So, Why Did Labour Lose The Election?

Ed Miliband is a decent human being who put forward a simple message - we deserve better than eternal austerity and should be entitled to a fair shake of the stick. David Cameron's message could not be more different - we deserve nothing better than eternal austerity because it was the British welfare state that crashed the world economy and anyone who can't afford a £1 million mansion cannot be anything other than a scrounger on benefits. One was the politics of hope, the other the politics of despair. The problem for Ed Miliband was that he struggled to get his message across. This is hardly surprising given the rabidly right-wing press in Britain, but there is a deeper underlying problem that Labour just could not overcome - an ill-educated and largely unintelligent electorate that is simply unable to grasp even simple facts. They have little understanding of economic history and cannot fathom the deep mystery of how a hugely destructive world war with its massive government spending could drag the world out of recession. By 1945 it was obvious to even the dimmest voter that Keynesian economics with its deficit spending actually works. By 1979, when Margaret Thatcher managed to wipe the collective memory, this had been forgotten and was replaced with simplistic economic theories that were apparently easy to understand even though they were utter mumbo-jumbo. Throughout the long dark years of the 1980's and 90's Labour spent a great deal of fruitless energy trying to re-educate the British electorate to no avail. They learned the truth contained in the old maxim; "Never try and teach a pig how to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig." Ed Miliband's mistake was the most basic of all - he tried to teach the pig how to sing. He had to try I suppose but, to be honest, the British electorate (or at least 37% of them) now have the government they deserve. The rest of us too now have the government we deserve. We had to chance to change the voting system for one that was fairer but allowed Rupert Murdoch and other right-wing snake-oil salesmen to talk us out of it. The News in Shorts has a message for all those who voted Tory - "Oink, oink." - its about the only thing you understand.

Looney Tories Accuse Ed Miliband Of Causing Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

There seems to be nothing that the Tories are unwilling to blame Ed Miliband for. Their latest piece of sheer tomfoolery has senior Tory MP's seriously suggesting that he is to blame for Putin's bellicose attitude towards the Ukraine. Their reasoning runs something like this; Ed Miliband voted against an idiotic Tory plan to invade Syria, ergo Putin believes that Great Britain lacks the courage to invade Russia. There are, of course, several major problems with this line of reasoning. First Boris Putin needs little encouragement to be bellicose to anyone who annoys him. Secondly if the British Army did invade Russia Putin would probably call the police and have it arrested. By far the greatest objection to this ridiculous accusation, however, is the advisory document on the Ukrainian crisis photographed in the hand of a senior official outside No.10. Basically this said that Britain should make all the usual noises about "unwarranted Russian aggression" and "economic and political sanctions" but should not do anything that might affect London's financial interests. Even with something as serious as a possible full-scale war in Europe the Tory right-wing loonies are far more interested in scoring points off the Labour party and making sure that their investments remain safe. They have managed to shoot right past idiocy and are, as usual, rushing full-tilt towards swivel-eyed gibbering insanity.

Lord Ashcroft, Tax Avoidance And Pretending He's More Than A Conman.

Lord Ashcroft likes to pretend he's not simply the greedy conman we all think he is. Of late he's gone to great lengths to persuade us that he's some sort of historian after getting one of his publishing mates to print his boy's own history of British heroes. Now the BBC are trying to make out that he's a "widely respected pollster and internet politics magnate". Despite this he remains a grubby and greedy individual whose only interest in life is himself. Listening to Ed Miliband's speech yesterday he saw that the jig might be up for the selfish and self-serving. He decided, therefore, that his only course of action was to try an elevate his greed and avarice to a higher level. "I'm proud to be a tax avoider" he told Labour delegates as if this makes him noble in some way. "I give away the equivalent of my tax bill to charity," he asserted, though he neglected to say that his favourite charity is the Tory party. So what does this add to our knowledge of Lord Ashcroft? First that his arrogance knows no bounds - only he knows what is good for society and how money should be distributed - and two, that he is desperate to show people that he's more than just a conman. He has the sheer brass neck then to lecture the Labour party and darkly suggest that the election is "Ed Miliband's to lose". Presumably this will come about if we fail to heed to his self-serving drivel. What Ashcroft is trying to do is highjack what he sees as a powerful political message, to surf a new wave that otherwise threatens to sweep him and his kind away. He remains, however, nothing more than a greedy, selfish crook and should be given all the attention that such people deserve - none.

The BBC Steps Up Propaganda Against Labour

The BBC have been almost as eager to tear into Ed Miliband's speech at the Labour party conference today as the energy companies. Their reporting has so far literally dripped with loaded language as they have "analysed" Ed's speech. "Is this a backward step towards socialism?" they asked, as if the untrammelled capitalism that has propelled us backwards towards the mid-19th century is somehow a better idea. "Will the lights go out as they did in the 1970's during the "Winter of Discontent?" they asked, though they have never been heard to speculate as to whether the bedroom tax is Cameron's equivalent of Thatcher's disastrous poll tax. "How will they freeze energy prices if the energy companies won't let them?" they ask, as if the energy companies and not a democratically elected government actually runs the country. The BBC's reporting so far resembles a member of the blue-rinse set hiking up her skirt and screaming hysterically because she thinks she sees a mouse. "My God," the BBC are whimpering, "is that socialism I can see? What will become of us all if we have to live in a fairer society?" They have ignored the scandalous dependence on food banks for a growing number of people in Britain. They have refused to report the rising death rate amongst the elderly poor. They have turned a blind eye to the number of people under threat of eviction because of the bedroom tax. They have no time for stories about the growth of hate crimes against the disabled. They only have time to reiterate the Tory line that there is "no alternative." Now there is.

Energy Companies Threaten Shortages If Not Allowed To Rip Off Customers.

The fat cat multinational energy companies have been very quick to condemn Ed Miliband's promise to curb their rapaciousness. He had barely finished his speech in which he promised a 20 month freeze on energy prices before they were yelling from the rooftops that such out-and-out socialism would lead to power shortages and a collapse of the energy market in Britain. "How dare this man try to prevent us from ripping off our customers whenever we want," one energy company spokesman told our reporter. "Who does he think he is? It's a well known fact that British governments should support big business because otherwise we'll take our bat and ball home. How can we be expected to provide ourselves with eye-watering bonuses and shower cash on our shareholders without charging outrageous prices? It's not fair." The threat of deliberately creating power shortages is a real one and should be taken seriously. So, should Ed back off on his promise and knuckle under to the blackmail of the energy companies? Fortunately there is an alternative to this - re-nationalisation without compensation. Now that is a threat that really has some gravitas.

Ed Looks Backwards To The Future.

Yesterday, on his keynote address, Ed Miliband rather cheekily invoked the name of Benjamin Disraeli. Today the name of Robert Peel is to be given an airing. What Ed is trying to get at is obvious - one nation with a government governing for all and not simply those it regards as "important." All very laudible but it suffers from more than a few weaknesses. Not least is the problem of "one nation." What was true in the 19th century is no longer true in the 21st. We are not "one nation". The divide between rich and poor has widened since the end of the 19th century and the culture that sustained a national identity is no longer there. Ed is suggesting that the wealth divide can be repaired and he might be right, but what about the divide in culture? That is fractured beyond retrieval and, short of imposing a standard of "Britishness", can never be reserected. That is the weakness of multiculturism - the clue is in the name. So why is Ed looking back to the 19th century for his inspiration? The answer to that is that the Labour party, indeed all the political parties, are the creation of the 19th century and, in many ways, are about as relevant to modern Britain as the 19th century itself. Shoehorning the present day into a distorted image of the past is not the answer. Modern Britain needs new answers not retreads of the old, otherwise we are heading towards the fate of all fractured societies - conflict and, ultimately, civil war.

Ed Miliband: The Invisible Man.

Harriet Harman told the BBC today that "a lot of people don't know Ed Miliband." As a political statement this was hardly contentious or even particularly imformative since it remains highly unlikely that any individual would be personally known to every person in the country. However it is rather peculiar that Ed is so elusive that even most Labour supporters have no idea as to who he actually is. Much of this is probably a matter of tactics - after all, why would he expose himself to scrutiny when David Cameron is making such a good job of sinking the Tories without trace all on his own? There have been a couple of disastrous attempts by Ed to introduce himself and his thinking to the British electorate. "Predistribution" wasn't a great success, but it does provide a least a glimpse of the man behind the legend. Demonstrating that he seems to understand that the present economic system is wildly unfair, it suffered from two major drawbacks - the average voter had no idea what he was talking about and neither did he. All he was trying to say is that wages are too low and that using the tax credit system to redistribute wealth is expensive for the taxpayer and very inefficient. Simples! So why didn't he just say that? The answer is that he can't because, like so many of our politicians, he doesn't speak the same language as most of the electorate. For him politics is essentially an intelectual exercise divorced from the concerns of ordinary people and he lacks the necessary vocabulary to "connect" with voters. This, under normal circumstances, would be disastrous for a political leader but, once again, David Cameron rides to the rescue. He is even further removed from ordinary people and, lacking the political intelligence to recognise this, resorts to the Tory default setting of "just do as your f**king told, you f**king pleb". To be honest I don't really need to know who Ed Miliband is, I just need to know what he's going to do to reverse the disastrous neoliberal economic experiment of the last 30 years. So give us a break Ed and explain, in simple terms, what we need to know and stuff the PR - give us something we can believe in and the rest will follow.