I like a pair of jeans and a football top. I admit it. It's a fair cop. To me there is nothing more comfortable than jeans, my Adidas Samba trainers and a football shirt in which to potter around the house or, as I did for three years at University, to go out in or attend lectures. In short, I think most people feel more comfortable in their casual clothes.
What's this got to do with politics ? Stick with it and you'll find out.
In direct contrast to the football top, trainers and jeans, I sometimes have to wear a suit for important council meetings, very occasionally for work, or for a wedding. When I am putting it on, I don't feel that comfortable. I feel a bit awkward, in short, I prefer my jeans and football shirt. But when I've got it on, and pass a mirror, I take a sideways look and think to myself, hey, I'd but a car from that man !
Now call me vain, but I don't think I am much different to anyone else. Looking smart is less comfortable, but actually pays dividends in terms of the image you give, and the way you feel about yourself.
So what has this to do with politics ?
Looking at the Labour leadership, Labour appear to have gone for the jeans and football shirt. Ed Miliband is comfortable. He re-assures the Labour party that they still might be left wing. He allows them to forget Tony Blair and New Labour, he is in many ways, despite starting from some way back, the easy option.
David Miliband is, however, the smart suit. It feels less comfortable initially, but when you've got it on, people look at you and listen. Yes, it might feel a bit less relaxed, but it's impressive and people will nod at you in appreciated for the effort you've made. That is exactly what David Miliband is. He is the smart suit.
Watching the Milibands on TV today, one oozed class and sophisticated, one sounded nasal and looked like his clothes didn't fit.
Yes, it's a long analogy, but at the end of the day, the electorate don't want to vote for the jeans and football shirt. They want a suit, and the sharper and more made to measure the suit, the better. This was show in the period up to election day this May when Cameron, the sharp suit, was for some years taking the "sharp suit" vote until people suddenly saw Nick Clegg, the new sharp suit in town, and suddenly, irrespective of what he was actually saying, people were impressed. Yes, the Nick Clegg effect wore off to some extent, but it save the Lib Dems from a mauling and got Nick Clegg in to government.
Look too at Brown compared to Blair. Was Brown any worse ? No. Was he any less of an ego than Blair ? No. But his suits appeared not to fit, and he was the easy option for Labour, the only option for Labour. Brown was the pair of jeans and the football top.
I think Labour have made a dreadful mistake. Despite my natural antipathy to Labour, David Miliband, the smart suit, impresses me and other I know. Ed Miliband, the jeans, does not.
It doesn't matter how much money you spend on jeans, they are still jeans.
If you read all this, thanks for sticking with me.
Showing posts with label Labour leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour leadership. Show all posts
9/03/2010
A worrying development
According to the vote-match website, if I were a Labour voter, they think I should vote for Diane Abbott. I guess it shows just how poor some of these online questionnaires are as I would rather eat my own trousers than vote for Diana Abbott.
8/19/2010
Ed Miliband plays the anti Lib Dem card
PoliticalBetting.comhttp://www6.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/08/18/would-edm-prefer-being-in-opposition-rather-than-government/ ran a thread yesterday about the statment from Ed Miliband that he would demand Nick Clegg's resignation if he were the Labour leader seeking to negotiate a coalition deal with the Lib Dems.
The is political postuing on a grand scale, but says more about Ed Miliband and Labour's very tribal, bearing grudges, style of politics andfails to address the realities of being a responsible politician.
As is well known, the Lib Dems said Gordon Brown would have to go if the Lib Dems were ever to form a coalition with Labout after this year's General Election, and this seems to be the basis on which Ed Miliband is now making his rather petty comments. But it ought to be remembered that Gordon Brown lost his majority. Some of his back benchers were calling for his resignation on the night of the election, and at the end of the day, he himself felt he should resign as Labour leader, meaning any claims that the Labour Party felt he could stay on as Prime Minister were undermined by his resignation.
But what about the circumstances after the next election ? What about if the Lib Dems pick up a few more seats. this is no improbable given that nobody seems to be able to accurately predict Lib Dem performance. A matter of a year ago Tory bloggers and activists were claiming the Lib Dems would be chopped down to a rump 25-30 seats, and in April of this year polls were predicting the Lib Dems would get 85-90 seats. The reality saw the Lib Dems lose a handful of seats by a handful of votes on a slightly increased share of the vote. So if the Lib Dems do better in 2015 than in 2010, what would Ed Miliband do ? Demand the resignation of a man who has proved to have done well ?
I think the statement from Ed Miliband speaks more of his desperation as the Labour leadership election gets closer. He knows he is behind his brother and is now seeking to be seen as the anti Lib Dem candidate. It might work, in the short term, but he will be pushing himself in to a corner politically that he might not be able to get out of.
Note - I write as a Lib Dem who is not a supporter of the coaltion agreement.
The is political postuing on a grand scale, but says more about Ed Miliband and Labour's very tribal, bearing grudges, style of politics andfails to address the realities of being a responsible politician.
As is well known, the Lib Dems said Gordon Brown would have to go if the Lib Dems were ever to form a coalition with Labout after this year's General Election, and this seems to be the basis on which Ed Miliband is now making his rather petty comments. But it ought to be remembered that Gordon Brown lost his majority. Some of his back benchers were calling for his resignation on the night of the election, and at the end of the day, he himself felt he should resign as Labour leader, meaning any claims that the Labour Party felt he could stay on as Prime Minister were undermined by his resignation.
But what about the circumstances after the next election ? What about if the Lib Dems pick up a few more seats. this is no improbable given that nobody seems to be able to accurately predict Lib Dem performance. A matter of a year ago Tory bloggers and activists were claiming the Lib Dems would be chopped down to a rump 25-30 seats, and in April of this year polls were predicting the Lib Dems would get 85-90 seats. The reality saw the Lib Dems lose a handful of seats by a handful of votes on a slightly increased share of the vote. So if the Lib Dems do better in 2015 than in 2010, what would Ed Miliband do ? Demand the resignation of a man who has proved to have done well ?
I think the statement from Ed Miliband speaks more of his desperation as the Labour leadership election gets closer. He knows he is behind his brother and is now seeking to be seen as the anti Lib Dem candidate. It might work, in the short term, but he will be pushing himself in to a corner politically that he might not be able to get out of.
Note - I write as a Lib Dem who is not a supporter of the coaltion agreement.
5/22/2010
Vote labour - Vote for hypocrites - Vote for toadying candidates who are wise after the event
I know I ought to be astonished to see that Ed balls and Ed Miliband are now criticising the war in Iraq, and Labour's record of being one of the two main instigators of the war. The problem is, nothing about the duplicity of the Labour Party comes as a surprise anymore.
The two "Ed's" excuse for being able to come out as anti war is that they were not MP's in 2003. The problem is, there excuse falls apart when you realise what they were doing in 2003.
Now if Ed Balls was that upset about the war in Iraq and the illegal invasion in 2003, wouldn't you imagine he would, as a matter of principles, resigned his job as advisor to the Chancellor ?
If he was that digusted he might ahve done a Robin Cook and resigned any positions of authority that gave credibility to the War ?
Of course not. Just months after the invasion, as a good loyal Brown man, as a toady of the new labour regime, he was selected for the then safe seat of Normanton.
Getting a safe seat or stanging up against the war in Iraq ? I know which side of the argument Mr Balls came down on.
So what of Ed Miliband ? It appears that in the period leading up[ to the war, Mr Miliband too was a government advisor.
He did go to harvard in thr 2003/2004 year, but as terms run from Autumn to Summer, he must presumably still have been with the government up to the start of the war in Spring 2003 ?
Of course, a year at Harvard would have been the ideal opportunity for him to express his oppostion to the war in Iraq in articles, essays and speeches. I wonder if Mr Miliband is willing to publish all the articles from 2003/2004 ? I would guess that given that he was selected for a safe labour seat in 2005, no such speeches, essay or articles exist.
So vote for political expediency. For for Ed.
The two "Ed's" excuse for being able to come out as anti war is that they were not MP's in 2003. The problem is, there excuse falls apart when you realise what they were doing in 2003.
Now if Ed Balls was that upset about the war in Iraq and the illegal invasion in 2003, wouldn't you imagine he would, as a matter of principles, resigned his job as advisor to the Chancellor ?
If he was that digusted he might ahve done a Robin Cook and resigned any positions of authority that gave credibility to the War ?
Of course not. Just months after the invasion, as a good loyal Brown man, as a toady of the new labour regime, he was selected for the then safe seat of Normanton.
Getting a safe seat or stanging up against the war in Iraq ? I know which side of the argument Mr Balls came down on.
So what of Ed Miliband ? It appears that in the period leading up[ to the war, Mr Miliband too was a government advisor.
He did go to harvard in thr 2003/2004 year, but as terms run from Autumn to Summer, he must presumably still have been with the government up to the start of the war in Spring 2003 ?
Of course, a year at Harvard would have been the ideal opportunity for him to express his oppostion to the war in Iraq in articles, essays and speeches. I wonder if Mr Miliband is willing to publish all the articles from 2003/2004 ? I would guess that given that he was selected for a safe labour seat in 2005, no such speeches, essay or articles exist.
So vote for political expediency. For for Ed.
5/31/2008
Prescott comes out for David Miliband
John Prescott may not always appear to be the most up to date man in the world and seems liek some sort of political dinosaur, but he has always had his finger on the pulse of the Labour Party, and by that I mean Labour and not "New Labour". This was shown in 1992 /1993 when he really pushed the Labour Party to start reforming itself under John Smith and from 1994 onwards under Tony Blair too. So when John Prescott starts haling David Miliband as a great future leader, he does know what he is on about.
Now that someone has come out for Miliband in such strong terms, how long will it be before others start doing so too. Prescott has shown himself to be utterly loyal in the past, and he does clearly refer to Miliband as a great "future" leader, but I wonder if this is a sign that Prescott knows the mood of the party and knows it is in no mood to put up with two more years under Brown waiting to lose an election.
Now that someone has come out for Miliband in such strong terms, how long will it be before others start doing so too. Prescott has shown himself to be utterly loyal in the past, and he does clearly refer to Miliband as a great "future" leader, but I wonder if this is a sign that Prescott knows the mood of the party and knows it is in no mood to put up with two more years under Brown waiting to lose an election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)