I don't wish to take anything away from the, frankly stunning, victory of David Cameron's Conservatives but the UK GE2015 election results are almost as much about the defeat of Labour as about the Conservatives.
The opinion pollsters will now conduct a post mortem into their abject failure to predict the outcome of the election. Whatever, they now say, the polls that they published understated support for Conservatives and overstated that for Labour. I like to think that they got it so wrong because the people that they asked consistently chose to fool the pollsters - otherwise known as lie to them, rather than give them straight, honest answers. I am no psephologist but I always wonder how polling around a 1,000 people can give any kind of reasonable view or cross-section of the polling intentions of 46 million voters.
Anyway, no doubt the pollsters will enquire and conclude that it was the voters that were wrong and not them. I can't see many people having much faith in their polls until they have re-built credibility.
So to Labour.
Ed Miliband resigned the leadership of Labour, once it became clear that they had soundly lost the election. There are some, me included, that think his resignation was about four years too late but......
Now Labour does what it does best. It will have a leadership election that will solve nothing. Much as I didn't like Ed Miliband - he just didn't come across as sincere or honest - the biggest problem with Labour was their policies and over-riding that fatal flaw was their absolute unwillingness to accept any responsibility for the financial crisis that the UK faced, at the time of the 2010 General Election. If I was a Conservative strategist, I would replay to the British public, time and time again, the part of the so called 'Leaders Question Time' where Miliband is asked if Labour overspent and he says no. The audience reaction of utter disbelief, was surely reflective of the country at large.
Unless and until Labour say sorry for the financial mess, they will always lose on the economy, always. They spoke, time and again, as did the odious SNP, about cuts and austerity and, did I mention savage cuts? Yet people understand that while some of these did impact heavily upon some people, overall, these were essential and were handled sensitively. Labour bang on about the NHS in some sort of proprietorial way but for me, people don't distrust the Conservatives anywhere near as much as Labour think they do or should. I think that on the NHS, the discussion is moving more towards the Conservative side than Labour understand.
The reason I mention some of the Labour election platform is that the current candidates for Ed Miliband's position seem destined to repeat the errors of his leadership,
The candidates are
Andy Burnham - I can state categorically that it isn't the whiny voice and his sense of only he being able to 'really, really' understand and 'really, really' feel the pain of people, that bothers me about the 'emote at the drop of a hat' Burnham. It his failure to take any responsibility for the 1,300+ unnecessary deaths which occurred in his beloved NHS, at Mid Staffs and elsewhere, when he was in-charge of the NHS. Read the horror of Mid Staffs here Simply put, Burnham has displayed very serious character flaws. That and his allegiance to old-style Labour re-distributionist policies show him to be out of touch with the aspirations of people. Some other posts on the NHS are here and here
Yvette Cooper - Can sound a little shrill at times but her most serious flaw, aside from being tied to out-dated policies, is that she is the wife of Ed Balls. I can't speak to what attracted her to Balls nor what keeps her there but surely, at some recent point in their relationship she should have been able to convince Balls that he and Miliband needed to apologise for the financial mess and to take responsibility for it. If she cannot persuade the man who shares a bed with her, of the massive errors of the party platform, then what faith can anyone have in her ability to negotiate on behalf of the UK or firmly deal with her union paymasters? Every time I see Yvette Cooper, I think Ed Balls and I immediately think financial mess. Maybe that's not fair, but that is my reality, and I would suspect that of many others.
Chuka Umana - Should narcissism be a qualifying condition for the leadership? Every time I see Chuka, I see someone that seems more interested in how he looks and if his tie matches his suit and shirt etc. Editor in Chief of GQ magazine - maybe but far too lightweight to lead the Labour Party. Imagine if you will, horror that it might be, that Labour is in power and Chuka has to face down Len McCluskey of Unite regarding a series of public sector strikes and also to contend with aggressive moves from Putin's Russia and, at the same time, Daesh attacks in the UK. Can you see that and see Chuka with any kind of the required knowledge and experience or gravitas? Umana has been described (by himself?) as the UK's Obama. Seeing how the former Community Organiser, Obama, has created great divisions within the US and promoted failed policy after failed policy, and destroyed America's standing in the world. Should Labour elect someone with such aspirations?
The other declared candidates.
Liz Kendall I know little about, which maybe is a good thing because she maybe isn't painted into that 'we didn't overspend' corner and without such baggage may be able to provide Labour with a policy platform that focuses on the needs and aspirations of real people rather than a metropolitan elite.
Tristram Hunt - His opposition to Michael Gove's education reforms should automatically disqualify him - again, his adherence to party and union dogma seeks to override the aspirations of people.
Like many people, I find that Labour has nothing to offer me or my children. Fundamentally, that is their problem. The leadership is much less relevant. Miliband's ineptitude with a bacon sandwich didn't help. His inability to say sorry was a key factor - a clear character flaw. At the end of the day though, it always come down to policy and Labour had nothing to offer today's voters. Until they get that right, it doesn't matter who they chose as leader!
The opinion pollsters will now conduct a post mortem into their abject failure to predict the outcome of the election. Whatever, they now say, the polls that they published understated support for Conservatives and overstated that for Labour. I like to think that they got it so wrong because the people that they asked consistently chose to fool the pollsters - otherwise known as lie to them, rather than give them straight, honest answers. I am no psephologist but I always wonder how polling around a 1,000 people can give any kind of reasonable view or cross-section of the polling intentions of 46 million voters.
Anyway, no doubt the pollsters will enquire and conclude that it was the voters that were wrong and not them. I can't see many people having much faith in their polls until they have re-built credibility.
So to Labour.
Ed Miliband resigned the leadership of Labour, once it became clear that they had soundly lost the election. There are some, me included, that think his resignation was about four years too late but......
Now Labour does what it does best. It will have a leadership election that will solve nothing. Much as I didn't like Ed Miliband - he just didn't come across as sincere or honest - the biggest problem with Labour was their policies and over-riding that fatal flaw was their absolute unwillingness to accept any responsibility for the financial crisis that the UK faced, at the time of the 2010 General Election. If I was a Conservative strategist, I would replay to the British public, time and time again, the part of the so called 'Leaders Question Time' where Miliband is asked if Labour overspent and he says no. The audience reaction of utter disbelief, was surely reflective of the country at large.
Unless and until Labour say sorry for the financial mess, they will always lose on the economy, always. They spoke, time and again, as did the odious SNP, about cuts and austerity and, did I mention savage cuts? Yet people understand that while some of these did impact heavily upon some people, overall, these were essential and were handled sensitively. Labour bang on about the NHS in some sort of proprietorial way but for me, people don't distrust the Conservatives anywhere near as much as Labour think they do or should. I think that on the NHS, the discussion is moving more towards the Conservative side than Labour understand.
The reason I mention some of the Labour election platform is that the current candidates for Ed Miliband's position seem destined to repeat the errors of his leadership,
The candidates are
Andy Burnham - I can state categorically that it isn't the whiny voice and his sense of only he being able to 'really, really' understand and 'really, really' feel the pain of people, that bothers me about the 'emote at the drop of a hat' Burnham. It his failure to take any responsibility for the 1,300+ unnecessary deaths which occurred in his beloved NHS, at Mid Staffs and elsewhere, when he was in-charge of the NHS. Read the horror of Mid Staffs here Simply put, Burnham has displayed very serious character flaws. That and his allegiance to old-style Labour re-distributionist policies show him to be out of touch with the aspirations of people. Some other posts on the NHS are here and here
Yvette Cooper - Can sound a little shrill at times but her most serious flaw, aside from being tied to out-dated policies, is that she is the wife of Ed Balls. I can't speak to what attracted her to Balls nor what keeps her there but surely, at some recent point in their relationship she should have been able to convince Balls that he and Miliband needed to apologise for the financial mess and to take responsibility for it. If she cannot persuade the man who shares a bed with her, of the massive errors of the party platform, then what faith can anyone have in her ability to negotiate on behalf of the UK or firmly deal with her union paymasters? Every time I see Yvette Cooper, I think Ed Balls and I immediately think financial mess. Maybe that's not fair, but that is my reality, and I would suspect that of many others.
Chuka Umana - Should narcissism be a qualifying condition for the leadership? Every time I see Chuka, I see someone that seems more interested in how he looks and if his tie matches his suit and shirt etc. Editor in Chief of GQ magazine - maybe but far too lightweight to lead the Labour Party. Imagine if you will, horror that it might be, that Labour is in power and Chuka has to face down Len McCluskey of Unite regarding a series of public sector strikes and also to contend with aggressive moves from Putin's Russia and, at the same time, Daesh attacks in the UK. Can you see that and see Chuka with any kind of the required knowledge and experience or gravitas? Umana has been described (by himself?) as the UK's Obama. Seeing how the former Community Organiser, Obama, has created great divisions within the US and promoted failed policy after failed policy, and destroyed America's standing in the world. Should Labour elect someone with such aspirations?
The other declared candidates.
Liz Kendall I know little about, which maybe is a good thing because she maybe isn't painted into that 'we didn't overspend' corner and without such baggage may be able to provide Labour with a policy platform that focuses on the needs and aspirations of real people rather than a metropolitan elite.
Tristram Hunt - His opposition to Michael Gove's education reforms should automatically disqualify him - again, his adherence to party and union dogma seeks to override the aspirations of people.
Like many people, I find that Labour has nothing to offer me or my children. Fundamentally, that is their problem. The leadership is much less relevant. Miliband's ineptitude with a bacon sandwich didn't help. His inability to say sorry was a key factor - a clear character flaw. At the end of the day though, it always come down to policy and Labour had nothing to offer today's voters. Until they get that right, it doesn't matter who they chose as leader!
No comments:
Post a Comment