put their names forward for the 19 places directly available in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet. Of those 49, 8 were Welsh MP's. But Labour's 258 MP's who voted for their top 19 candidates, decided against putting Peter Hain, Chris Bryant, Kevin Brennan, Wayne David, David Hanson, Huw Irranca-Davies, Ian Lucas and Alun Michael onto the front bench.
A Kick in the Teeth for Welsh Labour
This is a real kick in the teeth for Labour heavyweights such as Peter Hain and Alun Michael. Peter Hain remember was a former Secretary of State for Wales and held the same post in Northern Ireland when Tony Blair successfully oversaw the coming together of the DUP and Sinn Fein. He also ran for the Deputy Leadership of the Party (and it goes without saying, lost). Alun Michael was none less than Tony Blair's hand picked first 'First Minister' of Wales when devolution got underway with the Welsh Assembly in 1999.
But more than anything, this is a real red-faced moment for Red Ed and his Red Party.
Welsh Members Through the Back Door?
Ed Miliband still has the discretion of choosing 5 additional members to complete his Shadow Cabinet. If he has absolutely any sense at all, he'll make sure that one or two of those five come from Wales.
But in the meantime, I can already see tomorrow's Welsh media coverage. The Western Mail will jump on this 'snub' to Wales and it'll no doubt be a topic of discussion on Radio Cymru's weekly topical programme 'Dau O'r Bae'. Whoever's representing Welsh Labour on the panel tomorrow better get ready for some serious flack!
Labour's Shadow Cabinet elections have just been announced and not one of the 19 'winners' are Welsh MP's.
49 Labour MP's put their names forward for the 19 places directly available in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet. Of those 49, 8 were Welsh MP's. But Labour's 258 MP's who voted for their top 19 candidates, decided against putting Peter Hain, Chris Bryant, Kevin Brennan, Wayne David, David Hanson, Huw Irranca-Davies, Ian Lucas and Alun Michael onto the front bench.
A Kick in the Teeth for Welsh Labour
This is a real kick in the teeth for Labour heavyweights such as Peter Hain and Alun Michael. Peter Hain remember was a former Secretary of State for Wales and held the same post in Northern Ireland when Tony Blair successfully oversaw the coming together of the DUP and Sinn Fein. He also ran for the Deputy Leadership of the Party (and it goes without saying, lost). Alun Michael was none less than Tony Blair's hand picked first 'First Minister' of Wales when devolution got underway with the Welsh Assembly in 1999.
But more than anything, this is a real red-faced moment for Red Ed and his Red Party.
Welsh Members Through the Back Door?
Ed Miliband still has the discretion of choosing 5 additional members to complete his Shadow Cabinet. If he has absolutely any sense at all, he'll make sure that one or two of those five come from Wales.
But in the meantime, I can already see tomorrow's Welsh media coverage. The Western Mail will jump on this 'snub' to Wales and it'll no doubt be a topic of discussion on Radio Cymru's weekly topical programme 'Dau O'r Bae'. Whoever's representing Welsh Labour on the panel tomorrow better get ready for some serious flack!
Saturday, 2 October 2010
BBC Strike - Right in Principle, Wrong in Practise
I'm a fan of the BBC. There, I've said it.
In fact, I support the BBC License Fee. There, I've said that too.
I always have been a fan of the BBC and I'm happy to pay my license fee on an annual basis. Why? Well, I'm rather proud of this rather unique institution that we have which strives to provide us with good quality programming. A service which strives to deliver impartial, cutting edge political discourse.
You don't like paying the fee? You want to scrap it? Then that's fine. But just you remember that the alternative is a great risk. A very great risk. The alternative is an open market service that will be at the beck-and-call of it's owners and their own political and cultural agenda.
My News, Not their News
Do I want a Fox News based service here in the UK? No, I don't. Do I want a service ran by a small group of wealthy individuals such as Rupert Murdoch? No I don't.
Do I want a service which is designed for all and not for the few? Yes I do. Am I willing to pay for that privelege? Yes I am.
BBC Staff Strike
I've therefore been rather concerned to read about the potential BBC 2-day strike next week during the Conservative Party Conference. The unions that represent the camera crews, engineers and journalists, Bectu, Unite and the NUJ had called the strike in protest at the ending of the BBCs final salary pension scheme. The management announced a 1% limit on future pension increases to fill what is claimed to be a £1.5bn hole in their pension fund.
The staff have a right to protest and a right to strike if they feel that such a move is required to make their point. Indeed, feelings are not unreasonably running high. I was speaking to one member of the BBC in west Wales yesterday and it's clear that there's an anger at the Corporation's decision. Specifically there's a feeling that those who put the programmes together are taking the hit as opposed to the management and the high profile stars we see on the screen with their high salaries. Personally, I'd be much happier seeing those on the factory floor who are putting the BBC programmes on the air getting their fair share than seeing the ridiculous sums that have been paid in the past to 'personalities' such as Johnathan Ross. Admittedly, it leaves the BBC at the risk of losing star names to the commercial networks who can offer more, but I think the BBC need to get the balance right - it certainly isn't at the moment.
Don't Make It Political
So I have much sympathy for those BBC workers who are pretty p***ed off with their management and if they feel that striking is the way forward, then good luck to them.
However, striking in the middle of the Conservative Conference is just plain wrong. Indeed, doing so during any such political event is a retrograde move.
One of the reasons I pay my licence fee is for a decent, impartial, non-partisan news service. I am not paying for a boycott of a significant political occasion. I want to hear what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in these austere times, has to say - even if he isn't of my party.
Thankfully in the last 24 hours, this potential strike has been put on the back-burner as a management counter-offer has come forward for the workers to consider. Yet, the threat is that the 2 day boycott could now take place on October 19th and 20th in the middle of the critical comprehensive spending review, annouced by Chancellor George Osbourne.
DON'T DO IT!
We have a right to know and have access to these important, newsworhy developments that will directly impact on our lives. I've paid for the BBC to tell me all of this - I don't expect to have to resort to Sky News to find out what's happening.
So it annoys me greatly that the Unions are pushing for these dates. To me it stinks of partisan manouveres. It is to Ed Miliband's great credit then that he came out yesterday against the strike in the middle of Tory Conference week. As he rightly said:
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, they should not be blacking out the prime minister's speech. My speech was seen and heard on the BBC and in the interests of impartiality and fairness, so the prime minister's should be."
Spot on Ed. It's a shame that the Unions disagreed with him. Bectu's response was quite incredible:
"As a Labour Party affiliate, Bectu places on record its dissatisfaction with Ed Miliband's statement. The leader's intervention is not helpful and is dismissive of our actions as a responsible trade union which has been negotiating with the employer on this issue for three long months."
BECTU - YOU ARE WRONG
You have the right to strike and it's understandable that you want maximum exposure. But don't do that in a way that prejudices and puts into question the BBC's very political neutrality.
It goes without saying, that this whole episode and this reponse from Bectu, infuriates me.
Listen to Nick Robinson
As much as I can't stand the man, Nick Robinson and his fellow 30 senior BBC journalists who signed a letter requesting a change of tact, are correct.
If the desire is to have maximum impact, then the unions need to strike at a time BBC audience figures are at their peak. As it's the live programming that will particularly suffer from any strike, why not for example, strike on a weekend when 'Strictly Come Dancing' should be on our screens? It will have a great impact and will make the point but will not threaten the BBC's reputation for fairness and potentially give it an impression of political bias.
The Tories hate the Beeb
It's for their own good too. At the end of the day, the Tories have never liked the Beeb. It's considered too 'liberal' or too 'lefty'. The worst thing that the Unions could do would be to antagonise the Tories now that they're back in power and give them an extra excuse to make changes to the BBC's Charter.
Have your fight with the management, but don't do it in a way that could damage the BBC in the long-run.
It's in no-one's interest to see a diminished BBC - particularly the unions. They need to see sense and strike at a time when they can maximise their protest, without risking the BBC's hard earned reputation for political fairness and impartiality.
In fact, I support the BBC License Fee. There, I've said that too.
I always have been a fan of the BBC and I'm happy to pay my license fee on an annual basis. Why? Well, I'm rather proud of this rather unique institution that we have which strives to provide us with good quality programming. A service which strives to deliver impartial, cutting edge political discourse.
You don't like paying the fee? You want to scrap it? Then that's fine. But just you remember that the alternative is a great risk. A very great risk. The alternative is an open market service that will be at the beck-and-call of it's owners and their own political and cultural agenda.
My News, Not their News
Do I want a Fox News based service here in the UK? No, I don't. Do I want a service ran by a small group of wealthy individuals such as Rupert Murdoch? No I don't.
Do I want a service which is designed for all and not for the few? Yes I do. Am I willing to pay for that privelege? Yes I am.
BBC Staff Strike
I've therefore been rather concerned to read about the potential BBC 2-day strike next week during the Conservative Party Conference. The unions that represent the camera crews, engineers and journalists, Bectu, Unite and the NUJ had called the strike in protest at the ending of the BBCs final salary pension scheme. The management announced a 1% limit on future pension increases to fill what is claimed to be a £1.5bn hole in their pension fund.
The staff have a right to protest and a right to strike if they feel that such a move is required to make their point. Indeed, feelings are not unreasonably running high. I was speaking to one member of the BBC in west Wales yesterday and it's clear that there's an anger at the Corporation's decision. Specifically there's a feeling that those who put the programmes together are taking the hit as opposed to the management and the high profile stars we see on the screen with their high salaries. Personally, I'd be much happier seeing those on the factory floor who are putting the BBC programmes on the air getting their fair share than seeing the ridiculous sums that have been paid in the past to 'personalities' such as Johnathan Ross. Admittedly, it leaves the BBC at the risk of losing star names to the commercial networks who can offer more, but I think the BBC need to get the balance right - it certainly isn't at the moment.
Don't Make It Political
So I have much sympathy for those BBC workers who are pretty p***ed off with their management and if they feel that striking is the way forward, then good luck to them.
However, striking in the middle of the Conservative Conference is just plain wrong. Indeed, doing so during any such political event is a retrograde move.
One of the reasons I pay my licence fee is for a decent, impartial, non-partisan news service. I am not paying for a boycott of a significant political occasion. I want to hear what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in these austere times, has to say - even if he isn't of my party.
Thankfully in the last 24 hours, this potential strike has been put on the back-burner as a management counter-offer has come forward for the workers to consider. Yet, the threat is that the 2 day boycott could now take place on October 19th and 20th in the middle of the critical comprehensive spending review, annouced by Chancellor George Osbourne.
DON'T DO IT!
We have a right to know and have access to these important, newsworhy developments that will directly impact on our lives. I've paid for the BBC to tell me all of this - I don't expect to have to resort to Sky News to find out what's happening.
So it annoys me greatly that the Unions are pushing for these dates. To me it stinks of partisan manouveres. It is to Ed Miliband's great credit then that he came out yesterday against the strike in the middle of Tory Conference week. As he rightly said:
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, they should not be blacking out the prime minister's speech. My speech was seen and heard on the BBC and in the interests of impartiality and fairness, so the prime minister's should be."
Spot on Ed. It's a shame that the Unions disagreed with him. Bectu's response was quite incredible:
"As a Labour Party affiliate, Bectu places on record its dissatisfaction with Ed Miliband's statement. The leader's intervention is not helpful and is dismissive of our actions as a responsible trade union which has been negotiating with the employer on this issue for three long months."
BECTU - YOU ARE WRONG
You have the right to strike and it's understandable that you want maximum exposure. But don't do that in a way that prejudices and puts into question the BBC's very political neutrality.
It goes without saying, that this whole episode and this reponse from Bectu, infuriates me.
Listen to Nick Robinson
As much as I can't stand the man, Nick Robinson and his fellow 30 senior BBC journalists who signed a letter requesting a change of tact, are correct.
If the desire is to have maximum impact, then the unions need to strike at a time BBC audience figures are at their peak. As it's the live programming that will particularly suffer from any strike, why not for example, strike on a weekend when 'Strictly Come Dancing' should be on our screens? It will have a great impact and will make the point but will not threaten the BBC's reputation for fairness and potentially give it an impression of political bias.
The Tories hate the Beeb
It's for their own good too. At the end of the day, the Tories have never liked the Beeb. It's considered too 'liberal' or too 'lefty'. The worst thing that the Unions could do would be to antagonise the Tories now that they're back in power and give them an extra excuse to make changes to the BBC's Charter.
Have your fight with the management, but don't do it in a way that could damage the BBC in the long-run.
It's in no-one's interest to see a diminished BBC - particularly the unions. They need to see sense and strike at a time when they can maximise their protest, without risking the BBC's hard earned reputation for political fairness and impartiality.
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Ed Miliband - Labour's Wrong Choice
Wow. That was an incredible result. For a while there I actually thought that David had held on but I had a feeling as they walked into the auditorium that his smile was false. Ed looked petrified. He looked like he'd just put a knife in his elder brother's back.
I was totalling up the figures instantly in my head and once David's final total came to 49.something, I knew straight away as the audience too realised what this meant, that Ed had 50.something.
The Unions decide, not the Members
What strikes me is that it is not the normal members of the Labour Party who have chosen their leader but the Trade Unions. David Miliband should have won this contest and indeed he led all of the way until the final ballot.
Indeed on the first ballot, the scores were as follows.
David M 37.78%
Ed M 34.33%
Balls 11.79%
Burnham 8.68%
Abbott 7.42%
Eventually, it was Ed Balls' votes that finally took Ed past his brother.
But David Miliband had the larger support of his fellow MPs and the membership at large. They clearly saw what the country would've seen in David Miliband - a Prime Minister in-waiting. His own MPs backed him in greater numbers than any other and the members of his own party also.
But that means nothing. To paraprhase the Sun in 1992, 'It was the Unions wot won it'. They've got their man, but it wasn't the man the Labour Party actually wanted. This brings into sharp focus the mess that is the electoral college that elects a Labour Party member. The Liberal Democrats vote their leader on a 'one member, one vote' basis and that's the democratic way in which it should work.
Labour's Left-ward march
I had great concern that David Miliband's wider, mass appeal would give him the edge. I worried that Labour would see the light and have the sense to pick the man who could bring them back to the centre.
But the Unions have pulled them back to the left. Of course, this will be very popular with many within the Labour Party but at a wider level, I see this as a back-ward step for Labour. A move to the left won't play well in the country as a whole.
This will be re-emphasised if Ed chooses Ed Balls as his Shadow Chancellor. It's very possible that he will. If he takes that decision, he will alienate yet more centrist, middle-of-the-road supporters.
Responsibility for past mistakes
What we must remember of course, is that like all of the other candidates (apart from Diane Abbott) Ed sat in the out-going Labour Cabinet. They took collective responsibility for decisions that led to the economic mess in which we now find ourselves. He will find it particularly difficult to speak against government policy from a left-leaning position, if he doesn't acknowledge this.
Good luck Labour - you're going to need it
Of course, good government depends on having a good opposition. Ed Miliband therefore has a great responsibility ahead of him.
However, since May, Labour have been anything but responsible. More people would listen to their protestations against coalition government policy, if they actually admitted to fouling up Britain's economy up in the first place, instead of bickering from the sidelines as if it was nothing to do with them.
Ed would do well to make this admission from the outset as leader. Somehow however, I doubt he will and if the Unions pull him left, then responsible opposition is not what we'll get.
1st Preference
David M 37.8%
Ed M 34.33%
Balls 11.8%
Burnham 8.7%
Abbott 7.4%
2nd Preference
David M 38.9%
Ed M 37.47%
Balls 13.2%
Burnham 10.4%
3rd Preference
David M 42.72%
Ed M 41.26%
Balls 16.02%
4th Preference
Ed M 50.65%%
David M 49.35%
I was totalling up the figures instantly in my head and once David's final total came to 49.something, I knew straight away as the audience too realised what this meant, that Ed had 50.something.
What strikes me is that it is not the normal members of the Labour Party who have chosen their leader but the Trade Unions. David Miliband should have won this contest and indeed he led all of the way until the final ballot.
Indeed on the first ballot, the scores were as follows.
David M 37.78%
Ed M 34.33%
Balls 11.79%
Burnham 8.68%
Abbott 7.42%
Eventually, it was Ed Balls' votes that finally took Ed past his brother.
But David Miliband had the larger support of his fellow MPs and the membership at large. They clearly saw what the country would've seen in David Miliband - a Prime Minister in-waiting. His own MPs backed him in greater numbers than any other and the members of his own party also.
But that means nothing. To paraprhase the Sun in 1992, 'It was the Unions wot won it'. They've got their man, but it wasn't the man the Labour Party actually wanted. This brings into sharp focus the mess that is the electoral college that elects a Labour Party member. The Liberal Democrats vote their leader on a 'one member, one vote' basis and that's the democratic way in which it should work.
Labour's Left-ward march
I had great concern that David Miliband's wider, mass appeal would give him the edge. I worried that Labour would see the light and have the sense to pick the man who could bring them back to the centre.
But the Unions have pulled them back to the left. Of course, this will be very popular with many within the Labour Party but at a wider level, I see this as a back-ward step for Labour. A move to the left won't play well in the country as a whole.
This will be re-emphasised if Ed chooses Ed Balls as his Shadow Chancellor. It's very possible that he will. If he takes that decision, he will alienate yet more centrist, middle-of-the-road supporters.
Responsibility for past mistakes
What we must remember of course, is that like all of the other candidates (apart from Diane Abbott) Ed sat in the out-going Labour Cabinet. They took collective responsibility for decisions that led to the economic mess in which we now find ourselves. He will find it particularly difficult to speak against government policy from a left-leaning position, if he doesn't acknowledge this.
Good luck Labour - you're going to need it
Of course, good government depends on having a good opposition. Ed Miliband therefore has a great responsibility ahead of him.
However, since May, Labour have been anything but responsible. More people would listen to their protestations against coalition government policy, if they actually admitted to fouling up Britain's economy up in the first place, instead of bickering from the sidelines as if it was nothing to do with them.
Ed would do well to make this admission from the outset as leader. Somehow however, I doubt he will and if the Unions pull him left, then responsible opposition is not what we'll get.
The Labour Party Leadership Result in Full
1st Preference
David M 37.8%
Ed M 34.33%
Balls 11.8%
Burnham 8.7%
Abbott 7.4%
2nd Preference
David M 38.9%
Ed M 37.47%
Balls 13.2%
Burnham 10.4%
3rd Preference
David M 42.72%
Ed M 41.26%
Balls 16.02%
4th Preference
Ed M 50.65%%
David M 49.35%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)