Mean What You Say
Duncan Hamilton - writing in the Scotland on Sunday yesterday - had a fair old blast at the Labour leader Ed Miliband.
Now Duncan is a former SNP MSP - and presumably remains an SNP supporter - but I still admire the vehemence - and 'no holds barred' force of his argument.
'Say what you mean - and mean what you say' - as Tony Blair and New Labour used to say.
I think I speak for the nation in saying that Duncan Hamilton appears to have taken this advice - completely to heart.
Insipid speech proves Ed's a dead duck as leader
For Ed Miliband, the Labour Party conference in Liverpool needed to be a turning point. It was - but not in the way he had planned.
Rather than silencing his critics and setting a clear agenda for the nation, I suspect it marks the beginning of the end of his vague and unconvincing time as Labour leader.
This, after all, was meant to be the moment he moved from being the slightly awkward policy-wonk to being a credible alternative prime minister. He needed to bound on to the stage fizzing with energy and ideas. He needed to look and act like a man with a plan. Instead, he looked like a well-intentioned but slightly lost student.
He leaves Liverpool in considerably worse shape than he arrived. He remains anonymous to the vast majority of the population. His conference speech, apparently redrafted and practised to the point of obsession, was trailed as the moment at which all would become clear about the man and his message.
In reality, what we learned was that Miliband is not up to being the leader of the Labour Party, let alone to being prime minister. We learned that his presentation is woeful, his thinking utterly confused and his understanding of how to win elections simply wrong.
The country needs strong and clear leadership - instead he offered a muddled and simplistic model of society. It was cartoon caricature rather than insightful analysis. Companies were labelled as either "predators" or "producers", while apparently in society there are "those who contribute and those who don't". Welcome to Miliband's world of binary politics. You are good or bad. Lord Vader or Luke Skywalker. A grasping evil capitalist or a caring, sharing social worker. Dire stuff.
Unsurprisingly, of course, the wheels came off that analysis within minutes. Andrew Neil on the BBC should be given an award for exposing each and every shadow Cabinet minister who wandered into his studio to relentless and brutal questioning. He justified my licence fee in one afternoon.
What emerged was broadly this. What did Miliband mean by predatory companies? No idea, other than they do bad stuff. Could any of the shadow Cabinet actually name any such companies? Er, no. Even assuming Miliband could ever identify these bad folks, what was he planning to do to them? Not much, but he would certainly frown upon any application they made for public contracts.
What then about the folks who "don't contribute"? Miliband explicitly suggested they would lose out on housing provision. What did he mean? How would that work? Again, not one of the shadow Cabinet had an answer. It left the centrepiece speech of the Labour conference in tatters.
It amounted to nothing beyond a vague set of statements which suggest being nice is better than not being nice. Magic, Ed, thanks for that. We'll be in touch. Safe home.
It was, then, a car crash of a conference speech. But he wasn't finished yet. In a magnificent example of the level of his interest in Scottish politics, he paid a gushing tribute to the "three excellent candidates" standing to become Labour leader in Scotland. Unfortunately, such was the excellence of one candidate - front-runner Ken Macintosh - that Miliband didn't know his name.
The polls are grim - most recently confirming that only 24 per cent consider him a credible prime minister, while 57 per cent think he is not. More importantly, even at these times of economic crisis, the Tories lead on 37 per cent support with Labour on 36 per cent. More extensive polling and focus group work was also revealed by Lord Ashcroft, the Tory donor. Despite its dubious origin, the methodology of the research (5,000 voters) is both published and robust. It paints a dark picture. Where David Cameron is described as "determined", "ruthless" and "competent", Miliband attracts the description of "geeky" and "weird".
That's harsh - Miliband is doubtless a pleasant and decent man. But modern politics is fickle with an intense focus on media performance, physical appearance and the ability of our leaders to communicate. On those measurements, Miliband is sinking fast.
But way beyond presentation, the biggest disappointment has been the realisation that the man who appeared to offer fresh and interesting thinking in the leadership campaign is offering so little of intellectual substance. In politics, success can be either through exceptional communication or exceptional thought. Miliband looks increasingly capable of delivering neither.
It is now obvious that Miliband is not electable as prime minister. Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls are the likely alternatives, but they will have to act soon if Labour is to have any chance of winning in 2015 and Labour is traditionally slow to ditch even lame duck leaders. In the meantime, that leaves Miliband drifting leftwards and abandoning the centre ground upon which the success of New Labour was built.
Tony Blair's name was booed during Miliband's speech by delegates who never trusted his instincts as leader. But those delegates need to remember that for all his failings, Blair appealed to mainstream aspirational voters in a way Miliband simply can't. Blair delivered three full terms in government. Miliband will do well to last one term in opposition.
Now Duncan is a former SNP MSP - and presumably remains an SNP supporter - but I still admire the vehemence - and 'no holds barred' force of his argument.
'Say what you mean - and mean what you say' - as Tony Blair and New Labour used to say.
I think I speak for the nation in saying that Duncan Hamilton appears to have taken this advice - completely to heart.
Insipid speech proves Ed's a dead duck as leader
For Ed Miliband, the Labour Party conference in Liverpool needed to be a turning point. It was - but not in the way he had planned.
Rather than silencing his critics and setting a clear agenda for the nation, I suspect it marks the beginning of the end of his vague and unconvincing time as Labour leader.
This, after all, was meant to be the moment he moved from being the slightly awkward policy-wonk to being a credible alternative prime minister. He needed to bound on to the stage fizzing with energy and ideas. He needed to look and act like a man with a plan. Instead, he looked like a well-intentioned but slightly lost student.
He leaves Liverpool in considerably worse shape than he arrived. He remains anonymous to the vast majority of the population. His conference speech, apparently redrafted and practised to the point of obsession, was trailed as the moment at which all would become clear about the man and his message.
In reality, what we learned was that Miliband is not up to being the leader of the Labour Party, let alone to being prime minister. We learned that his presentation is woeful, his thinking utterly confused and his understanding of how to win elections simply wrong.
The country needs strong and clear leadership - instead he offered a muddled and simplistic model of society. It was cartoon caricature rather than insightful analysis. Companies were labelled as either "predators" or "producers", while apparently in society there are "those who contribute and those who don't". Welcome to Miliband's world of binary politics. You are good or bad. Lord Vader or Luke Skywalker. A grasping evil capitalist or a caring, sharing social worker. Dire stuff.
Unsurprisingly, of course, the wheels came off that analysis within minutes. Andrew Neil on the BBC should be given an award for exposing each and every shadow Cabinet minister who wandered into his studio to relentless and brutal questioning. He justified my licence fee in one afternoon.
What emerged was broadly this. What did Miliband mean by predatory companies? No idea, other than they do bad stuff. Could any of the shadow Cabinet actually name any such companies? Er, no. Even assuming Miliband could ever identify these bad folks, what was he planning to do to them? Not much, but he would certainly frown upon any application they made for public contracts.
What then about the folks who "don't contribute"? Miliband explicitly suggested they would lose out on housing provision. What did he mean? How would that work? Again, not one of the shadow Cabinet had an answer. It left the centrepiece speech of the Labour conference in tatters.
It amounted to nothing beyond a vague set of statements which suggest being nice is better than not being nice. Magic, Ed, thanks for that. We'll be in touch. Safe home.
It was, then, a car crash of a conference speech. But he wasn't finished yet. In a magnificent example of the level of his interest in Scottish politics, he paid a gushing tribute to the "three excellent candidates" standing to become Labour leader in Scotland. Unfortunately, such was the excellence of one candidate - front-runner Ken Macintosh - that Miliband didn't know his name.
The polls are grim - most recently confirming that only 24 per cent consider him a credible prime minister, while 57 per cent think he is not. More importantly, even at these times of economic crisis, the Tories lead on 37 per cent support with Labour on 36 per cent. More extensive polling and focus group work was also revealed by Lord Ashcroft, the Tory donor. Despite its dubious origin, the methodology of the research (5,000 voters) is both published and robust. It paints a dark picture. Where David Cameron is described as "determined", "ruthless" and "competent", Miliband attracts the description of "geeky" and "weird".
That's harsh - Miliband is doubtless a pleasant and decent man. But modern politics is fickle with an intense focus on media performance, physical appearance and the ability of our leaders to communicate. On those measurements, Miliband is sinking fast.
But way beyond presentation, the biggest disappointment has been the realisation that the man who appeared to offer fresh and interesting thinking in the leadership campaign is offering so little of intellectual substance. In politics, success can be either through exceptional communication or exceptional thought. Miliband looks increasingly capable of delivering neither.
It is now obvious that Miliband is not electable as prime minister. Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls are the likely alternatives, but they will have to act soon if Labour is to have any chance of winning in 2015 and Labour is traditionally slow to ditch even lame duck leaders. In the meantime, that leaves Miliband drifting leftwards and abandoning the centre ground upon which the success of New Labour was built.
Tony Blair's name was booed during Miliband's speech by delegates who never trusted his instincts as leader. But those delegates need to remember that for all his failings, Blair appealed to mainstream aspirational voters in a way Miliband simply can't. Blair delivered three full terms in government. Miliband will do well to last one term in opposition.
