Posts Tagged ‘Ed Miliband’

@UKLabour @LabourEoin @andyburnhammp extend the idea of one member, one vote

May 31, 2015

I like Miliband’s idea of one member, one vote.

It doesn’t matter if the Unions encourage, or enable member’s to enrol and vote, because it shuts up the Tory Press claims of Unions being the party paymaster’s.

There are many like Derek Hatton, who would return to the fold, as Socialists, whilst having to accept that they are one voice amongst many.

But why not extend it?

If Labour can elect a leader by individual votes then why not allow individual votes on all policies?
Congress can still propose and debate policies.

It can even vote on policy, but let that vote be merely a recommendation to the electorate.

Once the votes are in and counted, then let that be the policy to be pursued.

The party should then invite candidates for leadership, knowing that the leader is bound by those policies for the oncoming year.

This system would tie the hands of the leader, but that is not a genuine problem for candidates, who wish to serve………. only for those, who wish to be served.

It would also allow the party to respond to changes in circumstances, whereby the leader could, on an annual basis, argue for any necessary change, without pundits denouncing them as doing u-turns.

The yearly vote could be tied into the payment of subscription/donations, giving a reflection of how well congress recommendations are being received.

Such a strong demonstration of active Democracy could also draw in the Broadsheet readers, who haver between Tory and Labour, after being spurned by the Lib Dems.

It’d be so nice to get back to a Democracy, instead of elected and corruptible dictatorship.

 

Advertisements

#VoteOnDevoManc. @Ed_Miliband just doesn’t fully support Democracy.

February 16, 2015

Speaking in Manchester yesterday Ed Miliband is reported to have slammed Conservatives saying “devolution should not be conditional on having figurehead”, and that Greater Manchester “should not be forced to have an elected mayor against its wishes.”

Asked twice however, whether in their position (Greater Manchester’s ten Council leaders) he would have accepted the deal, the MEN reports “he declined to give a direct answer.”

Asked about Labour’s own plans for devolution to the English regions, the Labour leader said it would happen “straight away” after a Labour government was elected.

Missing out from what he said about the Devo Manc deal, and his party’s own proposals for ‘devolution’ was any mention of the fact, that whether under Labour or the Tories, and it’s Devo Manc or Devo Merseyside or Sheffield, both party’s plans are implicitly conditional on the further imposition of austerity, and the ‘reform’ (i.e. further cuts, ‘rationalisation’ and the privatisation) of public services, the only difference being the pace of the so-called ‘reforms’.

It would also seem that while Ed was critical of an elected Mayor being imposed on Greater Manchester under the Devo Manc deal, he made no criticism whatsoever, of, how the new set up is to be imposed on the people of Greater Manchester, without them being consulted, able to scrutinise or have any say on the deal whatsoever, let alone a referendum on whether they want the whole thing or not.

Our view remains unaltered as a campaign

NO TO DODGY DEALS & DODGY DEMOCRACY
YES TO A REAL DEAL & REAL DEMOCRACY
#VoteOnDevoManc

@David_Cameron @Ed_Miliband .Honest Andy is a Glove #NHS

September 15, 2014
Posted to Daily Express  15/9/14
Andy Burnham’s call for the NHS to be exempted from the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is disingenuous at best and almost Clegg-like in its intended duplicity.
The Labour Party, under Ed Miliband and his inner clique of advisor’s, is committed to membership of the EU.
The EU is committed to signing upto the TTIP, which will be in place before Cameron’s illusory 2017 EU Referendum.
Once this treaty is in place (which by itself should be triggering a Referendum), there will be no way back for the NHS and Burnham must know this.
Part of this new treaty will create a judicial body, which will arbitrate on any Government legislation, which the Multi-nationals object to.
E.g. The present Government is brokering a deal to hand over controls of much of the NHS to an American organisation, which will presumably be expecting to make a good profit.
If Andy Burnham were able to persuade his boss to end this contract, they would likely sue for loss of earnings, despite any faux exemption, and win.
The likelihood of Ed Miliband acceding to such effrontery from one of his shadow cabinet, is no more likely than that Labour will make any mention of EU membership in the coming election campaign.

GP charges would be the final end of the NHS @Ed_Miliband

May 7, 2014
I’ve just sent this off as a letter to the Daily Express, basically as a challenge to Ed Miliband about whether he is genuinely concerned about the privatisation of the NHS, Something I strongly doubt.
Government seems to be growing more and more disconnected, nowadays.
It’s not just a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing but a case, where the head doesn’t seem to control either of them.
In fact the recent Post Office sell-off seems to indicate that the head is incompetent.
This disconnect is viewed by the Public as the responsibility of whoever is Prime Minister.
At present it is David Cameron, who is enjoying the Global Jaunts and other trappings of office but the chaos seems likely to continue, whether, or not, Ed Miliband replaces him.
Consider the announcement that the BMA is to ask GP’s to vote on charging for doctor appointments.
One would have thought that NHS doctor’s were paid even if no patient kept an appointment, so it seems a political faux pas, if they can then collect cash from those, who try to attend.
We have one branch of Government spending vast sums persuading people to see their doctor for flu like symptoms, or because of bleeding from intimate places, or concern about unusual skin problems and we some GP’s complaining of their irritation with “time waster’s”.
Would you pay £10 to make an appointment expecting to be told that you only have flu and there is no treatment (with the implication that you are wasting the Doctor’s time)?
Doctor’s and Government created the appointment’s system, replacing open surgeries and house calls, at a time when we had a younger, working population.
We now have a large, geriatric population and a work force, fearful of losing their jobs.
Those in work and commuting, can’t get to normal surgery hours and have to weigh up as to whether their condition is serious enough to warrant taking time off and whether they will still be in need of treatment by the stated date.
This may be why some attend A&E; they’ve waited until, as with the Dentist and a toothache, it has become unbearable.
If they do make an appointment and, then, think they have recovered, they obviously won’t attend, because they can’t afford the risk of losing their job.
Consider, now, the ageing population, who will make up a lot of the G.P.’s appointments. Can they afford such fee’s, over a year of attendances?
If they make an appoiuntment and don’t keep it, it may be forgetfulness, or it may simply be that they are physically unfit to attend.
Potential Prime Minister’s need to bear in mind that pensioner’s and the lower paid still have the vote and will personally blame the occupant of Number 10 if this charge comes in, adding further stress to their lives.

@DailyMirror @Kevin_Maguire @Fiona_Phillips Benn wouldn’t support @Ed_Miliband

March 16, 2014

There are many voices eulogising (rightly so) Tony Benn and denigrating UKIP’s anti-EU platform.

Many of these voices are those from the Left of politics, for whom UKIP is synomynous with racism.

These people see New Labour as their party, even when its leaders espouse right wing, anti-democratic views.

The British public has shown an interest in having a referendum on EU membership, some on the immigration issue but many on the basis expressed by Tony Benn and quoted in The Daily Mirror:

When I saw how The European Union was developing, it was very obvious what they had in mind was not democratic. In Britain you vote for a Government, so the Government has to listen to you and if you don’t like it, then you can change it.”

I’m a Socialist but I also believe in Democracy and so I’m being forced by New Labour and its apologists to vote UKIP, in 2015.

I may have to vote for them again in 2020, if we are still self-governing.

@Ed_Miliband @David_Cameron Why you won’t confront @Nigel_Farage

February 24, 2014
This was a letter to the Daily Express (not published):
From numerous reports on the motives of David Cameron, it seems that he definitely wants to see The UK remain in The EU and any pretence at favouring a referendum is a mere smokescreen to hinder the mass migration of his rank and file to UKIP.

Meanwhile Ed Miliband’s silence on a referendum is deafening in its support for shackling The UK to the EU.
Neither wants an EU referendum to be an issue in the forthcoming General Election, so I would not be at all surprised to find that they not only supported Clegg in his proposal to confront Farage (in a live TV debate) but that they had actually connived at it and would be offering tactical advice.
If Clegg is slain, it’d be no great loss and would provide justification for Ed and Dave to insist on a private debate, with the economy / austerity as the sole issue to be elected on.
If Clegg can land a few punches, then they can use this as an excuse to dismiss any comments made by UKIP.

Either way, an EU referendum will not be allowed to be a major issue in the General Election.

@Ed-Miliband will take us into EU and doom the NHS

February 18, 2014

Letter, as sent to Daily Express:

Does N.Clegg genuinely believe that there is any chance of a Lib-Lab coalition?
Does he genuinely believe that a sufficient number of Lib-Dem MP’s will be returned to Parliament, for him to have any chance of gaining a seat in Cabinet?
Even if Labour don’t gain an overall majority, so as not to be able to form a Government, who would Labour align with?
Indeed, would Labour need to form any alliance, at all?
Only UKIP oppose membership of the EU and they are unlikely to gain enough support, from rebel Tory and Labour MP’s, to force a referendum.
Once it is clear that Ed Miliband has the votes to commit to Europe, our fate will, likely, be sealed and any other issues will be of little, or no, consequence.
Barroso has already told us part of what awaits us.
He promised that we would be forced to allow immigration for anyone with EU documentation.
He made no comment about the EU treaty with the USA, which will make it impossible for Labour supporters to see the re-nationalisation of the NHS, the railways, or our energy supplies.
He made no mention of the moves to see our Justice system replaced by the Napoleonic Code favoured by much of Europe.
One wonders why we should even vote for a Parliament, which seems destined to become merely a State legislature, like those in America, whose main concern seems to be whether, or not, to legalise marijuana and who to award the contracts for the management of our State-run schools, hospitals and prisons.

Letter, as published in Daily Express:

Labour would not be good fit with Lib Dems anyway
DOES Nick Clegg believe there is any chance of a Lib-Lab coalition?
Does he truly believe a sufficient number of Lib Dem MPs will be returned to Parliament for him to have any chance of a Cabinet seat?
Even if Labour won without a majority, why would the party align with Clegg? Only Ukip opposes the UK+s membership of the EU and Ukip is unlikely to gain enough support to force a referendum.
Once it is clear Ed Miliband has the votes to commit to Europe, the UK’s fate will be sealed.
Eurocrat Jose Barroso has told. us what awaits us (“Brussels to foil UK curb on migrants”, February 17). He claimed the UK would be forced to allow immigration for anyone with EU documentation.

@Ed_Miliband @David_Cameron A Winter of Discontent

October 19, 2013

This is a letter to the daily express but it’d be nice if our political leader’s thought a bit about the plight of the people, whom they like to pretend to represent.

Ross Clark’s piece on the energy crisis, that we face, is infuriating.
How can politician’s create such a fouled up situation.
The worst part is that it is, purely, a political problem.
A political problem arising out of one semi-popular and two unpopular credo’s:
Those of cutting Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuels, remaining in the EU (thus, subject to the dictates of Foreign powers) and privatisation.
Ed, George and David, all have Oxford degrees in philosophy, politics and economics.
Perhaps they should all demand their course fee’s back, because they don’t seem to understand the most important lesson in politics, which is that you should lead the people to where they want to go.
Even Machiavelli advised this.
In this present situation, they can’t renege on their privatisation policy, because their political funding and the whole of their understanding of Economics Theory is too closely tied in to it.
Whilst reneging on their Carbon policy will cause them great difficulty, in terms of political wriggling, the postponement of the closure of coal-fired power stations can be defended as a “temporary measure” .
This postponement of the closure of coal-fired power stations would even help in negotiations, within the EU, where a show of independence, would be a welcome change to the present posturing. The German’s and French might not like such defiance but they would accept it as a political necessity.
In terms of domestic politics, failure to postpone these closure’s will mean power cuts and public censure of the kind last seen during the Winter of Discontent; only this time they’ll only have themselves to blame, they won’t be able to blame the Unions.

@NHAParty ‏@jakepitt_ read his bland words and read what hasn’t been said.

July 2, 2013

You’re right he has spoken out about what’s happening to the NHS. The passion makes you catch your breath.

I’m sure that Mirror readers, who waded through the obligatory verbiage, deploring the Nasty Tories (Yes, I know that’s tautological) will have been heartened by these words:

The next Labour government will start to put NHS values, not Tory values, back at the heart of it.

We would repeal David Cameron’s Health Act and reinstate the ­Secretary of State’s duty to provide a comprehensive health service.

We will stop the fragmentation and the privatisation of our NHS so we keep it as a truly national service and begin rebuilding the ethos of our NHS – so that its first 65 years are not the last.

Them’s fighting words.

NHS values what does that mean? Tories use the phrase with equal facility. It says nothing beyond what we’d demand from the privateer’s.

the ­Secretary of State’s duty to provide a comprehensive health service………………

again, used with equal facility by Tories and privateers. Not a synonym with a duty of care, which implies that profit is not the main concern. Ed’s phrase allows for a two tier service.

We will stop the fragmentation and the privatisation of our NHS. …….

That’s great but by the time he gets power, there’ll be nothing left to be fragmented or privatised. Wards, A&E’s will have been sold off, asset stripped and disembowelled. ……” favouring NHS suppliers” assumes that any will still be left.

begin rebuilding the ethos of our NHS…………… is not the same as “begin rebuilding the  NHS

The man is a weasel using weasel phrases.

I can already see him facing a tame BBC interviewer and condescendingly explaining how “that’s not what I actually said”… “obviusly, we can’t afford to restore……, because of the actions of the last Government”.

Learn to read what isn’t said.

 

@labourpress Is Ed Balls serious about borrowing Cleggie’s idiotic view on the Winter fuel Allowance

June 3, 2013

Version posted to Daily Express

Is Labour intent on losing the next election?
 Ed Miliband is intent on saying nothing about an EU referendum but Ed Balls feels relaxed about announcing that he’ll means test the Winter fuel Allowance.
Is Ed Balls showing his lack of a grasp of basic economics, or is he showing his contempt for his core voters?
Ignore the public aggravation engendered in assessing qualification for entitlement to the Winter Fuel Allowance, i.e. asking us whether we’re poor enough to deserve it.
How much will it save after the cost of administering it?
If he raised the rate of tax by 0.5%, he would effectively recoup the Winter fuel Allowance from the “rich” pensioners, at minimal cost and with minimal friction.
Assuming that he grasps the economic idiocy of this plan, it must be that he thinks Labour voters are mean minded and Socialism really is the politics of envy.
The Conservatives are scoring own goal, after own goal, at the moment.
Dave Cameron must be hoping that not only can he lead the Tories into the next election but that the two Eds are his opposition.

Version printed

Fuel allowance proposals don’t add up to a saving
IS Labour intent on losing the next election? Ed Miliband is happy to say nothing about an EU referendum while Ed Balls is relaxed enough to announce he’ll means test the winter fuel allowance (“Balls: We will scrap winter fuel aid for all”, June 3).
Mr Balls is either showing little grasp of basic economics or contempt for his core voters.
Forget the public aggravation engendered in assessing qualification for entitlement to the payment, i.e. asking if we’re poor enough to deserve it but how much will actually be saved after paying the cost of administering the plan?
If he raised tax rates by 0.5 per cent, he would recoup the same amount from ‘rich’ pensioners at minimal cost and minimal friction.
The Tories are scoring own goal after own goal, so David Cameron must be praying that he can lead his party into the next election with the two Eds still in business.