“It still feels a bit vague”

extremely vague and weak.

On the important issues it fails to dodge the programme is careful not to put forward any concrete measures to tackle them.

“It still feels a bit vague”

a bit vague??

It’s extremely vague and weak to boot.

On the important issues it fails to dodge the programme is careful not to put forward any concrete measures to tackle them.

An employee on the remuneration committee risks being tokenism. I think we need something more radical. A maximum ratio between those at the top of the company and average worker pay, perhaps.

To tackle the energy sector, a good start would be renationalisation. Rail could also be renationalised, coaches nationalised and buses municipalised.

Of course, nationalisation isn’t a panacea, but it has become clear that the only way to regulate these things sufficiently is, rather than having the irrationality of a private non-competitive market with a regulator quango, to have a nationalised service that can be properly democratically accountable.

“That’s why we’ve said, for example, that major government procurements should only go to firms that offer apprenticeships.”

Sunny – I liked the speech. Probably the most passionate speech I have seen Miliband deliver since he became leader.

But the point above is bizzare. The coalition is actually miles ahead on this one than what Labour did in 13 years. There is a bill going through the House of Commons called the Social Impact Bill.

The Bill would transform how government procurement is done – rather than going by the lowest price that meets the quality standards the bill says government procurement must consider the social impact of the tenders submitted.

For example, say a local authority is tendering for schools and there are two top bidders – one provides the lowest cost while the other while a bit more expensive promises to train local youth and hire from local community to do the job – under the bill the local authority must choose the later.

No matter how much it pains me – this bill came from a Conservative backbencher which was of course supported by the government but even Labour has signed up to it.

And this bill has been going around long before the predator speech by Mr. Miliband and to me it seems like jumping on a bandwagon. But very few people actually even know about the Social Impact Bill – that is the quality of our media.

*******************************

On the skills and workforce development – independent review of vocational skills has suggested that we had too many Mickey Mouse vocational courses under Labour which led students to a dead end – and that is been revamped and there has been a massive focus on vocational skills under this government -

*******************************

If I can figure it out many others would too. The problem I see with this speech is political – In Scotland, one of the reasons Labour lost was they went in with a message that we would follow SNP policy but we would do it better.

Mr. Miliband, with all due respect, I think is making the same mistake as Iain Gray although without a doubt ED is more charismatic than Iain Gray – but he is not charismatic as Cameron.

********************************

I also do not buy the argument that increasing borrowing by 10% to deliver a 1 -2% growth in the long term is unsustainable and when even France is almost on the verge of losing its AAA rating – is that the path we really want to travel?

There is a danger that Labour could be seen to be focusing on the fears rather than the optimism of the future –

***********************************

Despite all the criticisms, which probably would be evident only to political and media junkies like you and I, the speech gets 10/10 for being authentic and for the first time I actually saw some passion. Cynics might think it was over the top but I disagree.

Vague is an understatement.It’s one thing to say that X must change. Quite another to have the wherewithal to say that X must change in the direction of Y, and to do so here are some, if not all, of the steps.
Well-meaning for sure, but not terribly stirring, nothing on the hows, plus some iffy assertions: eg transparency on pay is all well and good, but even when the inequalities are explicit, unless the power balances are shifted, then they shall remain.

>>We need to understand the inadequacies of our system of skills in the UK, >>particularly vocational skills.

This has been my major problem with much of the last 15 years – I went to college and obtained vocational skills via block release from an employer – this seems to have almost disappeared and everyone must go to University – I’m no supporter of the fees by the way.

There has been far too much pressure for everyone to go to University – its not for everyone – training via the workplace needs to be encouraged and there should be no stigma about not going to University – there should be more opportunity to study at college after work – it was the way many people who realised too late that they wanted to do something else.

It’s extremely vague and weak to boot.

Go on John Maynard Keynes – what would you propose?

good point Sunny @7.

but even keynes would have a problem tackling the issue because in Keynes day you neither had the 24×7 media and nor did you have such an integrated global economy.

And bond markets are far more powerful nowadays than when Keynes were around.

And as long as you need money you can’t ignore bond markets and therefore I was quite surprised by Miliband’s assertion that it is a “myth” if we borrow more to provide stimulus the markets would react negatively. A bold assertion considering what is going on in Europe.

@6 – The UK has a stunningly LOW percentage of graduates, even today, for a first-world country. It’s been falling for some time, and is now going to plummet.

Meanwhile, an increasing percentage of jobs requires a degree.

@8 – And when they downgrade us for our growth?

7 – shut down the Bank of England and therefore allow interest rates to rise. Nasty recession and probably negative growth (that’s such a silly phrase) in the short term but a genuine recovery in the long term rather than an artificial one based on government spending. Not politically practical of course but I still think it’s the best option.

I see Richard thinks he’s in America where plenty of nuts think it’s a good idea to shut down the central bank.

Wow shamik – he managed to impress you! There is some hope yet, then

@9

Actually, our proportion of graduates in the workplace is not falling (yet) – it stands at one third of the working population – but it is low for a developed country and it isn’t likely to get any higher in the immediate future. The rest of your point stands – an increasing number of jobs require a degree unless you think that, for some reason, we’re suddenly going to see a reversal of a millenium of technological development and that the complexity of employment is suddenly going to start to go backwards.

The UK has a stunningly LOW percentage of graduates, even today, for a first-world country.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon though.

Between 2000 and 2008, [the UK] fell from third highest to fifteenth among top industrialised nations for the proportion of young people graduating.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11203790

Bloody Tories.

@ Sunny :

“Wow shamit – he managed to impress you! There is some hope yet, then”

Mate -

I said it was a honest speech and an authentic one.

And I was impressed because he endorsed coalition policies:

- Long term focus in Corporate Responsibility – Cable’s already got a review going endorsed by the Chancellor and No. 10

- High Pay issue – Government is already looking into it and a commission is supposed to publish its report very soon

- Balancing the economy – that has been the government’s argument since the day it took office and there has been major policy investments such as the Green Investment Bank etc.

– Lending to SMEs – actually that has also been a focus of this government and that of the previous Chancellor Darling and recently it has been reported that the banks are lending more than before – not enough but more.

- On Vocational Skills – as I have said before this government is actually revamping vocational training and making it actually worthwhile unlike the Mickey Mouse courses under Labour which had to be retained to please teaching unions.

****************

On vested interests – the only way to do it effectively is through social mobility; nothing else would really work in the real term. Another Ed Miliband is growing up somewhere in the vicinity of top Labour leaders and would be pushed through internship, Special Assistant, then Cabinet Minister to Leader. To tackle that you need to ensure social mobility exists and academies as well as free schools are the right ways to do that. And the pupil premium. But one may argue the focus has been on the poorest in our society.

**************

And on public procurement and social impact – as I have already said

As I said somewhere else, Ed Miliband pretty much endorsed coalition government policies – but claimed that Labour would do better somehow.

******************

And the most unimpressive thing was arguing the government would borrow more because its trying to cut borrowing. In addition, the claim that markets would not get spooked even if we go on a borrowing spree – its called delusion.

*****************

lets not forget Ed Balls for months has been defending the government and supporting Government policy on EU debt crisis and now even Labour is officially eurosceptic although Mandelson and Liddle are arguing otherwise.

So isn’t the argument becoming – yeah we support government policy but somehow we would do better. How wouldyou do better – its too early to lay it out.

It was a passionate and honest speech but does not really help Labour electorally. So am amused how the Guiardian (the Pravda) and everyone else has jumped on the bandwagon about how Miliband is talking about something new.

Good but people should not for a moment believe that because Westminister Bubble and the media thinks he did – the electorate thinks so. And the electorate are far smarter than they are given credit for.

-

@ 14 Tim J

“Bloody Tories.”

Was that meant to be sarcasm? Because people graduating between 2000 and 2008 would have spend a fair amount of their education under Tory policies, including the formative early years. Without more specific details, I’d default to saying that the parties should share the responsibility here.