Ed Miliband - great politician, terrible leader.

MaxwellBygraves

Ed Miliband can be a bit of a wet fish, but I believe that he is at his best when he speaks his mind and with conviction. He's usually busy trying to pander to the interests of 'middle england', whatever that is. Yes, I know that this is how elections are won and lost - just sad that this isn't what he believes in. Another sell-out more than likely.

Interestingly, Labour are ahead in most of the polls. Even Dear Leader Cameron's heroic and historic NO to the EU communists has been unable to put the Cons on top.

rick_chasey

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Ed Miliband can be a bit of a wet fish, but I believe that he is at his best when he speaks his mind and with conviction. He's usually busy trying to pander to the interests of 'middle england', whatever that is. Yes, I know that this is how elections are won and lost - just sad that this isn't what he believes in. Another sell-out more than likely.

Interestingly, Labour are ahead in most of the polls. Even Dear Leader Cameron's heroic and historic NO to the EU communists has been unable to put the Cons on top.

Not on the economy, and not on leadership though.

W1

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Think you might need to take off your tinfoil hat.

Considering the inevitable post-Blair/Brown era vacuum, the conditions for Labour win are pretty good. Economy tanking, enormous unemployment < both of which are likely to get worse, regardless of what the gov't do.

The catalyst/cause of this was light-touch free-markertism, originally championed by the right and appropriated into New Labour.

The tories couldn't even get a majority after the biggest crash since 1929.

Given all that, you'd think Labour would be feeling bullish.

Miliband, his team and cabinet have not been able to articulate and offer a strong, convincing, alternative to anything. They haven't been able to distance themselves from the party that existed in '08 (even if Darling, post crash, seemed pretty able, sensible, and honest).

It's a crying shame that Labour and the left generally can't do this. It's poor politics on their part.

Cameron isn't great at articulating strong arguments either - this big society bullsh!t being the obvious example. He should have shut-out the last election. The conditions couldn't have been better.

He's better than Miliband because a) he's slicker, b) he's more politically savy/ better advised c) he doesn't have the Blair/Brown legacy burden and d) Miliband is rubbish. The best thing he's done, objectively (for him and his party anyway) was the way he's totally dominated the Lib Dems, and let them take a lot of heat for Tory policies that are divisive and unpopualr (see Tuition fees).

Oh agreed, Cameron should have strolled the last election and it's a measure his unpopularity within and outside of the party that he didn't. Recall though that by common consent the last election was the one that no-one really wanted to win, bringing as it did the need to be associated with massive debt / cutbacks etc.

In many respects I wish Labour were still in, scrabbling around in the sh!t they created and proving themselves unelectable for a generation. As it is, they bleat and complain from the sidelines and, if things aren't better in 2015, have a significant chance of getting back in just in time for an economic upswing - and just in time to ruin it all over again.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Considering the inevitable post-Blair/Brown era vacuum, the conditions for Labour win are pretty good. Economy tanking, enormous unemployment < both of which are likely to get worse, regardless of what the gov't do.

But what has really surprised me is how labour in opposition have suffered too. Miliband sits there saying "The Govt shouldn't do this", but has no suggestions for alternatives. I can't say I blame him for that, because there are precious few, and even fewer that are viable ("I'd be fairer with less" is a classic: how?). The way he is running the opposition really serves to underline that the Coalition really has limited alternatives to what it is doing, and we as a country just have to grin and bear it. Impossibly, therefore, the opposition seems to be moderating the opprobrium that would other fall on the Coalition.

M

Given the nature of the recession and the cause, there's a strong left-wing case.

The catalyst for this has been too-light-touch free-marketism, especially in finance.

We have the least equal society for almost a century.

The structural causes can also legitimately and reasonably led to elements of Thatcher style deregulation etc.

The left (as opposed to labour) should have been able to articulate a credible alternative argument. Keynsian economics > they can chat about Hoover economics and how that went wrong.

The problem is a) Blair continued a lot what happened before. So Labour must try and genuinely distance themselves from that, in the same way Blair distanced himself from the socialist left.

once they can do that, they need to work on b) properly articulating an alternative argument. They're there. I read about them in the FT so it can't be that hard. They're a little more nuanced, since they approach the economy like an economy rather than pretending it's personal finance so it's a little hard to relate to, but by and large, it's do-able.

Miliband can't do either. Whether that's his fault, or, understandably, after the success of Blair, many don't want to let that go.

The problem is, Labour got to power, some of them got (and continue to get) rich from it - and they realised that they rather liked that, so got chummy with other rich people. Darling and his tax advice (paid for by us); Blears and her cheque waving (paid for by us). All the expenses scamming.

I know this is my favourite word, but, like the Union leads earning £150k, the last Labour government showed what a bunch of hypocrites they were - and continue to be.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

The problem is, Labour got to power, some of them got (and continue to get) rich from it - and they realised that they rather liked that, so got chummy with other rich people. Darling and his tax advice (paid for by us); Blears and her cheque waving (paid for by us). All the expenses scamming.

I know this is my favourite word, but, like the Union leads earning £150k, the last Labour government showed what a bunch of hypocrites they were - and continue to be.

Expenses was cross party.

If you talk about Labour and the unions, you should also talk about the Conservatives and the City.

I personally find it concerning that the party responsible for the financial legislation clean-up after the crash has 50% of its funding from the City. (though that in itself is Ironic, since most of them made their fortune under labour!)

MaxwellBygraves

W1, I'm not a huge fan of New Labour, but I don't understand how you can accuse them of being chummy with rich people without mentioning the Conservatives - that is their "Raison d'etre" !!

tailwindhome

Them other ones are only in it for themselves.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Considering the inevitable post-Blair/Brown era vacuum, the conditions for Labour win are pretty good. Economy tanking, enormous unemployment < both of which are likely to get worse, regardless of what the gov't do.

But what has really surprised me is how labour in opposition have suffered too. Miliband sits there saying "The Govt shouldn't do this", but has no suggestions for alternatives. I can't say I blame him for that, because there are precious few, and even fewer that are viable ("I'd be fairer with less" is a classic: how?). The way he is running the opposition really serves to underline that the Coalition really has limited alternatives to what it is doing, and we as a country just have to grin and bear it. Impossibly, therefore, the opposition seems to be moderating the opprobrium that would other fall on the Coalition.

M

Given the nature of the recession and the cause, there's a strong left-wing case.

The catalyst for this has been too-light-touch free-marketism, especially in finance.

We have the least equal society for almost a century.

The structural causes can also legitimately and reasonably led to elements of Thatcher style deregulation etc.

The left (as opposed to labour) should have been able to articulate a credible alternative argument. Keynsian economics > they can chat about Hoover economics and how that went wrong.

The problem is a) Blair continued a lot what happened before. So Labour must try and genuinely distance themselves from that, in the same way Blair distanced himself from the socialist left.

once they can do that, they need to work on b) properly articulating an alternative argument. They're there. I read about them in the FT so it can't be that hard. They're a little more nuanced, since they approach the economy like an economy rather than pretending it's personal finance so it's a little hard to relate to, but by and large, it's do-able.

Miliband can't do either. Whether that's his fault, or, understandably, after the success of Blair, many don't want to let that go.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have won the battle when it comes to this. Most of the populus don't really understand the difference between the economy and personal finance (although they are loathe to admit it). Besides, for as long as the Eurozone crisis is going on, the Government can say, look what happens if your public spending is too high, bad things, that's what.

So economically you aren't left with an alternative, unless you can articulate yourself particularly well and come up with an easy to follow argument explaining how and why government spending is different from personal spending.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Considering the inevitable post-Blair/Brown era vacuum, the conditions for Labour win are pretty good. Economy tanking, enormous unemployment < both of which are likely to get worse, regardless of what the gov't do.

I have said previously on here that I think we are headed for a succession of one term administrations, flipping between Labour and Conservative, because there isn't a strong wall of support for either in the electorate, and there isn't a "rallying point" leader of either.

However, as time goes on I'm beginning to question that prediction. The 2010 GE was the one no one really wanted to win, because of the obvious economic reasons and Labour's scorched earth pre-election spending spree. So whoever went into power could look forward to garnering a lot of unpopularity.

But what has really surprised me is how labour in opposition have suffered too. Miliband sits there saying "The Govt shouldn't do this", but has no suggestions for alternatives. I can't say I blame him for that, because there are precious few, and even fewer that are viable ("I'd be fairer with less" is a classic: how?). The way he is running the opposition really serves to underline that the Coalition really has limited alternatives to what it is doing, and we as a country just have to grin and bear it. Impossibly, therefore, the opposition seems to be moderating the opprobrium that would other fall on the Coalition.

Most odd, but keep at it, Ed!

Yes he is f*cking up a goldern opportunity. 1) He hasn't the balls to say that his Labour Government would be fiscally more responsible than the previous one and would distribute the cuts more fairly between the public and private sector than the current coalition - in doing so he would be too close to admitting that the previous Labour Government may have been wrong i.e. political suicide. 2) He hasn't the balls (heh) to get rid of Labour heavyweights (like Ed Balls) who have made their names in Blair/Gordon's Government.

In truth all he needs to do is distance himself from the last Labour Government by saying "Look I'm sorry, they messed up. But we are not that Labour" And then hope that the left leaning public forgives him. But as I said that would be professional/political suicide (you don't criticise your own party).

He also has the small problem that most of Europe (and America) is facing. In times of economic downturns the general public leans towards the right. People expect Conservatives/Republicans to be more fiscally responsible and when jobs/livelihoods are at risk the vast majority aren't willing to hear "more tax and redistribute wealth" in the same sentence. When you're stacking cans of beans as high as your ceiling can go just in case it all goes tits up what you really want to hear is "What's yours is yours and we'll let you keep it if you let me keep mine".

CIB take note

This brings me to Chuka Umanna yes he is a dark fellow (that's 'Bicester' for black) but he seems to get, respect, value and appreciate the fiscal responsibility and views that the right side of the political spectrum hold. He also understands the appeal and rewards of the social values rooted in the views of the left.

What I like about him is that he immediately distanced himself from Obama comparisons and almost never alludes to being black, from the black community or being a 'black community leader' like say, Diane Abbott. That isn't to say that he has never or doesn't acknowledge his ethnicity. It's just not the first thing about him.

Dudes awesome.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

The problem is, Labour got to power, some of them got (and continue to get) rich from it - and they realised that they rather liked that, so got chummy with other rich people. Darling and his tax advice (paid for by us); Blears and her cheque waving (paid for by us). All the expenses scamming.

I know this is my favourite word, but, like the Union leads earning £150k, the last Labour government showed what a bunch of hypocrites they were - and continue to be.

Expenses was cross party.

If you talk about Labour and the unions, you should also talk about the Conservatives and the City.

I personally find it concerning that the party responsible for the financial legislation clean-up after the crash has 50% of its funding from the City. (though that in itself is Ironic, since most of them made their fortune under labour!)

That's because you're a "blame the bankers" type, and have bought into all the scapegoating which deflected the blame from (a) reckless "me me me, now now now" borrowers and (b) power hungry hypocritical Labour leaders.

I find it concerning that the leader of the opposition is put into power by a group of self serving dinosaurs who can't even get popular support from their own members.

W1

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1, I'm not a huge fan of New Labour, but I don't understand how you can accuse them of being chummy with rich people without mentioning the Conservatives - that is their "Raison d'etre" !!

Because that's not what Labour does (or perhaps, should) stand for? It's gross hypocricy to bleat about "fairness" when their old deity is making millions (and, notably, paying very little tax on it). Hardly very "labour" is it?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

The problem is, Labour got to power, some of them got (and continue to get) rich from it - and they realised that they rather liked that, so got chummy with other rich people. Darling and his tax advice (paid for by us); Blears and her cheque waving (paid for by us). All the expenses scamming.

I know this is my favourite word, but, like the Union leads earning £150k, the last Labour government showed what a bunch of hypocrites they were - and continue to be.

Expenses was cross party.

If you talk about Labour and the unions, you should also talk about the Conservatives and the City.

I personally find it concerning that the party responsible for the financial legislation clean-up after the crash has 50% of its funding from the City. (though that in itself is Ironic, since most of them made their fortune under labour!)

That's because you're a "blame the bankers" type, and have bought into all the scapegoating which deflected the blame from (a) reckless "me me me, now now now" borrowers and (b) power hungry hypocritical Labour leaders.

I find it concerning that the leader of the opposition is put into power by a group of self serving dinosaurs who can't even get popular support from their own members.

I don't blame the bankers. I try to move them to other banks for more money.

I think financial regulation (or lack of) was a key factor. More generally, heavy free-marketism allowed for a dangerous credit bubble > an emphasis on inflationary control, not protecting key industries, etc.

Goodwin said to Darling after RBS got bailed "OK, we'll stop taking on risk we don't understand". Seems market forces alone can't stop people doing things they shouldn't, so they should be regulated.

DonDaddyD

You know this thread has got me watching the old PMQs. Thatcher had the ability to inspire. Cameron is actually really impressive, telling Ed Balls to shut up is a real classic. But what really surprises is how light weight Ed Miliband and Balls seem compared to the charisma and bulldozer that was Blair and Brown. I mean seriously they come across as children.

Ed does irritate Cameron though.

Still, I'd have love to see Cameron, now, go up against a young and hungry Blair (the Blair that Major had to deal with).

jzed

DonDaddyD wrote:

But what really surprises is how light weight Ed Miliband and Balls seem compared to the charisma and bulldozer that was Blair and Brown. I mean seriously they come across as children.

^^^This. They oppose everything and never, ever put forward any alternatives.

porlyworly

Many people who vote Labour do so because they're from very working class backgrounds, many of which don't know / care about politics but oppose the "rich getting richer whilst the working class get poorer" under the Conservatives. I'm not here to argue whether or not there is any truth in this but it's a fact this is the view of most of my friends from back home (I'm from the North East). Ed Miliband comes across as a geeky rich kid with a posh accent and people will not vote for him for this very (insignificant!) reason.

Young people don't vote anymore as they don't know / care about the difference between the parties (which have all gone a bit mainstream anyway and are no longer very different in their views). I wouldn't be at all surprised if in my lifetime we see celebs like Beckham or Cheryl Cole etc. running for election (a la USA) as the turnout will at some point get so low that it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for them to win the votes of the kids.

This country is such a shambles that young people are already completely apathetic with a "they're all as bad as eachother" attitude to politicians (expenses scam anyone?). For me the biggest problem always has been the fact that the people at the top who make the decisions have absolutely no idea of the impact those decisions will make on millions of families as they come from such a privileged background.

DonDaddyD

Define young people?

When I was 25 the same thing was being said "young people don't vote". When I was 25 I was still at home and entering my career path. As were most of my friends. In truth I couldn't give a frigg who I was voting for my biggest concern was Friday and Saturday night as were most of my friends. My family voted Labour and that was good enough for me.

5 years later and I'm concerned about my career, industry, tax and have dependants affected by Government decisions so now I'm interested in voting and politics.

I think people are only interested in politics and Government when it becomes significant to their lives.

W1

PorlyWorly wrote:

For me the biggest problem always has been the fact that the people at the top who make the decisions have absolutely no idea of the impact those decisions will make on millions of families as they come from such a privileged background.

And what's the solution - have an illiterate dustman from Bolton negotiating complex statutes and treaties?

The biggest problem for me is not whether they're born with a silver spoon or a wooden one - it's that so few of them have ever had real "life" experience before politics.

porlyworly

Illiterate bin man? I don't want to get into a flaming war as I really couldn't care less but that's being a bit childish

The higher echelons of politics tend to be filled with people from certain universities & cliques that are unobtainable for most outside of said privileged backgrounds. I totally agree with your comment about the lack of life experience which is very similar to what I'm saying - they've never had to experience the real lows of life in this country and I'm not taking about dole dwellers happy to live on benefits!

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Ed Miliband can be a bit of a wet fish, but I believe that he is at his best when he speaks his mind and with conviction. He's usually busy trying to pander to the interests of 'middle england', whatever that is. Yes, I know that this is how elections are won and lost - just sad that this isn't what he believes in. Another sell-out more than likely.

Interestingly, Labour are ahead in most of the polls. Even Dear Leader Cameron's heroic and historic NO to the EU communists has been unable to put the Cons on top.

Not on the economy, and not on leadership though.

Correct, they do have ground to recover. Remember Ed has also won all 5 of the by-elections, albeit relatively safe seats, that have occured under his premiership. Additionally, anyone on the left of the Labour party will fight to keep him. Even Blairites who don't like Ed are unlikely to do anything other than grumble, since to do so would likely keep Labour out for a decade.

rick_chasey

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[

Not on the economy, and not on leadership though.

Correct, they do have ground to recover. .

Saying that's a bit like saying RBS made loads of money in '08, apart from the investment banking bit.

They're the 2 biggest factors at the moment!

W1

PorlyWorly wrote:

Illiterate bin man? I don't want to get into a flaming war as I really couldn't care less but that's being a bit childish

The higher echelons of politics tend to be filled with people from certain universities & cliques that are unobtainable for most outside of said privileged backgrounds. I totally agree with your comment about the lack of life experience which is very similar to what I'm saying - they've never had to experience the real lows of life in this country and I'm not taking about dole dwellers happy to live on benefits!

I wasn't being entirely flippant - if you don't want well eductaed people running the country due to their "privilege", who do you want?

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[

Not on the economy, and not on leadership though.

Correct, they do have ground to recover. .

Saying that's a bit like saying RBS made loads of money in '08, apart from the investment banking bit.

They're the 2 biggest factors at the moment!

Ha I do agree. I'm just trying to point out that there are positive factors to Ed's leadership. It could be a lot worse for him, at any rate.

MaxwellBygraves

Further to my point, noticed some YouGov data which gave Ed an average of 42% for 2011. Only 3 instances since 2002 that Labour have even rated higher than that in the polls.

ETA: in contrast, Labour polled 29% of the vote in 2010 and 35% in 2005. They also polled 37% in May local elections compared to 22% in 2009.

rick_chasey

Seems the Unions are very unhappy with Ed Miliband too. This time over, wait for it, pay!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16588283

Ed Balls ( though you may hate him) sounded pretty solid (within reason) when defending the economic policy on newsnight last night. His argument was this: Labour think Tory cuts are far too deep & are hurting the economy (fair enough, if not differential enough, nor does he really explain why and how) but he can't promise anything as a shadow chancellor when he has no idea what things are going to look like 3 years down the line (absolutely. that makes sense).

However, they're still on the Hayek side of the Keynes v Hayek depression solution debate (which IMO is way off the mark)., and have moved away from the centre of that debat towards the Hayek side, which as far as I can see, is bad politics (even less differential + Brown/Blair legacy = f*cked), and for me, bad economics (Hoover didn't sort out America in the 1930s, Roosevelt did).

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

Seems the Unions are very unhappy with Ed Miliband too. This time over, wait for it, pay!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16588283

Ed Balls ( though you may hate him) sounded pretty solid (within reason) when defending the economic policy on newsnight last night. His argument was this: Labour think Tory cuts are far too deep & are hurting the economy (fair enough, if not differential enough, nor does he really explain why and how) but he can't promise anything as a shadow chancellor when he has no idea what things are going to look like 3 years down the line (absolutely. that makes sense).

However, they're still on the Hayek side of the Keynes v Hayek depression solution debate (which IMO is way off the mark)., and have moved away from the centre of that debat towards the Hayek side, which as far as I can see, is bad politics (even less differential + Brown/Blair legacy = f*cked), and for me, bad economics (Hoover didn't sort out America in the 1930s, Roosevelt did).

I thought the opposite. He had nothing to say about what Labour would be doing if they were in power. I get the distinct impression that they agree with all the Tory cuts, they just cannot admit to this in public. Hence all the wishy washy stuff about "too deep" etc. Balls and bland have no answers, they know it, we know it, that's why they're squirming (and no one squirms like Balls).

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Seems the Unions are very unhappy with Ed Miliband too. This time over, wait for it, pay!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16588283

Ed Balls ( though you may hate him) sounded pretty solid (within reason) when defending the economic policy on newsnight last night. His argument was this: Labour think Tory cuts are far too deep & are hurting the economy (fair enough, if not differential enough, nor does he really explain why and how) but he can't promise anything as a shadow chancellor when he has no idea what things are going to look like 3 years down the line (absolutely. that makes sense).

However, they're still on the Hayek side of the Keynes v Hayek depression solution debate (which IMO is way off the mark)., and have moved away from the centre of that debat towards the Hayek side, which as far as I can see, is bad politics (even less differential + Brown/Blair legacy = f*cked), and for me, bad economics (Hoover didn't sort out America in the 1930s, Roosevelt did).

I thought the opposite. He had nothing to say about what Labour would be doing if they were in power. I get the distinct impression that they agree with all the Tory cuts, they just cannot admit to this in public. Hence all the wishy washy stuff about "too deep" etc. Balls and bland have no answers, they know it, we know it, that's why they're squirming (and no one squirms like Balls).

You're probably not far from the truth re nothing to say about what they'd do.

Promises that no-one knows whether can be kept or not are bad politics though.

There is absolutely an alternative to what the Tories are doing.

Take a look at the figures that came out today.

Unemployment up, including 67,000 from the private sector. Aren't they supposed to be picking up the slack?

UK by quite a few measures is already in recession. Even using the Tory personal finance cum economics logic, if you're earning less, it's harder to pay off your debts.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ed Balls ( though you may hate him) sounded pretty solid (within reason)

They always do when they are preaching to the converted.

Mrs. 66 doesn't let me watch Mr. Balls on television now. She doesn't like that way I start shouting obscenities at the television, and go storming around the room.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ed Balls ( though you may hate him) sounded pretty solid (within reason)

They always do when they are preaching to the converted.

Mrs. 66 doesn't let me watch Mr. Balls on television now. She doesn't like that way I start shouting obscenities at the television, and go storming around the room.

She's not here now!
http://t.co/lTNKx5Tz

I meant in terms of politics and performance, rather than content.

He starts off OK, as I said, a little vague, and goes a little Ed Miliband in the middle.

rick_chasey

Anyway, didn't I make it clear I don't agree with what Ed Balls is preaching? :P

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

Seems the Unions are very unhappy with Ed Miliband too. This time over, wait for it, pay!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16588283

Ed Balls ( blah blah) Labour think blah blah (blah) but he can't promise anything as a shadow chancellor when he has no idea what things are going to look like 3 years down the line (absolutely. that makes sense).

BULLSHIT!

And I'm tired of hearing this aged old excuse. It's as tired as the Tories blaming Labour for "the mess they've gotten us in". WE GET IT.

To the Tories: "I understand that. What are you going to do to fix it?".

Now to the Tories credit much as I fear and loathe the decisions it appears that they are doing something about it and despite the somewhat unfair sacrifices (i.e. the way the "cuts" are being distributed) they do serve the greater good. (That of the nations finances). Cameron is a prick and Osborne, well I really dislike his face, but between them they've held our credit rating, don't seem to have borrowed as much and somewhat helped stave off a recession (barely). House prices are looking appealing. Successful NHS Foundation Trusts for better or worse are producing some serious business savvy and appear to have found new motivation to change service delivery to better meet the needs of modern society (you can tell I've said that in a presentation).

To Labour: "I understand that. But if you cannot 'promise' what you would do because you can't see the future. How about telling us what you would do differently? The Tories want to cut DLA, tell us how you would approach this differently, whether you would work with focus groups, what different benefits you would review first? Tell us what methods that are different from the ones the Tories are using that you would use to get to the conclusion even if the conclusion is the same?"

Christ, disabled people are protesting - 'Political Goldmine' - "It's a failure of Government when the most vulnerable (disabled) have to protest about unfair treatment at the hands of those sworn to protect them". That's the vote winning soundbite right there! It yanks at the heart strings.

Public sector pensions/pay: Same thing! Sure we get that Labour may fall upon the same conclusions as the Tories, the approach to that decision i.e. working with unions, staff and common folk is decisive in rebuilding the credibility of the party. And lastly, f*ck, Labour was built on the notion that it was all about the great unwashed. Work with us, the common folk. That's what the Tories don't do."

Seriously, this is childs play and Labour don't have the guts to go for the jugular.