Luke Akehurst is one of Labour's more sensible bloggers. If they had put him in charge of you know what, I suspect it would have stood a decent chance of success. He shows in THIS post why he gets what you know who never will. He asks how on earth Labour can hope to win from 28%. But instead of saying "we're all doomed", even though if you read between the lines you suspect he really thinks that, he comes up with some suggestions of a strategy for Gordon Brown to adopt. I loved this line...Harriet Harman has too many jobs and isn't very good at hiding that she wants to add your's to the list. Removing her role as Party Chair will remind her who is boss.He also believes Gordon should hold another reshuffle.
No names but some of your ministers seem to be keeping their heads down and not coming out fighting for the party in its hour of need. Or indeed doing much at all. At least one is making an embarrassing hash of their portfolio. Sack a few of them and move the others. Promote a combination of aggressive old attack dogs who know how to take the fight to the Tories and have nothing to lose, and youngsters who might benefit from a brief experience of having Cabinet rank in case we are heading into opposition for so long that only the youngest current Ministers will ever hold office again.Good advice. I wonder which minister is making a hash of it. You could say, perm any one from 23, but I suspect he is referring to David Miliband or possibly even Ed Balls.
Labour seem to be pinning their hopes on the electorate being very volatile if they are to recover from 28%. I remember we Tories used to clasp at straws like that circa 1996. We were deluding ourselves then, and I suspect history will show that history is repeating itself.
8 comments:
except that in 1996 there was no evidence that the electorate were volatile. Now there is, in fairness, quite a lot of evidence that they are.
It's a cliche but complacency is really our worst enemy on this. Personally I think the government have shifted strategy recently to impress upon everyone just how bad things are - Ed Balls' comments being part of this plan. I think they feel that if there are notable green shoots by May 2010 then the country will vote for them out of sheer relief.
It's a long shot I know, but we would be fools to dismiss the possibility.
"I wonder which minister is making a hash of it."
After her savaging yesterday by Monbiot in the Grauniad of all places, I wonder if he is actually referring to Hazel Blears...
What they have forgotten is that the economic crisis helped not hindered them at the Polls .They have deeper political problems than the exigencies of the These have deferred the day of political reckoning . I believe there is every chance of the Lib Dems becoming the main opposition of the next century .
PS
I rather like Luke Akenhurst you get the feeling he just fell in with the wrong sort as a nipper , same with Martin Bright , Nick Cohen , George Orwell ....
They can't sack Harriet - we need her a leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for the next two decades !
Jacqui Smith should be sacked if only to set an example to the rest on allowances.
The Penguin
Presumably the minister he thinks is making a hash of it is a woman. If not, he wouldn't have used such clumsy language: "At least one is making an embarrassing hash of their (sic) portfolio."
Labour have a problem. It's the PC, diversity, equality, quota problem.
Few of their MPS were elected on ability. They insisted on a quota of women, blacks, gays etc in order to pull together the various factions within the party.
So they can't sack Harman, Smith, Blears or Cooper because it would alienate the feminists
They can't get shot of Ahmed or Vaz because it would alienate their faction, etc, etc.
Keeping them all together would make it easier to round them up when the tumbrils start rolling.
They are all overpromoted scum to a man and/or woman (or in the case of Cooper....?)
Luke Akehurst was the blogger who dropped a clanger last June when he suggested that "Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice & Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following 5 word candidate description: "Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects".
I'm fed up with us playing softball with the Tories while they posture and pontificate on this issue. If they want to play liberal they should pay the full political price for it and be eviscerated at the polls for being soft on national security. We should have their stance on this issue on every single poster and leaflet at the next General Election and then see how Davis and his mates feel about a referendum on this issue."
Re-visit my piece to see how his readers responded including the 7/7 survivor Rachel from North London.
At the time I concluded that: "Luke Akehurst unfortunately seems to be one of the new breed of cynical, authoritarian, Labour apparatchiks. Their overriding concern appears to be to stay in power and to denigrate the opposition. The 42 day debate should have been a serious debate about the actual need for introducing 42 days detention without charge, instead it became a "with me or against me" type vote with extra hand twisting, promises to pressure group associated MPs and possibly monetary inducements. The whole affair stinks.
...
If someone is guilty of terrorist activity or even of planning terrorist activity then I would put them away for life, I'd even support the death penalty for the scum who kill innocent people in the furtherance of their murderous aims. However, that is for people found guilty of such charges.
If we could be 100% sure that this law would only be used against people seriously believed to be guilty of preparing a terrorist attack I might possibly be persuadable BUT you and I should both know that this law will also be used against striking petrol delivery drivers, people who protest about the Iraq war etc. etc. etc. Remember the local councils who are using "anti terrorist" surveillance laws to snoop on those parents who are suspected of living outside their child’s school catchment area or who are not recycling enthusiastically enough. It's called mission creep and it's what happens when you have a government more interested in social control and having power rather than democratic rights."
"Luke Akehurst is one of Labour's more sensible bloggers." The bar is set pretty low but even so, surely there are more sensible Labour bloggers than he.
Post a Comment