Labour 14 points ahead of the tories and Blair feels the need to offer his advice?

Given the state of the country that lead should be bigger. Maybe some advice is in order?

This is the thing with politicians if they have a problem they can't just let them know in person and give advice, they have to spout of little soundbites to the media.

Labour's problem was electing wet Ed as leader when the ideal candidate was only half his genes away from perfect.

In this day personality or a polished persona unfortunately counts for something, Ed is just so dreary it makes him difficult to vote for.

As a Labour supporter of many years and left leaning, Ed Milliband worries me as leader. He does not possess the gravitas you would expect of someone hoping to become PM (mind you it didn't stop 'call me Dave) and whenever he speaks he says the right things, but does not come across as though HE believes in them. I honestly think he will be an election liability and seeing as the Lib Dems have blown themselves up, we could end up with a majority Conservative government, despite what the polls say.

The Libs will have lost the majority of their core support come the generals, the trouble with the Tories is UKIP (the only party with a charismatic leader) will steal votes off them.

I do wonder if the greens will pick up some of the disenfranchised leftie votes.

I haven't read Blair's article yet as my copy of the [iNew Statesman[/i arrives on Saturdays these days (it used to arrive on Thursdays).
I very much doubt that Grant Shapps (quoted in the [iDaily Mail[/i article about the [iNew Statesman[/i article) had read it either when he was asked by [iThe Wail[/i for a predictable quote which he duly gave.

If Blair's article really is accurately summed up by the soundbite "Labour should be the seekers of answers rather than just a repository for people's anger", then it's a fair point, Labour shouldn't be letting the tories set the agenda, as they'll just be seen as negative nay-sayers of tory policy.
If you only react to what the Tories do, then you are letting them determine what you talk about and all the Tories have to do is point at each example of Labour's nay-saying and add it to a list of money-not-saved.
Labour needs to start revealing policy now, at least in general terms. Obviously detail can't be brought out now because, not knowing what the situation will be like two years hence, you can't cost accurately this far ahead of an election.

Milliband isn't Labour's problem. It's Balls.

I probably disagree, as I think he is one of the few politicians in Westminster who actually knows more about economics than is contained in [iEconomics for Dummies[/i ... but I am interested in why you say that.
Please expand.

Could be argued that he knows the same amount as any of the many other MPs, from all parties, who did a PPE at Oxford.

Like in so many things, the world and it's people just seemingly look like card board cut outs, generic and boring.

I want my MP's bordering on unpopular with the courage of their conviction. Thatcher had it, Blair had it.

Brown was a ditherer, Cameron is a popularity seeker.
I don't like the career politicians either, good school courtesy of mummy and daddy, GCSE, A-Levels, Degrees, Houses of Parliament.
Where's the life experience part, living in the real world part?

It could be argued

but Balls actually taught economics at Harvard.

I don't think Milliband is any more lightweight than Blair was in 1995. But at that time Blair and Brown were able to convince the voters that they weren't bogeymen and were capable of making a fresh start. They ended up turning their inexperience to their advantage.

Balls just has too much baggage. He's too strongly associated with Brown. He'll tie himself up in knots during a general election campaign trying to justify his previous record whilst at the same trying to give the impression that he
has learned his lessons. His undoubted economic knowledge will work aginst Labour because he comes across as too clever by half, too clever to acknowledge his mistakes. He'll come across as Viv Nicholson re-incarnated.

And its an open secret that he wants himself or his missus to take over from Milliband. The rift between Blair and Brown didnt really affect Labour initially because by the time it came into the open the public seemed to be convinced that they were still capable of working together. An opposition party can't get away with any sign of division because it leaves the electorate even more unsure as to who/what they are voting for.

Fair point.
A taint is a taint even when its only a perception of a taint.


A real shame and, again, an issue of perception.


I wasn't aware of that open secret, if such it is.
Didn't Yvette stand aside in the leadership contest?
Actually, no need to answer that, I'm not up for an argument about that, I was just wondering about your reasons why Balls was a liability and I have that answer.

That is true to a degree but all opposition parties are hamstrung by this. The government sets the agenda by its policies. The problem for Labour is IMO it is wary of outright condemnation when that is what is required. The idea the Tories can refute such opposition by trotting out the money-not saved argument is no reason to hang back when polices are simply unjust.



Even revealing in general terms could be risky. I don't recall the Tories doing much else except moan prior to 2010. Labour have had a big policy review going on for a while and in any case Jon Cruddas who is key to the policy review is revealing bits here and there.

This gives a hint.

[urlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/what-jon-cruddass-speech-told-us-about-labours-policy-review[/url

As to Blair his main comment was don't assume just because the banks caused a crash a lurch to the left is on the cards. It sounded as though he was after peddling the status quo that has existed for the last 30 years. What Ed M and Balls have said in response is more or less that isn't going to wash and changes are required.

Now his wife is a different animal all together as she seems awfully 'clued up'.
She made mince meat of a certain home secretary to the point that she stopped showing her face when she knew she was on the warpath.
Her as the shadow chancellor or leader of labour and 'Dave' has a problem.

She looks too weak to be a leader. Labour's best people have all moved over. I can't see them producing an electable leader in the next 10 years.

Blair is right.

I've heard Blair's analysis of Labour before (and I agree with it) - Labour can exist in three forms:

1. A left wing party directed by trade unions and socialist activists, looking to re-establish trade union control, nationalisation of industries, large scale state intervention in the economy.

2. A centre left party based more around appealing to voters than activists and trade union control, pro-markets, pro-public sector reform, but progressive on social issues.

3. A left-leaning party sandwiched in between the first two, where the unions and activists still hold a lot of sway but they have shedded some of the influence of the extreme left: accepting but sceptical of markets, favouring higher taxes at the top end.

When they are in mode 1 they will just be a party of opposition, the Tories will govern the country.

When they are in mode 2, they are capable of winning power and holding power in multiple elections.

When they are in mode 3, they are capable of winning a one off election, as a protest against an unpopular Tory government, but will struggle in power and get turned over again at the next election.

Under Ed Miliband, Labour are mode 3. They aren't mode 1 - that was Michael Foot's time, they are more like Labour under Wilson, Callaghan and Brown. To be able to win and keep winning they need to be mode 2.

Under David Miliband, Alastair Darling or Andy Burnham, they would be mode 2. Balls or Yvette Cooper would be mode 3.

Mode 1 would be stupid at present - socialists opposing a nationalised banking system!

I would have thought the kind of nationalisation they wanted was one where government owned it and made the decisions.

The nationalised banking system at the moment is one where the taxpayer owns it but the management and decision making is still in private hands hence the government having to beg them to lend enough.

That's the UK's form of capitalism in a nutshell: privatise any profit and socialise the debts

Given that Labour have lost the last 5 elections that they have fought with other leaders and won 3/3 with him as leader, I would say that he is perfectly entitled to offer his advice and Ed Miliband would be wise to listen to it.

This has been the way since the days of the blessed Margaret though. It's not a new concept.

I think it must be an inherent part of neo-liberalism.

This is where the double standards come in.

A lot of people on the right that describe themselves as being in favour of free market economics are not really in favour of free and competitive markets at all, they are in favour of a market where they have market power.

Perfectly competitive markets mean zero supernormal profits, ie the owners of capital get nothing, other than covering their own costs, they break even. Nobody loses out, because the owners of capital have their costs covered, workers get paid a fair wage equal to the value of the product of their labour (ie the owners of capital cannot extract surplus value out of the workers, as Marx described), consumers pay a price equal to the cost of production and no more, and resources are used efficiently in society.

If you are really in favour of free markets then you have to tackle market failures like:

externalities (eg pollution) - costs that are not factored in to the market, so you have to create a market for them by forcing polluters to face the costs of their actions

market power - the ability to charge a price over cost of production

incomplete information - firms not fully disclosing information on their products to consumers

Of course to make the free market work these market failures need addressing by governments. But this is the point where a lot of the "free market" supporters will cry "tyranny of big government" because they want to preserve a position where they have a market skewed in their favour.

I'm not sure "a lot" of free market supporters would be against government involvement in any of the three areas you've raised - in fact the European model of free markets is fully compatible with such intervention. You could also argue that for long periods the US has shown far more determination to smash monopoly power than Europe in a number of industries - banking, oil and gas, airlines and telecomms to name but four.

Where the ultra free-marketeers fall down continuously IMO is in not addressing the widespread failure of agency theory in free markets - i.e. that managers, acting as agents of shareholders should earn rewards consistent with those obtained by shareholders but commensurate with the level of risk they are taking as managers - which is far less than investors. IMO you'd fix some of the other issues you mention if agency theory was better implemented anyway.

OTOH coming out with extreme examples of market 'failure' is like shooting fish in a barrel. There is no real-world working example of a major economy which comes anywhere close to matching the overall returns to society that free markets have been shown to bring.

The sensible debate should be about the style of free markets that work best for the largest number of people (including levels and forms of government intervention), and how to get there. Jumping to extremes may work well in a point-scoring competition, but to be honest is pretty much useless if you want to come up with a range of workable solutions for an economy anywhere near the size of the UK.