This quote from Jon Cruddas beautifully sums up much of what went wrong with the Labour government – and the dilemma Labour faces working out what to do next:
I’ve known for David Miliband for twenty years, I’ve known Ed Balls for twenty years, but I don’t know what they stand for.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
So many turns (Glee Club Comperes)
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
Al Pinkerton MP writes: The Falkland Islands – a liberal’s guide (Dr Al Pinkerton MP)
Another close shave? (Simon Foster)
Observations of an Expat: Kamala’s Foreign Policy (Tom Arms)
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The Joy of Six 1266
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Tim Farron MP in Gateshead
Judy Collins: Farewell to Tarwathie
Reform's by-election leaflet
Joe Bourke 
Peter Martin 
Mick Taylor 
Michael BG 
Jennie 
14 Comments
And as we know there are LibDem and Tory supporters who woke up last Wednesday feeling the same way about their own party leaderships! Enough of the Labour-bashing: I can understand LibDems’ circumspection in criticising their new coalition partners, but this negativity about the Opposition hardly bodes well for the party’s hopes for a progressive re-alignment or even for its independence and cohesion.
I was struck the other day by a quote from the LibDem History Group on the rejection of Lloyd George’s 1920 scheme for a new Tory-Liberal “United Reform Party”, through the then Liberal leader “fatally presenting fusion as a purely negative reaction to socialism, which alarmed those Coalition Liberals who were reluctant to finally abandon their Liberal roots”. Constrained in their criticism of the right, LibDems should exercise caution in concentrating their fire against the other side.
I’d rather hear more about what we’re to expect from this government. Opposition, Schmopposition – for the moment, anyway.
Wow. Quite a bit seems to have gone wrong…
I think this quote from Cruddas is more revealing of what’s wrong with our politics: “I lack the certainty that leaders need, I think the world is a complex place.”
I for one would like more politicians who appreciate complexity rather than facile certainty. Spare us another Thatcher or Blair. A potentially realigning Tories and LibDems and a complexity-embracing Labour might make a wholesome mix. New politics?
Well posted – it sort of says it all, doesn’t it?
David’s brother is very pretty.
How about a nice, honest article explaining the relationships our new Chief Secretary to the Treasury has had with very large banking and accountancy firms?
Was he given that job instead of Vince just to appease the bankers with a friendly, sympathetic face?
What assurances do we have that he will serve the interests of the voter rather than old colleagues? It is a really important question given the past few years where regulation has been awful and what regulations existed, didn’t seem to be as tightly followed as it would be if such regulations had been aimed at members of the public dropping litter in some NE English cities!
You’ll find life in government isn’t as easy as simply throwing stones at your opponents!
Some of us have known LibDems for even longer than 20 years and we still don’t know what they stand for – and everyday the picture is becoming less and less clear.
A shame Cruddas is not standing for leader. There is a sense he has a certain approach that might raise the level of debate . Labour used to be the intellectuals party, now they have scarcely an idea to rub together. Clause 4 represented an ideal and a marker to measure political progress. Blair thought it a neat move to remove it and since then they have fallen foul of the worse kind of mangeralism without any guiding principles.
David, Cruddas reckons that he doesn’t have the necessary qualities to be Leader. Quite refreshing.
Plus he wears a cheap shirt without a tie. Quite refreshing.
The trouble is, I’ve thought exactly the same about most prominent politicians during recent years. Nick Clegg is certainly included! Oddly enough, not Gordon Brown, though.
Odd to find the Lib Dems’ favourite subject since hitching themselves to the Tories is the Labour Party.Roll on next year’s local elections 🙂
Mark,
Yes and no. Yes, it’s a failure because differences of opinion within the Parliamentary Labour Party – let alone the Labour Government – were largely hidden away as much as possible rather than cultivated as healthy debate. As you know, this passionate desire to be “on message” was in response to the view that Labour had failed in the preceding couple of decades because it was perceived as a divided party.
On the other hand, for those have been in government for the past few years, the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility seems to have been over-interpreted – in response to a niggling media – as including avoiding the expression of any view that might be seen as potentially divergent from any lines not already agreed.
Nevertheless, Cruddas deliberately mentions “20 years” to suggest that this problem goes beyond being on message while in government.
It’s no use highlighting this as “Labour’s failure”, though, if the new government similarly turns out not to be able to find a way to allow healthy and open debate.
He didn’t mention ED Miliband – should anything be read into this?
I fear it’s a feature of modern politics, that politicians who aim at high office say as little as possible that might get in the way of their ambition.
Nick Clegg is an exception, probably because he never expected to become deputy Prime Minister. He’s said a number of things in the past that he probably wishes he hadn’t. Remember the “Nazi” slur in the Daily Mail, a misquote of when he criticised our country’s obsession with the war?
But he’s also shown some consistency. Radio 4 recently ran a repeat of a music show where he complained about the futility of prison as a way to reduce crime – something he repeated in the Prime Ministerial debates. Though I’m not sure how free he is to repeat those views now he’s in coalition.
Until they are elected, there’s no way to be sure how the various contenders will behave. Will Ed Balls be just as tribal as Gordon Brown? I don’t know. As for David Miliband, he’s very intelligent, he appears moderate. But once in office, I guess he’ll just surround himself with Mandelson and Campbell, and the smears and tribalism will continue. We’ll see.
But I do hope they elect someone good. Someone less tribal, with intellectual depth, and able to make an honest appraisal of where the country should be going. Labour may be our opponents, but a good opposition helps to keep a government on its toes, and so is good for the country.