Monday, 23 August 2010
Labour Leadership - I've Finally Decided
This blog is a bit of a journey; in starting it I was completely undecided on who I would cast my vote for in the Labour Leadership Contest. I’ve trawled the websites of the runners and riders, watched the interviews and read their literature and, after much head-scratching I’ve reached a conclusion.
From my perspective the whole leadership contest has to some a large extent been defined by the absence of two names which I was desperate to see on the ballot paper. Alan Johnson – the union man with high-level cabinet experience who hardly faltered at the top (and on the occasions I have heard him speak he has been excellent); and Jon Cruddas – the media tagged ‘senior backbencher’ with a fantastic policy pedigree and the perfect type of politics (everything I have read by JC in Compass has been spot on).
Alas, the ballot paper has five different names on it, all bringing their own unique flavour to the mix. One thing I can say is that the campaign has showcased our ‘broad church’, and the genuine contest will mean a stronger party than that which followed Gordon’s coronation. So, turning to each of the candidates:
When you meet Andy Burnham he comes across as a genuine down to earth bloke with a passion for putting things right in society. I like some of the inclusive social policy he has come forward with, however he’s not come forward with much – only one post on his leadership blog. I like what he has said on trusting the party and being more inclusive in the policy making process, and he offers a much broader commitment to this than the other candidate’s elected party chair gesture.
A couple of concerns though. Firstly his media performance: like it or not a party leader must be able to stand up to a grilling. When I saw Andy on This Week (a fairly informal set up) he was mauled by Andrew Neil. How would he come across facing Paxo on Newsnight or Cameron over the dispatch box? Secondly, his campaign has been described as grassroots. If we’re honest it’s been barely visible because of lack of finance and manpower. If a leadership contender can’t inspire the support and donations to fight this battle, how will they engage the public in order to grow the Labour movement and build the electoral coalition we need to succeed in the next election?
Mrs Reynolds decided early on in the leadership campaign that she would be backing Ed Miliband. I wanted to be convinced, and must admit I have been taken with his approach to the economy (e.g. High Pay Commission, interventionist in industry) and his take on what people want from politicians – ideology and passion rather than just guff. That said I wonder if a milibandwagon has passed Ed’s campaign HQ? Denouncing the invasion of Iraq for instance (wasn’t EM a policy advisor to Tony Blair back then). Also I’m not keen on his pledge on gender balance for the shadow cabinet, although I admire the principle. The party should appoint people to posts based on skill and potential, rather than on arbitrary quotas. There are enough females of a high calibre in the Labour Movement that the new leader doesn’t need to be reminded they are there by having his/her own targets!
I’ve been very impressed by David Miliband’s campaigning machine. I’ve personally had three calls from his team, a leaflet and he is all over Twitter. Some of this is because of his huge financial backing, but then again two of the calls were from ordinary members of his own CLP that are giving backing to the campaign. Also, if people are donating to the campaign there must be a reason, inspirational leadership perhaps (see B Obama)? Having seen David speak on a couple of occasions though, he’s not blown me away. His policy priorities don’t get me excited either. There’s nothing I’d argue with: fair wages, building the new economy, a greener Britain, its just it all seems a bit cliché and there doesn’t seem to be much substance. All in all I think David would be a very capable leader but not necessarily an incredible one. He would manage the media, and take the battle to the ConDems, but would he inspire the reinvigoration of the Labour Movement and the nation?
I must admit I started out with a prejudice against Ed Balls. I know a lot of educationalists that haven’t a good word to say about his approach while Secretary of State. Also a lot has been said about the ‘bullying culture’ that allegedly characterised the latter days of Government, with Mr Balls being Gordon’s chief lieutenant. This is a culture which a revitalised Labour Party should be avoided like the plague.
Over the course of the leadership campaign, however, my perception of Ed Balls has changed entirely. He has been by far and away the best candidate at defending Labour’s record under attack from the new government. Further he’s not denied his key role in the New Labour project. His campaign has been articulated in unpretentious language which I like and he has in my opinion been strongest in the media, particularly in broadcasted interviews. He has got stuck in to his campaigns (watch out for Keep the Post Public), but aside from that his campaigns are similar to David Miliband’s – a little dry and ‘bitty’. Ed is a high calibre candidate but I’m not sure he provides the break with the past that we need.
Last but not least the final contender Diane Abbott. Its been refreshing to see Diane in the contest, not because she isn’t a white thirty-something man, but because she isn’t in the same mould of carbon copy politico’s that use a certain type of language and present their arguments in a certain type of way. She’s also put across some arguments that haven’t had the airing they deserve for some time. However I get the feeling she’s playing being controversial and trying to make that her USP. I really like her stance on immigration policy, trident and economy, but then again I find some of her policy banded under ‘Civil Liberties’ unacceptable. I like the prospect of have a highly principled leader, but what happens when her principles are at odd with the will of the wider party? Will she bolt as she has done as an MP? Also I’d question whether someone is a principled politician when they argue against private education and then send their offspring to public school. Aside from that I can’t get past the fact she’s unelectable.
So cutting to the chase, after balancing everything up Ed Miliband will be getting my first preference and (surprising to me) Ed Balls the second.
Frankly, whoever wins the leadership has a massive task. Tony Blair aspired that while the Tory’s were the party of government in the twentieth century, Labour would be in the twenty-first. For that to happen we have to become a movement again rather than just a Westminster party. None of the policy initiatives or rhetoric coming forward from the candidates at the moment will make that transformation. It is an exciting, if worrying, time to be a member. From the new leader a party expects.
From my perspective the whole leadership contest has to some a large extent been defined by the absence of two names which I was desperate to see on the ballot paper. Alan Johnson – the union man with high-level cabinet experience who hardly faltered at the top (and on the occasions I have heard him speak he has been excellent); and Jon Cruddas – the media tagged ‘senior backbencher’ with a fantastic policy pedigree and the perfect type of politics (everything I have read by JC in Compass has been spot on).
Alas, the ballot paper has five different names on it, all bringing their own unique flavour to the mix. One thing I can say is that the campaign has showcased our ‘broad church’, and the genuine contest will mean a stronger party than that which followed Gordon’s coronation. So, turning to each of the candidates:
When you meet Andy Burnham he comes across as a genuine down to earth bloke with a passion for putting things right in society. I like some of the inclusive social policy he has come forward with, however he’s not come forward with much – only one post on his leadership blog. I like what he has said on trusting the party and being more inclusive in the policy making process, and he offers a much broader commitment to this than the other candidate’s elected party chair gesture.
A couple of concerns though. Firstly his media performance: like it or not a party leader must be able to stand up to a grilling. When I saw Andy on This Week (a fairly informal set up) he was mauled by Andrew Neil. How would he come across facing Paxo on Newsnight or Cameron over the dispatch box? Secondly, his campaign has been described as grassroots. If we’re honest it’s been barely visible because of lack of finance and manpower. If a leadership contender can’t inspire the support and donations to fight this battle, how will they engage the public in order to grow the Labour movement and build the electoral coalition we need to succeed in the next election?
Mrs Reynolds decided early on in the leadership campaign that she would be backing Ed Miliband. I wanted to be convinced, and must admit I have been taken with his approach to the economy (e.g. High Pay Commission, interventionist in industry) and his take on what people want from politicians – ideology and passion rather than just guff. That said I wonder if a milibandwagon has passed Ed’s campaign HQ? Denouncing the invasion of Iraq for instance (wasn’t EM a policy advisor to Tony Blair back then). Also I’m not keen on his pledge on gender balance for the shadow cabinet, although I admire the principle. The party should appoint people to posts based on skill and potential, rather than on arbitrary quotas. There are enough females of a high calibre in the Labour Movement that the new leader doesn’t need to be reminded they are there by having his/her own targets!
I’ve been very impressed by David Miliband’s campaigning machine. I’ve personally had three calls from his team, a leaflet and he is all over Twitter. Some of this is because of his huge financial backing, but then again two of the calls were from ordinary members of his own CLP that are giving backing to the campaign. Also, if people are donating to the campaign there must be a reason, inspirational leadership perhaps (see B Obama)? Having seen David speak on a couple of occasions though, he’s not blown me away. His policy priorities don’t get me excited either. There’s nothing I’d argue with: fair wages, building the new economy, a greener Britain, its just it all seems a bit cliché and there doesn’t seem to be much substance. All in all I think David would be a very capable leader but not necessarily an incredible one. He would manage the media, and take the battle to the ConDems, but would he inspire the reinvigoration of the Labour Movement and the nation?
I must admit I started out with a prejudice against Ed Balls. I know a lot of educationalists that haven’t a good word to say about his approach while Secretary of State. Also a lot has been said about the ‘bullying culture’ that allegedly characterised the latter days of Government, with Mr Balls being Gordon’s chief lieutenant. This is a culture which a revitalised Labour Party should be avoided like the plague.
Over the course of the leadership campaign, however, my perception of Ed Balls has changed entirely. He has been by far and away the best candidate at defending Labour’s record under attack from the new government. Further he’s not denied his key role in the New Labour project. His campaign has been articulated in unpretentious language which I like and he has in my opinion been strongest in the media, particularly in broadcasted interviews. He has got stuck in to his campaigns (watch out for Keep the Post Public), but aside from that his campaigns are similar to David Miliband’s – a little dry and ‘bitty’. Ed is a high calibre candidate but I’m not sure he provides the break with the past that we need.
Last but not least the final contender Diane Abbott. Its been refreshing to see Diane in the contest, not because she isn’t a white thirty-something man, but because she isn’t in the same mould of carbon copy politico’s that use a certain type of language and present their arguments in a certain type of way. She’s also put across some arguments that haven’t had the airing they deserve for some time. However I get the feeling she’s playing being controversial and trying to make that her USP. I really like her stance on immigration policy, trident and economy, but then again I find some of her policy banded under ‘Civil Liberties’ unacceptable. I like the prospect of have a highly principled leader, but what happens when her principles are at odd with the will of the wider party? Will she bolt as she has done as an MP? Also I’d question whether someone is a principled politician when they argue against private education and then send their offspring to public school. Aside from that I can’t get past the fact she’s unelectable.
So cutting to the chase, after balancing everything up Ed Miliband will be getting my first preference and (surprising to me) Ed Balls the second.
Frankly, whoever wins the leadership has a massive task. Tony Blair aspired that while the Tory’s were the party of government in the twentieth century, Labour would be in the twenty-first. For that to happen we have to become a movement again rather than just a Westminster party. None of the policy initiatives or rhetoric coming forward from the candidates at the moment will make that transformation. It is an exciting, if worrying, time to be a member. From the new leader a party expects.
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Playbuilder Knock Back
Since being elected a couple of years ago, I've been involved in a new community group in Longton North called the Chad Park Partnership. There are a few individuals who I have mentioned previously in my blog who do a tremendous amount of hard work, on a purely voluntary based, to try and improve the play facilities for young people in the area.
The partnership have had some great early successes- the new MUGA behind Gladstone Primary, and in partnership with the Council to improved play area at Anchor Rd. To me, the Partnership is everything that is good about communities, charities and the public sector working together for the greater good- what David Cameron might call 'the big society'.
I can honestly say being involved with the Chad group is one of the things I am proudest of as a ward councillor, so I'm really upset that the next phase of the project - the completion of Anchor rd rec with a mix of playbuilder and ward funding - has been seriously jeopardised by the Central Government's withdrawal of playbuilder finance.
I fully understand that central government has to cut the cloth given the situation of the public finances, we know we will have to make difficult decisions here at a local government level as well. But there is a paradox between the Prime Minister's rhetoric about Big Society (which on the whole I agree with because of the underlying cooperative ethos), and the slash and burn on schemes like playbuilder which are enabling communities to improve themselves in a collaborative way.
My solace is that I know the determined individuals involved in the Chad Park Partnership will keep up the momentum generated by their early wins, and I'm sure that despite this set back we will continue to see improved open spaces in Sandford Hill and Meir Hay.
The partnership have had some great early successes- the new MUGA behind Gladstone Primary, and in partnership with the Council to improved play area at Anchor Rd. To me, the Partnership is everything that is good about communities, charities and the public sector working together for the greater good- what David Cameron might call 'the big society'.
I can honestly say being involved with the Chad group is one of the things I am proudest of as a ward councillor, so I'm really upset that the next phase of the project - the completion of Anchor rd rec with a mix of playbuilder and ward funding - has been seriously jeopardised by the Central Government's withdrawal of playbuilder finance.
I fully understand that central government has to cut the cloth given the situation of the public finances, we know we will have to make difficult decisions here at a local government level as well. But there is a paradox between the Prime Minister's rhetoric about Big Society (which on the whole I agree with because of the underlying cooperative ethos), and the slash and burn on schemes like playbuilder which are enabling communities to improve themselves in a collaborative way.
My solace is that I know the determined individuals involved in the Chad Park Partnership will keep up the momentum generated by their early wins, and I'm sure that despite this set back we will continue to see improved open spaces in Sandford Hill and Meir Hay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)