Labour Fights Back
6 January, 2012 2 Comments
Well, sort of.
Labour’s had a bit of a bumpy start to 2012*. We started the week with the excellent Liam Byrne making very sensible noises in the Guardian about how we can reform welfare, and reform the public’s perception of Labour on welfare. We saw that Labour should restore the idea of “something for something” and that the Government should reward and assist those who develop their skills, go out into the world and better themselves and those around them. Byrne also said that we should not defend people who cheat the benefits system. They are the undeserving in society.
Next up, we had the Shadow Secretary of State for Education Stephen Twigg who made a speech to the North of England Education Conference which floated the policy proposal of longer school days to prepare pupils better for the world of work. Twigg said:
‘The workers down tools when they hear the bell ring, and are strictly separated into production lines, focused on building the constituent parts of knowledge, maths, science etc. At the same time, students are rigidly separated. Taught in batches, not by ability or interest, but by their own date of manufacture. While noble in its origins, this 19th century form of industrial education feels distinctly ill at ease with the demands of a modern, globalised economy, which demands collaboration, innovation, entrepreneurship, and an appreciation that developing value comes not from a more efficient forms of production, but more skilled ones.’
Another excellent intervention from another of Labour’s best voices in the Shadow Cabinet. Proposing to reform education by making such a simple, easy to communicate change is a positive move by Labour on education. It shows that the Party can do more than just whinge about Free Schools and Academies. It shows that we can articulate our own vision rather than just reacting to the Government. A great move.
Finally Jim Murphy MP intervened on the economic position of Labour by saying that Labour should be credible on cuts, and specified the exact cuts that he would have made. Murphy said:
“It is important to be both credible and popular when it comes to defence investment and the economics of defence,” Murphy said. “There is a difference between populism and popularity. Credibility is the bridge away from populism and towards popularity. It is difficult to sustain popularity without genuine credibility. At a time on defence when the government is neither credible nor popular it is compulsory that Labour is both.”
Of course, he is only talking about defence. I’d hope that this signals a shift in Labour’s thinking towards each Shadow departmental team specifying what it would be doing if it were in Government now. The Public think that the Coalition is right to cut spending – We should too.
Less than helpful we had the intervention of Maurice Glasman. He told the Guardian that:
‘On the face of it, these look like bad times for Labour and for Ed Miliband’s leadership. There seems to be no strategy, no narrative and little energy.
‘Ed is going to have to show some leadership and courage if the political dynamics of this year are to be different.’
But, of course, the main focus of his fire was Ed Balls:
“The problem with Brownite political economy is that, even though it was true that a 3% deficit was not excessive in the context of economic growth, it was debt that was growing at the time, rather than the real economy. A vast, sustained expansion in private debt fuelled the financial sector throughout Brown’s tenure as chancellor and then prime minister.”
And then, of course, we had Diane Abbott’s “racist” tweet:
