When will Brown do the right thing on constitutional reform and defence?
The Government finally released the funds to pay for helicopters and equipment so urgently needed in Afghanistan, but not without reluctance from Gordon Brown who guillotined defence spending according to evidence from The Chilcot Enquiry, and in a letter he wrote to Tony Blair revealed in the Times today purposely diverted funds away from those helicopters that the army were begging for to be successful in Afghanistan.
He then proceeded to mislead the house in Prime Ministers Questions. In response to David Cameron bringing up the claims from Chilcot he reverted into the mentality of opposition – albeit one which can’t get it’s facts right. Brown claimed that the Coonservative party planned cut defence spending at the 2005 election, however as Nicolas Soames set the record straight in a speech to the RUSI.
‘There has been a great deal of misinformation from the Labour Party about Conservative defence expenditure plans and I am grateful for this opportunity to put the record straight. My party is committed to spending £2.7 billion in cash more than the present government on frontline defence.
He then proceeded to outline how a Conservative government would reallocate resouces to meet the demands of our commitments abroad.
‘The James Review has identified an additional £1.6 billion of efficiency savings over and above those identified in the Gershon Review and the Shadow Chancellor has agreed to reallocate a further £1.1 billion to defence from James Review savings in other departments’
In contrast, Brown has chosen to sound off about constitutional reform again. (As if they haven’t had a chance to do that for the last twelve years) When they start tinkering with the constitution then you know they’ve really got nothing valuable to say on real-life issues that actually matter to people. The move towards the alternative vote is merely one of party strategy, bring in AV, it’ll make it impossible for Lib Dems to even *mention* voting reform for 20 years, killing off all chance of serious reform that some in the Westminster village seek, and taking back Liberal Democrat votes from seats where Labour are under threat. In a nearby constituency of mine, the Lib Dems are biting at the heels of the sitting MP, will this so called ‘reform’ be enough to lure those floating voters back and reaffirm the Labour party hold on the North East?
If Gordon Brown was serious about reform he would be listening to the calls of the speaker John Bercow and give power back to the commons, especially to select committees. One suggestion in a report surrounding defence by the CPS is to follow the USA’s lead in accountability.
“In the US, when a +programme breaches its cost ceilings, the Department of Defense must testify before Congress. A similar procedure should be adopted here by the Defence Select Committee.”
Anyone who takes a gander of Private Eye will be aware of the cosy arrangements with the big contractors that this government have fostered and they must cease futhurmore this government has talked a lot about it’s pro-european credentials but wouldn’t allow EADS to do things the ‘best’ way but the way that ensures jobs and maintenance of expertise in member state so it becomes more needlessly complicated and drags on.
Just like this government it seems.
Can Labour regenerate the North East?
This is an old report from Policy Exchange I dug out recently which chimes in well with the attempts to ‘regenerate’ Durham, with not just a poor method, but an undemocratic one.
We did not claim, and do not claim, that these towns and cities have not improved since 1997. A decade of strong economic growth means that it is almost impossible to find any place that has not improved. Nor did we claim that the regeneration money that has been spent has achieved nothing. It is almost impossible to spend billions and billions, year in and year out, and achieve nothing at all. But we did claim – and no one has disputed this – that, far from catching up, the places we focused on, towns and cities that experienced wave after wave of regeneration initiatives, have fallen further behind the national average. In contrast, towns that were successful in 1997, and not the subject of regeneration policies, have pulled further ahead.
Looks like a resounding no.
It’s no wonder that Labour are no longer considered the Party of the NHS.
The Labour party always like to remind us that they are the party that strengthened the NHS after years of neglect from the ‘Nasty Tories’, yet as we’ve seen today none of the attacks land a blow.
If you call strengthening something chucking money at it so it looks a bit shinier and moves slightly quicker then the NHS really has been strengthened. On the other hand those of us who don’t feel that encouraging a culture of laziness and graft by paying off the medical workers unions, losing billions on projects of little real worth, or that even work and lumbering us with expensive contract payments for new facilities and services that won’t be paid off until we’re pensioners, probably by a Chancellor who is still doing their times tables and a PM who is yet to be born, is a million miles away from strengthening something.
Those are fairly minor points when you consider that spending on the NHS has grown at such an irresponsible rate over the last 10 years that it will probably be another 10 years before we see any major real increases, simply because there is no more money to lob its way. Labour have always claimed to be the “party of the NHS” so don’t you think it’s possible that people now feel anti-NHS thanks to Labour’s incompetence? Just a thought.
The Conservative party on the other hand do have the ideas to improve our health service.
Who will be the next Leader of the Labour Party?
Personally I think that Gordon Brown will probably lead Labour into the General Election. However, looking ahead, if he loses, (which he almost certainly will) then convention, internal party opinion and the lure of the international speaking circuit/World Bank will see he quits not long after.
So who will be the next leader of the Labour Party?
*The next leader will have to rebuild the party as a “credible left-wing force”, thereby seeing off the challenge of the LibDems from the right, the Greens from the left and the BNP in their heartlands.
*They will have to fix the party’s finances and stop it haemorrhaging members.
*They will have to keep Labour’s foot in the door of local government and the EU Parliament.
*Keep the unions and socialist societies sweet, whilst courting the media.
In short its a near impossible task and one which I think the potential candidates really aren’t up for.
Potential leaders:
Harriet Harman: Married to a union leader (unionists hold a third of the votes in the electoral college). Powerful within the party-has backbench support. Popular with some activists. Broadly centrist in terms of Labour politics. Unfortunately she is also a poor leader, unpopular amongst the wider electorate, not much of a debater, an intellectual lightweight, nearly sixty etc. Still stands a fair chance of winning though.
Alan Johnson: Very popular within the party. Moderate, likeable, charming, good life story, some have described him as “cool”. However, he has little intellectual calibre and would be made mince meat of by the likes of Cameron, Clegg, Lucas and Griffin. It is hard to see how he would bring new direction to the party or make it stand out (he to is also quite old, by today’s standards-59). As the leader of the Communication Worker’s Union, he was the most pro New-Labour and management unionist there was. This isn’t going to cut much ice with the neo-Trotskists like Bob Crow, who now dominate British unionism.
Jack Straw: Well known amongst the electorate, has some kudos with the unions and has built up something of a personal machine within the PLP and party bureaucracy. Has been an MP for thirty years, this year. On the other hand he isn’t far of state pension age and has been compromised by years in power. His draconian legislation and propensity for scandal has harmed his standing amongst the party membership at large and its hard to see how he would beat Cameron.
David Miliband: A man who’s moment may have passed. Lacks the union base, and gets much of his PLP support from the Blarite MPs who are likely to be out of office by the time the contest takes place. The years spent in cabinet have taken some shine off his “new boy” image, so he can hardly position himself against old timers like Straw and Harman as a “change candidate”. His standing amongst Labour party members is hard to gauge. If he can get through to a second round then he might stand a chance, especially if he’s up against someone many find unappealing like Harman.
Ed Miliband: Starting to step out of his brother’s shadow. Has impressed many with his calm the last few months-although his record as Energy Secretary is more mixed. Has several clear advantages he’s young, slightly left leaning (but not mentally so) and is largely unknown outside political circles-so is less tainted than the old guard by prior adventures. On the other hand it is arguable that having just turned forty; he is to young and to inexperienced to lead the party. Likely to popular amongst activists. But possibly lacks the union and PLP support the others have.
John McDonnell: Leader of Labour’s Socialist Campaign Group. Will probably run as the candidate of the far-left of the PLP. Could potentially pick up a fair bit of backing from the more extreme unions and sections of the PLP. As well as from some activists. A potential spoiler candidate, although unlikely to be a leader.
Peter Mandelson: I think he would be quite a good leader, he could probably hold his own against Cameron and keep the party on an even keel. However, he is unlikely to win a general election and the chances of the Labour Party electing a Lord or a Peter Mandelson are, I feel, slim.
Yvette Cooper: Ed Ball’s wife and like her husband a close ally of Gordon Brown. Is not that well known outside of the party, so might have the “new” factor. On the other hand she is a bit of a nonentity, and is possibly a bit to young to lead. Might have Gordon Brown’s backing if she stood and would be an alternative female candidate to Harriet Harman.
Alistair Darling: For some strange reason I’ve never heard him mentioned as a possible leader. There might be a good reason for this in that he is basically Gordon Brown’s thin double.
Ed Balls: Silly name, silly voice, silly man. No chance, but might run.
Putting those reasons aside, presuming Labour lose the next election they’re going to be in the wilderness for quite the while. Chances are, one of the Millibands will pick up the leadership assuming like Hague did they could win the next election, and just like Hague was pressured by some quarters of the party into quite severe Eurosceptisism there will be a resurgence of the left of the Labour party (Likely to be led by Jon Cruddas, and cheered on by the heavy hitters in the left wing blogosphere) to be a thorn in the side of the leadership and ruin their chances of being electable. Alan Johnson, of course even though probably the best candidate knows he can’t win the next election, and therefore not naive enough to follow in Hagues footsteps.
What Blair confession?
“If the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen. They will never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist nonetheless. Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane. The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction. But it is the reason, frankly, why if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience. Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones. But there are also consequences of ’stop the war’. If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam.”
Taken from Tony Blair’s speech to the Labour Party’s spring conference in Glasgow
It’s odd that that this is supposed to be suprising to anybody apart from those that rant and rage on the claim that Blair is a War Criminal, and if not that suggest that Tony Blair somehow misled the country in regards to the invasion of Iraq. Blair has a long history where he has explained his motivations for intervention there, and before Iraq has had a long history of humanitarian intervention across the world.
Whatever adds onto the Blair-hate bandwagon has got to be worth holding up though, right?