Well, even the shouting is over so a moment of reflection is probably called for. In West Oxfordshire we did okay. We won the ultra blue seat of Woodstock and we held Charlbury and Finstock, increasing the majority to one which can reasonably be described as 'thumping'. Elsewhere in the district the Labour Party did well, gaining 3 seats. It's always good to see the Tories get a kicking but I still hold to the 'plague on both their houses' line.
The Greens also stood across the area, did b*gger all but took votes which could be ours - the only party which actually does stuff to address environmental concerns rather than just recycling our Guardians in a really concerned manner. If you want to really stuff the environment, vote Green. That way you guarantee the Tories get elected.
Politics is a drug which those of us who are hooked cannot shake off so I enjoyed the campaign, from the endless trudging up drives to deliver another bit of paper to the argument with the man putting his daughter to bed at 9.45pm as I begged him to vote. Needless to say, he didn't. Maybe these people frighten their children once a year by telling them to go to sleep or the nasty Lib Dem Knocker Upper will get them.
Every year I do this stuff and every year I end with the thought that we must do something better to get, retain and increase our vote. Looking at mighty places like Eastleigh and Portsmouth, it is clearly possible and we perhaps need to be a little less prim in Oxfordshire and really go for the jugular. After all, there is little in life which is certain but the prospect of a wounded and spiteful David Cameron standing on a very unpopular ticket in 2015 hereabouts is a good bet.
Labour will have donned white robes and fake wings by then so I suppose our job is to damn Dave for everything he has failed to do - like sacking his culture secretary, promoting just one or two people who didn't go to school with him to the Cabinet, and anything on Lords reform - while simultaneously reminding people about 'New' Labour and its record on sleaze, warmongering and leaping headfirst into bed with Australian media barons. Fingers crossed Ed the Supply Leader will still be in charge of Labour in 2015.
As for our leader, well more on that next.
Rather oddly, I am reassured by the election results. They proved that we are taking on the Tories. They also confirm that we are the challengers to Labour. Yes, the fightback will be hard but this is grown up, national politics and the transition is going to hurt but we might just find in a few years that we are in a significantly better position as far as Westminster politics is concerned, at which point the pain of the current period could seem worthwhile.
With apologies to anyone who fought and lost yesterday. I share your pain and I am not making light of it.
Showing posts with label ED MILIBAND. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ED MILIBAND. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 May 2012
Monday, 26 September 2011
LEAVE HIM, BRITAIN. HE'S LIED BEFORE, HE'LL LIE AGAIN...
Following on from David Miliband's little brother promising to cap tuition fees if he becomes Prime Minister, a friend sent me an interesting reminder about old 'New' Labour and their previous promises on this thorny issue, lest we forget how trustworthy the PFI-loving, banker-worshipping warmongers were:
1997 election manifesto: 'we will not introduce tuition fees'. The new government introduced them within 6 months. 'Things can only get better...' Tories supported fees, the Lib Dems opposed them.
2001 election manifesto: 'we will not introduce top up fees and will introduce legislation to rule them out'. The re-elected Labour government waited a little while on this before introducing top up fees in 2004. Tories supported top up fees, the Lib Dems opposed them.
2011: David Milliband's little brother announces that a future Labour government ('New, Improved Labour' perhaps?) would cap fees at £6,000. This is widely reported as news in the country's media, to the astonishment of the 27 people in the country with longer memories than last year.
2025: having been through several leaders, including the disastrous 'Balls-up' years, a Labour government struggles into power having ditched its remaining principles, headed by a public school lawyer who drops his 't's and pretends to like football. The new leader says 'sorry, we meant to say we won't increase fees by any more than £6000 so now there will be a graduate tax paid for over your lifetime'.
And yes, I know we didn't cover ourselves in glory on this one but we still believe in a free education and with any luck we'll get the chance to address this in due course. That said, the jury must still be out on the notion that cleaners should pay for graduates.
1997 election manifesto: 'we will not introduce tuition fees'. The new government introduced them within 6 months. 'Things can only get better...' Tories supported fees, the Lib Dems opposed them.
2001 election manifesto: 'we will not introduce top up fees and will introduce legislation to rule them out'. The re-elected Labour government waited a little while on this before introducing top up fees in 2004. Tories supported top up fees, the Lib Dems opposed them.
2011: David Milliband's little brother announces that a future Labour government ('New, Improved Labour' perhaps?) would cap fees at £6,000. This is widely reported as news in the country's media, to the astonishment of the 27 people in the country with longer memories than last year.
2025: having been through several leaders, including the disastrous 'Balls-up' years, a Labour government struggles into power having ditched its remaining principles, headed by a public school lawyer who drops his 't's and pretends to like football. The new leader says 'sorry, we meant to say we won't increase fees by any more than £6000 so now there will be a graduate tax paid for over your lifetime'.
And yes, I know we didn't cover ourselves in glory on this one but we still believe in a free education and with any luck we'll get the chance to address this in due course. That said, the jury must still be out on the notion that cleaners should pay for graduates.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
MORE POLICE, LESS CRIME. SIMPLES, NO?
No.
Here come Labour, chuntering on about policing cuts in the absence of any acceptance of responsibility for the recent criminal activities - some of whose participants were born and grew up under a Labour government. Same old Labour: trite responses to a hugely complex issue. Well, here's a response to Labour.
The country has just been through one of the worst recessions ever. We are poorer than we were in 2008 and the economy is flatlining. Despite the Labour spin, any party which had emerged from the election in 2010 in control would have had to make swingeing cuts along the lines of those which have been made. If you doubt this, just google 'Alastair Darling and cuts', to see what the bushy-eyebrowed 'Laurel' was saying before the election as the then Prime Minister, 'Hardy' Brown tried desperately to stop him. The cuts have been made across the board and have included every public service, including the police. That it not pleasant or easy but it is fair. People demanding that planned cuts in policing budgets are stopped to avoid a repeat of the recent problems in future are being too simplistic. Their response is understandable but it ignores a number of facts.
Firstly, recent events were unprecedented and could not have been planned for even with double the number of police. Police numbers in themselves are not the problem; the issue of recent days appears to have been the response by the police and the attitude of the communities involved, which in many cases has been to criticise the police for failing to hold back huge mobs without recognising all our involvement in building and maintaining a civilised society.
Secondly, the police service has shown a quite impressive ability to respond in force to the problem after the initial shock, suggesting not that police numbers are the problem but that police intelligence was at fault.
Thirdly, what kind of message does it send to the criminals involved in the recent looting and destruction that we have to abandon essential economic plans to rescue the country - that's all of us with bank accounts, mortgages, loans, savings, shares, investments - to stop a few hundred people from being animals? Isn't this the cliched 'holding the country to ransom' which so many politicians would normally decry?
The answer to the recent problems is not a crude numbers game. Flooding England with police will not stop crime but it will diminish all our civil liberties. The problem is far wider and deeper and it touches on everyone. The police are not the controlling, oppressive force found in other countries - thank God - they are part of society and for that we all share a burden.
Wake up Miliband and Harman and recognise that 13 years of oppressive and intrusive government did not solve deep-seated problems in our country. When you do that, feel free to consider solutions other than more uniforms. Until then, go home and read a book or de-flea the cat.
Here come Labour, chuntering on about policing cuts in the absence of any acceptance of responsibility for the recent criminal activities - some of whose participants were born and grew up under a Labour government. Same old Labour: trite responses to a hugely complex issue. Well, here's a response to Labour.
The country has just been through one of the worst recessions ever. We are poorer than we were in 2008 and the economy is flatlining. Despite the Labour spin, any party which had emerged from the election in 2010 in control would have had to make swingeing cuts along the lines of those which have been made. If you doubt this, just google 'Alastair Darling and cuts', to see what the bushy-eyebrowed 'Laurel' was saying before the election as the then Prime Minister, 'Hardy' Brown tried desperately to stop him. The cuts have been made across the board and have included every public service, including the police. That it not pleasant or easy but it is fair. People demanding that planned cuts in policing budgets are stopped to avoid a repeat of the recent problems in future are being too simplistic. Their response is understandable but it ignores a number of facts.
Firstly, recent events were unprecedented and could not have been planned for even with double the number of police. Police numbers in themselves are not the problem; the issue of recent days appears to have been the response by the police and the attitude of the communities involved, which in many cases has been to criticise the police for failing to hold back huge mobs without recognising all our involvement in building and maintaining a civilised society.
Secondly, the police service has shown a quite impressive ability to respond in force to the problem after the initial shock, suggesting not that police numbers are the problem but that police intelligence was at fault.
Thirdly, what kind of message does it send to the criminals involved in the recent looting and destruction that we have to abandon essential economic plans to rescue the country - that's all of us with bank accounts, mortgages, loans, savings, shares, investments - to stop a few hundred people from being animals? Isn't this the cliched 'holding the country to ransom' which so many politicians would normally decry?
The answer to the recent problems is not a crude numbers game. Flooding England with police will not stop crime but it will diminish all our civil liberties. The problem is far wider and deeper and it touches on everyone. The police are not the controlling, oppressive force found in other countries - thank God - they are part of society and for that we all share a burden.
Wake up Miliband and Harman and recognise that 13 years of oppressive and intrusive government did not solve deep-seated problems in our country. When you do that, feel free to consider solutions other than more uniforms. Until then, go home and read a book or de-flea the cat.
Friday, 8 July 2011
NO, ED, WRONG AGAIN
What a pointless wretch Ed Miliband is. Faced with the biggest scandal to hit the media in this country since, well, the last one (David Kelly, Diana, yadayadayada), this is a golden opportunity for the leader of the opposition to actually get some coverage, yet his best throw of the dice has been to call for Dave to apologise for hiring Andy Coulson.
Now, I won't defend Dave and clearly his decision to hire an ex News of the World hack was a poor one but seriously, is this the best our opposition can do? Is there nothing to be said about the Murdoch empire? Or the hateful Rebekah Brooks? Or the pretty lamentable record of the News of the World for years, which can just be discerned through the crocodile tears over its closure?
The country needs robust opposition and that opposition needs intelligent leadership which is both critical and forward looking. And we have Eds Miliband and Balls - one showing ineptitude worthy of the John Major government, the other possibly the most cynical and unlikeable politician of his generation, tarnished by his association with last disastrous government.
Thank God Nickers has again come out against the Tories and their visceral hatred of Europe today. We may be in the government but we're still a better opposition than Labour.
Now, I won't defend Dave and clearly his decision to hire an ex News of the World hack was a poor one but seriously, is this the best our opposition can do? Is there nothing to be said about the Murdoch empire? Or the hateful Rebekah Brooks? Or the pretty lamentable record of the News of the World for years, which can just be discerned through the crocodile tears over its closure?
The country needs robust opposition and that opposition needs intelligent leadership which is both critical and forward looking. And we have Eds Miliband and Balls - one showing ineptitude worthy of the John Major government, the other possibly the most cynical and unlikeable politician of his generation, tarnished by his association with last disastrous government.
Thank God Nickers has again come out against the Tories and their visceral hatred of Europe today. We may be in the government but we're still a better opposition than Labour.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
NO, ED, I WOULDN'T GO THERE IF I WERE YOU
Ed Miliband said today of the student fees debate: "Before the election, they promised families and young people that they would oppose any increase in tuition fees"
That's true Ed, but then before the 1997 election Labour said there would be a vote on a fairer electoral system. They won that election and failed to do this.
Before the 1997 election Labour said they would abolish the House of Lords. They won that election and failed to do this.
After the 1997 election John Prescott pledged to reduce road transport dramatically and he failed utterly and miserably. His only achievement was his magic trick of turning his minsterial car into a bus, perhaps to encourage greener transport...
Before the 2001 election Labour said they would not introduce tuition fees, then they did.
It wasn't a concrete pledge but I doubt a single Labour voter supported that party in 2001 in the hope that they would drag this country into a disastrous, oil-fuelled war of revenge the consequences of which will continue to reverberate for decades to come.
Before the 2010 election Labour supported a referendum on a fairer voting system, now they oppose this because it doesn't favour them.
Before the 2010 election, Labour Chancellor Alastair Darling pledged to address the deficit through swingeing cuts equivalent in severity to what the coalition has implemented. Now Labour politicians decry any suggestion of this.
Do you really want to talk about broken pledges? If you do, we've got 13 years to consider. Labour broke countless pledges over that time but perhaps the biggest crime of all is how little they did when they had the power to do so much.
Before 1994 Labour had some principles. I didn't like them but at least they were there to be seen.
That's true Ed, but then before the 1997 election Labour said there would be a vote on a fairer electoral system. They won that election and failed to do this.
Before the 1997 election Labour said they would abolish the House of Lords. They won that election and failed to do this.
After the 1997 election John Prescott pledged to reduce road transport dramatically and he failed utterly and miserably. His only achievement was his magic trick of turning his minsterial car into a bus, perhaps to encourage greener transport...
Before the 2001 election Labour said they would not introduce tuition fees, then they did.
It wasn't a concrete pledge but I doubt a single Labour voter supported that party in 2001 in the hope that they would drag this country into a disastrous, oil-fuelled war of revenge the consequences of which will continue to reverberate for decades to come.
Before the 2010 election Labour supported a referendum on a fairer voting system, now they oppose this because it doesn't favour them.
Before the 2010 election, Labour Chancellor Alastair Darling pledged to address the deficit through swingeing cuts equivalent in severity to what the coalition has implemented. Now Labour politicians decry any suggestion of this.
Do you really want to talk about broken pledges? If you do, we've got 13 years to consider. Labour broke countless pledges over that time but perhaps the biggest crime of all is how little they did when they had the power to do so much.
Before 1994 Labour had some principles. I didn't like them but at least they were there to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)