Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Labour for ... what, exactly?

I have just watched the Labour Party broadcast. I know it is the Labour Party's because it said so in the first few seconds. The rest of the broadcast was spent insulting Nick Clegg. It did mention the Labour Party in the last few seconds but we didn't hear anything about their policies.

The theme was that Liberal Democrats were ineffective in Government. Well how does the Labour Party account for the implementation of 75% of the Liberal Democrat manifesto? There was specific mention of tuition fees - now that is obviously part of the 25% which didn't get through the coalition agreement, but that's what it means to have a coalition. It doesn't mean that Liberal Democrats changed their opinion. Are the Labour Party telling us that the other 75% of the manifesto would have got through without a coalition government? I don't think so. Moreover, I am sure that they told us nothing about Labour policy.

If I want to hear what a party is saying then I will take a look at what they say. I will balance this with what the other parties say e.g. the Labour Party supports tuition fees - and introduced them. So much for informed democracy!

Change the world

P.S. I watched the broadcast again . It is simply insulting and wrong. I am happy to debate with anyone who wishes to take up the Labour gauntlet, but the reason for the P.S. is that the initial mention of the Labour Party tells us it is a broadcast for the European elections - it was absolutely nothing to do with the European elections. How do they get away with it?


  1. I have had a reply from a Labour supporter - thanks. Unfortunately it is anonymous. If you send your comment again and identify yourself then I will publish it.

  2. I have received a further comment anonymously and I have to hold my hands up - I am told that the commentator is not a 'Labour supporter'. My conclusion was wrong as it just so happens that they are apparently supporting the Labour Party broadcast for the European elections. I do prefer to engage with people who have an identity, who aren't just completely anonymous. I appreciate that most online identities are pseudonymous, that we often can't identify them in real life, but that's better than being completely anonymous, where you don't know if you're engaging with the same person repeatedly or a succession of different anonymous people. Perhaps I wouldn't have made the mistake of assuming that the commentator was a Labour supporter if he or she had used an ID which was descriptive, or which I might have encountered before."

    He or she wants me to correct the sentence about tuition fees...'It doesn't mean that Liberal Democrats changed their opinion'. He or she is quite right that subsequently Liberal Democrats reluctantly came to the conclusion that there should be support for tuition fees, with the provisos that "Conference believes ... in the principle that education should be free at the point of use" and 'Lib Dems intend to review the system after the general election and abolish fees "if possible or necessary".' My personal opinion is that abolition of fees will be necessary, and we'll be in huge trouble if it isn't possible.

  3. I have received a further anonymous comment asking why I thought he or she was an apparent Labour supporter. The answer is apparent - they took issue with my anti-Labour blog. I hope that helps anonymous. If you wish to continue the comments could you drop the anonymity?

  4. The person whom I thought was a Labour supporter didn't get the gist of my blog but a former Labour Party official, Dan Hodges did get a similar feeling to me when he saw the broadcast. He wrote in the Telegraph 'Party political broadcasts rarely influence how people vote. But last night’s Labour PPB has influenced mine. I’m voting Lib Dem in the European elections...I spent a significant part of my life knocking lumps out of the Lib Dems and the Tories. And I was actually offended for them. It wasn’t the infantile depiction of Clegg that got me. It was that moment when the Tory Cabinet minister says about the disabled “they can’t fight back”. How such a patronising and offensive line made it into a Labour Party broadcast is beyond my understanding.'

    You can read the full article at