Could be argued that he knows the same amount as any of the many other MPs, from all parties, who did a PPE at Oxford.

Like in so many things, the world and it's people just seemingly look like card board cut outs, generic and boring.

I want my MP's bordering on unpopular with the courage of their conviction. Thatcher had it, Blair had it.

Brown was a ditherer, Cameron is a popularity seeker.
I don't like the career politicians either, good school courtesy of mummy and daddy, GCSE, A-Levels, Degrees, Houses of Parliament.
Where's the life experience part, living in the real world part?

It could be argued

but Balls actually taught economics at Harvard.

I don't think Milliband is any more lightweight than Blair was in 1995. But at that time Blair and Brown were able to convince the voters that they weren't bogeymen and were capable of making a fresh start. They ended up turning their inexperience to their advantage.

Balls just has too much baggage. He's too strongly associated with Brown. He'll tie himself up in knots during a general election campaign trying to justify his previous record whilst at the same trying to give the impression that he
has learned his lessons. His undoubted economic knowledge will work aginst Labour because he comes across as too clever by half, too clever to acknowledge his mistakes. He'll come across as Viv Nicholson re-incarnated.

And its an open secret that he wants himself or his missus to take over from Milliband. The rift between Blair and Brown didnt really affect Labour initially because by the time it came into the open the public seemed to be convinced that they were still capable of working together. An opposition party can't get away with any sign of division because it leaves the electorate even more unsure as to who/what they are voting for.

Fair point.
A taint is a taint even when its only a perception of a taint.


A real shame and, again, an issue of perception.


I wasn't aware of that open secret, if such it is.
Didn't Yvette stand aside in the leadership contest?
Actually, no need to answer that, I'm not up for an argument about that, I was just wondering about your reasons why Balls was a liability and I have that answer.

That is true to a degree but all opposition parties are hamstrung by this. The government sets the agenda by its policies. The problem for Labour is IMO it is wary of outright condemnation when that is what is required. The idea the Tories can refute such opposition by trotting out the money-not saved argument is no reason to hang back when polices are simply unjust.



Even revealing in general terms could be risky. I don't recall the Tories doing much else except moan prior to 2010. Labour have had a big policy review going on for a while and in any case Jon Cruddas who is key to the policy review is revealing bits here and there.

This gives a hint.

[urlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/what-jon-cruddass-speech-told-us-about-labours-policy-review[/url

As to Blair his main comment was don't assume just because the banks caused a crash a lurch to the left is on the cards. It sounded as though he was after peddling the status quo that has existed for the last 30 years. What Ed M and Balls have said in response is more or less that isn't going to wash and changes are required.

Now his wife is a different animal all together as she seems awfully 'clued up'.
She made mince meat of a certain home secretary to the point that she stopped showing her face when she knew she was on the warpath.
Her as the shadow chancellor or leader of labour and 'Dave' has a problem.

She looks too weak to be a leader. Labour's best people have all moved over. I can't see them producing an electable leader in the next 10 years.

Blair is right.

I've heard Blair's analysis of Labour before (and I agree with it) - Labour can exist in three forms:

1. A left wing party directed by trade unions and socialist activists, looking to re-establish trade union control, nationalisation of industries, large scale state intervention in the economy.

2. A centre left party based more around appealing to voters than activists and trade union control, pro-markets, pro-public sector reform, but progressive on social issues.

3. A left-leaning party sandwiched in between the first two, where the unions and activists still hold a lot of sway but they have shedded some of the influence of the extreme left: accepting but sceptical of markets, favouring higher taxes at the top end.

When they are in mode 1 they will just be a party of opposition, the Tories will govern the country.

When they are in mode 2, they are capable of winning power and holding power in multiple elections.

When they are in mode 3, they are capable of winning a one off election, as a protest against an unpopular Tory government, but will struggle in power and get turned over again at the next election.

Under Ed Miliband, Labour are mode 3. They aren't mode 1 - that was Michael Foot's time, they are more like Labour under Wilson, Callaghan and Brown. To be able to win and keep winning they need to be mode 2.

Under David Miliband, Alastair Darling or Andy Burnham, they would be mode 2. Balls or Yvette Cooper would be mode 3.

Mode 1 would be stupid at present - socialists opposing a nationalised banking system!

I would have thought the kind of nationalisation they wanted was one where government owned it and made the decisions.

The nationalised banking system at the moment is one where the taxpayer owns it but the management and decision making is still in private hands hence the government having to beg them to lend enough.

That's the UK's form of capitalism in a nutshell: privatise any profit and socialise the debts