On Ed Miliband and Vince Cable
Here’s a couple of stories that have caught my eye lately.
In what is perhaps a sign that a leopard can’t change its spots, the BBC reports that the leader of the Labour Party is hoping to gain the power to appoint his Shadow Cabinet, rather than leaving it to members of the Parliamentary Party. Ed Miliband, it seems, enjoys centralisation as much in opposition as his government did in power.
In another story about Mr Miliband, a clip has been broadcast by the BBC showing him giving virtually identical answers to six different questions asked at a pool interview of journalists. At least no one can accuse the man of being under-prepared.
Finally in The Guardian, there are reports that Vince Cable and Phillip Hammond, the Secretaries of State for Business and Transport respectively, have written to the Prime Minister in a thinly-veiled attack on the awarding of a 3bn pound train construction contract to a German rather than domestic supplier. It is amazing to note how when in power special interests have an inexorable pull on politicians, no matter the colour of their stripes – in Mr Cable’s The Storm, he spoke out strongly against protectionism as being like “shooting [yourself] in the foot”. “Do as I say, not as I do”, eh, Vince?
Haha underprepared – definitely not. But at least he keeps it to one interview, everyone must be tiring of the coalition’s, “we have to do blahblah to clean up the mess left behind by the party opposite” Cameron has his answer, so need we bother with the questions.
I agree very much on the Shadow Cabinet thing, it was already discreetly centralized by the allocation of portfolios (Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls both top 3, but not allocated shadow chancellor…) I wonder is the leader still bound by gender balance requirements? It was only written into the election procedure not into party rules. (afaik)
Most ‘economically liberal’ MPs seem hypocritical to start with, when they oppose immigration or support caps. It seems there is a certain type of MP who advocates free movement of capital but not free movement of labour.