Labour "Fighting Back" Left and Right

Labour are "fighters, not quitters" is the sound bite of the conference. Though it does make you wonder whether it resonates strongly for Labour, rather than just enforcing the fact they're the underdog in this election. Granted the British do like an underdog, yet usually they're charming, quirky and harmless, not words I would use to describe New Labour.

Brown's "inspiring" speech to the conference today clearly illustrated their election tactic, Conservative policy socially to woo the middle and for the grass-roots, after 12 years Labour have chosen this moment, to remind the public of their '"socialist" credentials for dealing with the economy. Effortlessly brushing under the carpet being Chancellor for 10 years while not being remotely socialist, never let the facts get in the way of an attempt to woo back the voter though.

This mixing of left and right wing is partly what has kept them in power, yet with the Tories now doing the same, what reason will people vote for them? Their track record is hardy a shining endorsement. So unless they really pull something out of the bag here, their policy so far is what we've been hearing for the last 12 years, asbos', tough on crime, targets. . . blah, blah, blah. These policies haven't worked and it won't work. As rather than tackling crime you just create more paperwork, throwing paper clips at a wife beater is completely ineffective. Why not do something really radical, come up with policy for once that's not just a gimmick.

Wise Spending Vs Savage Cuts

It seems the main parties are singing the same song of cuts now, just at slightly different notes and Lord Long Pretentious title is doing what he does best, spinning like a record. It's not cuts it's "wiser spending", the Tories are the cutters, "savage" cutters. Where as Labour will "prioritise and economise" the Tories will make "indiscriminate across-the-board spending cuts".

Yet Mandelson's media rounds were just to clear the way for Brown speech to TUC today, where after months and months of refusal to even mention the dirty word "cuts", Brown uttered it. In doing so he set up Labours new narrative. They will "protect and improve your front line services" and the Conservatives will "reduce public services at the very time they are needed most". Expect to hear that sound bite constantly for the next few months.

Labours narrative is simply put - to play the Thatcher card. It's a fairly good card to play since core Labour voters may be motivated by it and they may gain ground with those who hated her, and there are many, nothing divides a room quite like saying the name Thatcher.

Though by playing this card, it is a dressed up admission that they're trying to limit the damage of the election. As they need to woo back middle England in order to win it, they won't do that by playing the Thatcher card, she called middle England "her people". This could easily end up in Brown's clumsy hands, the finial nail in New Labour's ability to cross that divide that brought them to power.

The policies that Brown spoke of today in his speech to the union were certainly playing to the gallery, they had echoes of Old Labour. Which is the problem with Brown's speech, voters won't believe that New Labour will do it, they've become just, if not more tainted to people as Thatcher was. Which does pose the question - has this admission and narrative come to late for anyone to listen or even care?

Petition Against Mandelson's Web Ban

A comment by Fanman drew my attention to his petition against the plans by Lord Long Pretentious Title mentioned previously. The petition reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to abandon Lord Mandelson's plans to ban individuals from the internet based on their use of 'peer to peer' file sharing. The use of P2P is neither illegal nor exclusive to copyright theft. Many free software providers use this form of distribution, as does the BBC’s iPlayer. If citizens are innocent until proven guilty, ISP’s would be forced to monitor internet usage to ensure that no copyrighted material is being transferred. This flagrant disregard for privacy is comparable to forcing the Post Office to search through parcels for photocopied documents or mixtape cassettes. Such requirements would place enormous strain on ISP’s whilst failing to prevent the distribution of copyrighted material through hidden IP’s, http or ftp.

Who is punished in the case of shared family connections? The increasing role of the internet in access to society should not be underestimated. Cutting off households deprives families of education, government services and freedom of speech. We do not see this as a fitting punishment, nor do we believe the breaches in privacy involved to be justifiable under copyright law.

You can sign it here.

Mandelson's UK File Sharing Policy

Mandelson has personally intervened in the Digital Britain report saying that previous plans would take too long to implement. Under his proposal, "internet service providers would be obliged to block access to download sites, throttle broadband connections or even temporarily cut off access for repeat offenders."

So while Lord Long Pretentious title sits back slipping a Whiskey, listening to his wireless and happy with his days work. Just a little point, how on earth is this policy going to work? And why is there no mention of prosecution before cutting peoples phone line?

Torrent sites allow you to download legal files as well as pirated copies so how will they know without looking? People share connections, you can hide your IP address, encrypt and if you base the disconnection on the bases of how much you download, won't people that legally buy or stream films and music be effected?

The internet is incredibly adaptable, the only thing the government could do to stop file sharing is pull the plug. This proposal is unrealistic to say the least. The best thing the music and film industry could do, rather than just trying to sue everyone, would be to work with the digital download industry, as they can not continue to be elitist in an internet age.

Brown Televised Election Debate

Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council, AKA the prime minster, seems to be agreeing to a TV debate between party leaders, on Browns behalf and in his absence. Which begs the question, what's Mandelson up to?

I watch PMQ's and say without doubt, this is going to be awful for Brown, combined with his body language issues it will however make for very entertaining viewing and a YouTube hit in the waiting. Which does make you wonder why Mandelson would risk this, other than perhaps being a secret Tory, the most likely answer is he knows he has nothing to loose and it could mark the start of a new narrative for Labour. With Brown's approval rating at 19%, how much worst could it get?

Cameron could make a mistake, he has however had a lot of practice at PMQ's, the only real mistakes he makes are pursing the wrong line of questioning and seeming too aggressive at times. The wild card here is Nick Clegg, this would give him good air time and when Clegg's on form he's very articulate, honest and pointed.

Mandelson using this debate as a way to springboard an offensive against the Tories, but also to try to re-engage voters, just seems a little Thelma and Louise to me.

Lords "Reform" = Don't Vote Labour

As part of New Labour's "root and branch" reform, Lords will be given the ability to resign and stand as MPs. Not get fired for abusing their position, taking bribes or money undue to them, just resign if they want to be a MP and do it. You would be forgiven for thinking the purpose of reform is addressing accountability, both within the House of Commons and Lords. In practice it clearly doesn't work like that.

Speculation has already started as to whether Mandelson will step down to become a MP again. Which is based on the presumption that he's still electable. Yet there are bigger issues with Labours "reform" than a potential Mandelson comeback. Such as where is the reform?

Though Brown said he would clean up parliament he obliviously doesn't want to give away any advantage he has left. Therefore if we want a parliament that holds the government to account and is accountable itself, we need to use our vote to shape that. So how do we do that?

Democracy is a wonderful thing yet alas it makes change painful slow, with the options we have in front of us, tactical voting is the best option. Tories clearly look to be the winners at this election, what's in dispute is who's in opposition. Lib Dems are averaging at 20% in the current polls, Labour 24%. If Liberals became the opposition party it would fire a shot across the bow of parliament and change the political landscape within it.

As an opposition party they would keep reform on the agenda and challenge the Tories conservatism. What would be the point of New Labour, who are just authoritarian Tories that spend more on public services being in opposition? It changes nothing and equals voting for the status quo. This forth coming election presents the opportunity for us to reform parliament, since they won't.