Why are Labour opposing what they did in office?

I know politics tends to be played in a certain way and that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are there to oppose. It's there in the title.

But it is remarkable just how many times Labour in opposition are now against almost exactly what they did when they themselves were in office. In some cases not just against them, but viscerally against them suggesting all manner of nefarious motives on the part of the EVIL CONDEMS for even considering them.

There's a good example today. It has been reported that the government is encouraging the NHS to use its expertise globally in order to make a profit from international markets for re-investment domestically. Sounds perfectly sensible to me to explore such opportunities, especially with a brand that is as strong globally as our National Health Service is.

Labour however have wasted no time at all in attacking the plans. Which is very odd because only 2 years ago, Andy Burnham, the then Labour Health Secretary was all in favour of pretty much exactly the same idea:

“A key part of responding to the economic challenge that the NHS faces will be realising the full potential of innovation, not only making effective use of our knowledge and skills at home, but also making money abroad that can be reinvested back into the NHS."

The Labour attack is based around this being the "wrong time" for such a change and that the "priority" should be sorting out the "mess" in the NHS. But If Burnham 2 years ago, in the midst of an economic crisis thought then was the right time for this and that it could form a "key part" of the NHS's economic challenge then I cannot for the life of me work out why now is the wrong time. Surely Labour think the NHS has got worse in the last 2 years so anything that can bring more money in for reinvestment (as they clearly thought this would when in office) should be a good thing?

This apparent contradiction has been reported widely today and I have seen a few Labour activists make an attempt to defend the new position usually along the lines of the "approach" that the current government is taking being wrong.

Frankly this is a load of rubbish. It is becoming ever more clear that Labour are going to oppose anything and everything that they think they can get political capital out of regardless of how hypocritical they are being. The theory seems to be that if they shout loudly enough against all these policies, the fact they used to be for them will be forgotten. They should be held to account for this, otherwise how are we going to know what we'll get if they end up back in government again?


Andy Burnham being interviewed about this subject today:

Lame Duck Government Syndrome

Recently I have been starting to wonder what the point of this government carrying on is. We are now less than a year away from a general election. An election, which if the opinion polls are to be believed, Labour will lose and lose badly. The Prime Minister, along with every other senior and junior government minister are unlikely to be in post on 14th July 2010.

It is through this prism that I am now starting to view government announcements. The nature of government is such that when measures are announced, that is just the starting point. There will often be reviews and various other activities before the proposals finally get put before the Houses of Parliament and eventually end up on the statute book.

Some, perhaps many of the measures announced now will not see the light of day this side of the next election. If they ever do get implemented it will be because the next government wants them to be. Labour may leave some nasty traps as it seems to be trying to do in some areas (its economic policy seems to be drawn from the Scorched Earth Handbook) but with application, the next government will be able to unpick most of it. Much activity between now and next June will be a waste of time.

I recall a story I heard about Michael Heseltine in the run up to the 1997 election had a meeting with Tony Blair where he urged Blair if (when) he became PM to continue with the Millennium Dome project. There was obviously no point talking to John Major or his cabinet colleagues. The power was shifting inexorably to Blair and the same thing is starting to happen now with Cameron.

There is also a second problem with much of what this government announces and it is a problem with all long serving governments. I remember it happening with John Major’s administration in the 1990s. It is that every measure announced will be met with the question “What have you been doing for the last 12 years?” It actually makes the government very wary of doing anything too radical as it then calls into question their actions over the previous decade which of course they do not want.

Here is an example. Today, Andy Burnham announced a review of how the elderly pay for their care. Irrespective of the whys and wherefores of the particular proposal this quote leapt out at me when I heard it:

For too long politicians have avoided this issue. We have an opportunity to grasp the nettle and confront the debate. If we fail to do that we face the prospect of a diminishing quality of care being provided.

The first thing I thought was, yes but you've been in for 12 years so why has it taken you until now to do anything about it? All policy announcements suffer from this syndrome now.

These issues combine to make it very difficult for the government to achieve anything. If they were governing in the proper interests of the country they would recognise this and do something about it, change the leadership and get rid of the worst PM in my living memory and then call an election so at least there would be a fresh mandate to properly get on with stuff. Of course this won't happen because they aren't governing in the interests of the people. They are a self-interested clique who don't care that their policy pronouncements are just so much hot air.

It is we, the public who suffer most from this Lame Duck Government Syndrome.

BBC Question Time Live Chat - 9th July 2009 - #bbcqt

It's BBC Question Time day again - schools edition special where the audience is made up of school children and the Live Chat on this blog will start at 10:30pm. I am aware that tonight's edition in addition to being broadcast in its usual slot on BBC1 at 10:35, will also be broadcast live on BBC3 at 8:00pm (presumably because it is the schools edition) but I am not around this evening at that point so I can only cover the usual BBC1 broadcast from 10:30pm.

The panel will include Secretary of State for Health Andy Burnham, the Conservative shadow secretary of state for culture, media and sport Jeremy Hunt, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on housing Sarah Teather, the director of the human rights organisation Liberty Shami Chakrabarti, and a fifth people's panellist to be announced on the night.

You can also follow people's comments on Twitter via the #bbcqt hashtag (you can also follow me here on Twitter by the way).

Liberal Democrat Voice also always have an open thread for BBC Question Time which is usually posted just before the start of the programme.

Last week's chat was the best attended ever and very lively with almost 40 people (including lurkers!) attending according to the stats with many of them joining in.

As I said above, the chat starts from 10:30pm this evening:

Gordon Brown is now seriously damaging his colleagues

There have been a number of occasions recently when I have heard cabinet ministers on TV and/or radio making complete idiots of themselves.

The reason seems to me largely because of Gordon Brown's incompetence or ridiculous political posturing. Here is an example:

On Radio 4's "Any Questions" this week there was a question about the Iraq Enquiry and Tessa Jowell tied herself up in knots. When questioned about why the government couldn't have taken the decision to hold it in public she insisted that it is not the place of a Minister to decide this and it must be for the inquiry head. However Jonathan Dimbleby pointed out to her that Gordon Brown had indeed decided on Monday that the inquiry had to be held in secret for "national security" reasons making a mockery of her statement that ministers cannot decide. The audience were unimpressed with jeers and even an attempt to start a slow hand clap. Jowell looked ridiculous and all because the truth is that Gordon Brown blundered by making the inquiry secret at a time when secrecy is a massively hot political topic. It should have been obvious to anyone advising Brown and Brown himself that a secret inquiry would never wash. It is political ineptitude of the highest order that this was allowed to be presented as the solution.

There are other examples too. Liam Byrne and Andy Burnham have both come across as blithering imbeciles in recent days as they have tried to argue that spending cuts are not spending cuts and refusing to answer straight questions. The reason for this is because Gordon Brown wants to be able to claim that the Tories will cut 10% whilst Labour will increase spending. The truth to anyone who spends more than 30 seconds with the figures is that Labour will have to cut heavily as well. In fact the 10% is from Labour's own figures! And yet Byrne and Burnham have been forced to go on air to argue that black is white and end up just looking silly.

And on and on it will go as Brown continues to blunder and try to map out non-existant dividing lines. Liam Byrne, Andy Burnham and many other cabinet ministers will be hoping to have long futures as politicians. But what I can see happening over the next year is what happened to almost all of John Major's cabinet. The stench of decay that pervades this administration will cling to all who are in it, especially the ones brave enough to go onto the media and argue Brown's distorted nonsense. The public will associate them too strongly with this rotten government and it will be impossible for them to dissociate themselves from it.

Brown will have no significant political future after the next election but by his actions he is now condemning the next generation of Labour politicians to many, many years in the wilderness as he taints them all with his poisonous politics.

It actually makes me wonder if James Purnell is smarter than the lot of them put together.

MPs badgering the fees office

One of the most unedifying aspects of the leaked information about the expense claims so far has been the way some MPs have badgered the fees office about expense claims and in some cases bludgeoned them into submission.

Andy Burnham joked in a letter to them that if he did not get reimbursed for his flat moving costs (more than £16,000) then he "might be in line for divorce!". This betrays to me a sense of entitlement far beyond what should be expected. It is not the job of the tax payer to satisy Mr Burnham's wifes desires in this way. He hassled and hassled and eventually got his way. This to me makes a mockery of the claims by MPs and their spokespeople that everything was above board and approved by the fees office if they were being harranged and bullied in this way.

This quote from an unnamed former Labour minister from the Telegraph article is absolutely breathtaking in its arrogance:

One former Labour minister said: "I object to your decision not to reimburse me for the costs of purchasing a baby's cot for use in my London home... perhaps you might write to me explaining where my son should sleep next time he visits me in London?"

How about you buy a cot from your £64,000 salary like the rest of us would have to? The more I read, the more disgusted I get and I suspect much of the rest of the country feels the same way.