Labour may have a presentation issue but their leader is bright and shrewd
Some interesting thoughts on this thread but I just wanted to comment on this point - Ed Milliband is as close to unelectable as the labour party has seen in a long, long time. He's as slimy as Blair ever was but without any of the charisma or force of will that made Blair an effective leader. If Labour goes into the next election with him in charge I honestly cannot see them picking up a majority.
I agree that he handicaps the labour party. I think polls will have to be taken across all two and three way marginals to get any idea. As mentioned above, the Internet and twitter will play a part. Without knowing the numbers I can't see how, under a four party system, Tories or Labour can achieve an outright majority unless lib dems/UKIP votes collapse. The irony is that the volatility and three way marginals make voting more important but it's less likely you get what you vote for as parties trade off to form a coalition. My point about Milliband is that he can probably find ten policies like trains and tuition fees which will go down well with voters. But the government has clearly engineered a pre election boom that might be convincing to many. Milliband has completely failed to land the blame for the recession on the world crash and lack of regulation. More banking regulation is both popular and essential but I don't hear it being touted.
Labour may have a presentation issue but their leader is bright and shrewd
Some interesting thoughts on this thread but I just wanted to comment on this point - Ed Milliband is as close to unelectable as the labour party has seen in a long, long time. He's as slimy as Blair ever was but without any of the charisma or force of will that made Blair an effective leader. If Labour goes into the next election with him in charge I honestly cannot see them picking up a majority.
I agree that he handicaps the labour party. I think polls will have to be taken across all two and three way marginals to get any idea. As mentioned above, the Internet and twitter will play a part. Without knowing the numbers I can't see how, under a four party system, Tories or Labour can achieve an outright majority unless lib dems/UKIP votes collapse. The irony is that the volatility and three way marginals make voting more important but it's less likely you get what you vote for as parties trade off to form a coalition. My point about Milliband is that he can probably find ten policies like trains and tuition fees which will go down well with voters. But the government has clearly engineered a pre election boom that might be convincing to many. Milliband has completely failed to land the blame for the recession on the world crash and lack of regulation. More banking regulation is both popular and essential but I don't hear it being touted.
That's because Labour accelerated de/-reg beyond where Lamont saw it going. They did the same with NHS privatisation and PFI.
It would essentially mean admitting they got something else wrong other than their spending, borrowing and taxation plans which saw the UK as one of the least capable economies if dealing with the collapse of FS industries
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
No it wasnt. But lining us up for £30bn, £35bn and £43bn of borrowing from 07-10 was. This was with a backdrop of huge increases in corporate and public tax increases and selling off bullion and raiding pensions. Oh and stupefying PFI agreements.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Same tired old arguments re NHS and lack of majority (despite having a higher % of the vote than Labour did in 2005).
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Same tired old arguments re NHS and lack of majority (despite having a higher % of the vote than Labour did in 2005).
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
These are all real achievements - old or not.
The NHS Act was passed in 1946 and Bevan enthusiastically and passionately pushed the bill through on the back of a huge Labour majority with some Tory support. What you have stated is just plain wrong!
Yes of course there were mistakes, as with every Government, acting to cool the housing market and regulate the city would have helped, as would some level of preparedness for a future recession. That said I think both parties were committed to the same level of spending and made similar mistakes re this. However the actual driving force behind the financial crisis was global.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Apparently yes! Strange since most Economists refer to it as a global phenomenon and cite US sub-prime mortgage lending and bonuses as the main reason.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
Same tired old arguments re NHS and lack of majority (despite having a higher % of the vote than Labour did in 2005).
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
These are all real achievements - old or not.
The NHS Act was passed in 1946 and Bevan enthusiastically and passionately pushed the bill through on the back of a huge Labour majority with some Tory support. What you have stated is just plain wrong!
Yes of course there were mistakes, as with every Government, acting to cool the housing market and regulate the city would have helped, as would some level of preparedness for a future recession. That said I think both parties were committed to the same level of spending and made similar mistakes re this. However the actual driving force behind the financial crisis was global.
The act was passed in 46 however the budget, the important part which I was alluding to and therefore point of no return, was not passed until 47 with the help of Tory vs Labour rebels. Bevan's was naturally passionate to see his ideal through to fruition. Mainstream Labour MPs less so.
Talking about spending plans is moot. No party coming to power is likely to win huge amounts of oppo support on a ticket of wholesale changes in fiscal ideology. To suggest as much is utter idiocy.
Hence why Brown / Blair said they wouldn't change Tory spending plans back in 95 and ran a budget surplus until 2000.
Labour have affected real change in the UK, much of which I applaud them for, however it's not like the Tory party have simply done nothing.
Maggie offered social mobility to the levels that no Labour Govt have, how many of us have benefited from buying our own house? Taxation, employment and fiscal stability is more beneficial to the lowest 50% under Tory Govts. The list goes on on both sides.....
Tax revenues of the top 10% increase under Tory Govts. As does Corp tax. All of these benefit the "working man". The ideological difference lies in wanting to milk or slaughter your only cow.
Under Labours post GE2010 plans NHS England was not ring fenced and their budget cuts were planned at 18% (following 10% pre GE cuts). Tory plans ring fenced the NHS and called for 18% cuts in Govt spending.
Labour simply, for all their altruistic tendencies, are not to be trusted with the economy. History shows this.
As Brown said before taking office "when a country loses control of its finances it's the poorest who suffer."
I know who I'd rather be in control of the countries budget and it's not Ed Balls (who was economic policy adviser to No11 under both Brown and Darling).
Labour have affected real change in the UK, much of which I applaud them for, however it's not like the Tory party have simply done nothing.
Maggie offered social mobility to the levels that no Labour Govt have, how many of us have benefited from buying our own house? Taxation, employment and fiscal stability is more beneficial to the lowest 50% under Tory Govts. The list goes on on both sides.....
Tax revenues of the top 10% increase under Tory Govts. As does Corp tax. All of these benefit the "working man".
Under Labours post GE2010 plans NHS England was not ring fenced and their budget cuts were planned at 18% (following 10% pre GE cuts). Tory plans ring fenced the NHS and called for 18% cuts in Govt spending.
Labour simply, for all their altruistic tendencies, are not to be trusted with the economy. History shows this.
As Brown said before taking office "when a country loses control of its finances it's the poorest who suffer."
I know who I'd rather be in control of the countries budget and it's not Ed Balls (who was economic policy adviser to No11 under both Brown and Darling).
I know who I'd rather be in control of the country's budget and it's not Norman Lamont's right hand man when the country lost $3.3bn as a result of Black Wednesday.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
No and no one with any sense actually seriously suggests this. What people do blame Labour for is the fiscal crisis that they caused by pissing away billions of taxpayer's money on vanity projects like financing murder in the Middle East and vote-buying, instead of things that would actually strengthen the economy such as sensible tax policies and investment for the future, which was only exacerbated by the global downtown.
Labour have affected real change in the UK, much of which I applaud them for, however it's not like the Tory party have simply done nothing.
Maggie offered social mobility to the levels that no Labour Govt have, how many of us have benefited from buying our own house? Taxation, employment and fiscal stability is more beneficial to the lowest 50% under Tory Govts. The list goes on on both sides.....
Tax revenues of the top 10% increase under Tory Govts. As does Corp tax. All of these benefit the "working man".
Under Labours post GE2010 plans NHS England was not ring fenced and their budget cuts were planned at 18% (following 10% pre GE cuts). Tory plans ring fenced the NHS and called for 18% cuts in Govt spending.
Labour simply, for all their altruistic tendencies, are not to be trusted with the economy. History shows this.
As Brown said before taking office "when a country loses control of its finances it's the poorest who suffer."
I know who I'd rather be in control of the countries budget and it's not Ed Balls (who was economic policy adviser to No11 under both Brown and Darling).
I know who I'd rather be in control of the country's budget and it's not Norman Lamont's right hand man when the country lost $3.3bn as a result of Black Wednesday.
Black Wednesday was caused by the UK's entry into the ERM, which was heavily opposed by a large proportion of Tory MPs and was backed by more or less the entire Labour Party at the time, hence why even the normally slow and economically inept Labour Party don't bring it up (although they do blame everything from ebola to snoring on MARGRIT FATCHER, FATCHA RUINED EVERYTHING).
You're comparing a loss of £3.3bn to the £trn's (debt + QE) which we experienced under Labour? You really need some different straws to clutch at.
Cameron wasn't Lamont's right hand man. He worked for a civil servant called Gus O'Donnell in the treasury. O'Donnell went on to work for Brown and Blair.
Our entry into the ERM was in Labour's 87 manifesto too.
The recent performance of the Euro Zone, and various papers on how the UK would have faired had we adopted currency union, demonstrates that the UKs decision to exit the Euros predecessor was a sound one.
Not all the blame for Black Wednesday can be laid at the Govts door. I would strongly suggest Googling George Soros and reading up on the facts.
Other than all of that your post was spot on mate.
Does anyone still buy the line that the global economic downturn was Labour's fault?
Well, globally, no but locally, partially, yes. Many of the issues that affected the UK directly were exacerbated by Labour policy decisions - or perhaps it's more accurate to say lack of decisions - particularly those of Gordon Brown. High on the list of many items is Gordon's concept of introducing and insisting upon the "light-touch" regulation of the financial services sector which directly caused fiascos like Northern Rock, HBoS and RBS which would not have happened if the FSA had been allowed by Government to monitor banks' behaviour properly. These bank failures had a huge impact on the prospects for the UK economy to ride out or recover from the global crisis. It is perhaps typical that Gordon made the gaffe to have "saved the world". This comment in the House followed the introduction of the policy for bailing out the banks. In fact the policy had been thought up and designed by the Bank of England. But in typical fashion, in this time of severe crisis, Gordon, Alistair Darling and the Treasury dithered for THREE weeks before introducing the measures. And later it was intimated that the dithering had been the Bank's!
That delay was very nearly fatal to the institutions themselves and to the rest of the UK financial services sector.
I doubt it will happen but I'd love the ex-Governor of the BoE to publish his memoirs. BoE Governors tend to have too much class for that sort of thing but I wouldn't put it past the Villa-supporting Mervyn King. It would make an interesting read. And it would certainly be enlightening to do a "compare and contrast" with Alistair Darling's book Back From The Brink.
Well, globally, no but locally, partially, yes. Many of the issues that affected the UK directly were exacerbated by Labour policy decisions - or perhaps it's more accurate to say lack of decisions - particularly those of Gordon Brown. High on the list of many items is Gordon's concept of introducing and insisting upon the "light-touch" regulation of the financial services sector which directly caused fiascos like Northern Rock, HBoS and RBS which would not have happened if the FSA had been allowed by Government to monitor banks' behaviour properly.
I'm not a fan of Brown, but while he was doing this, the opposition were braying that he was still regulating too much. They would have gone further in allowing the banks to speculate in dodgy products and not have to account for any of their behaviour. Iceland has jailed some of the people responsible for its part in the financial crash. Here, the government are trying to make sure that their bonuses are never capped.
I'm also interested in this recovery people talk about. My pay has been static now for around 6 years, my colleagues keep getting made redundant and no one is ever recruited to take on the extra work. It's anecdotal, admittedly, but I obviously don't mix with any of the beneficiaries of the recovery.
You're comparing a loss of £3.3bn to the £trn's (debt + QE) which we experienced under Labour? You really need some different straws to clutch at.
Cameron wasn't Lamont's right hand man. He worked for a civil servant called Gus O'Donnell in the treasury. O'Donnell went on to work for Brown and Blair.
Our entry into the ERM was in Labour's 87 manifesto too.
The recent performance of the Euro Zone, and various papers on how the UK would have faired had we adopted currency union, demonstrates that the UKs decision to exit the Euros predecessor was a sound one.
Not all the blame for Black Wednesday can be laid at the Govts door. I would strongly suggest Googling George Soros and reading up on the facts.
Other than all of that your post was spot on mate.
I thought Cameron was a Special Political Adviser (SPAD) for Norman Lamont not a politically neutral civil servant managed by Gus O'Donnell .
Are you saying the unelected and politically neutral civil service manage SPADs ? I thought it was the other way around and SPADs gave them a sense of political direction and access to the politicians .David Cameron's Wikipedia entry confirms that he was Lamont's 'special adviser' (or right hand man) and no mention of O'Donnell.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
Well, globally, no but locally, partially, yes. Many of the issues that affected the UK directly were exacerbated by Labour policy decisions - or perhaps it's more accurate to say lack of decisions - particularly those of Gordon Brown. High on the list of many items is Gordon's concept of introducing and insisting upon the "light-touch" regulation of the financial services sector which directly caused fiascos like Northern Rock, HBoS and RBS which would not have happened if the FSA had been allowed by Government to monitor banks' behaviour properly.
I'm not a fan of Brown, but while he was doing this, the opposition were braying that he was still regulating too much. They would have gone further in allowing the banks to speculate in dodgy products and not have to account for any of their behaviour. Iceland has jailed some of the people responsible for its part in the financial crash. Here, the government are trying to make sure that their bonuses are never capped.
I'm also interested in this recovery people talk about. My pay has been static now for around 6 years, my colleagues keep getting made redundant and no one is ever recruited to take on the extra work. It's anecdotal, admittedly, but I obviously don't mix with any of the beneficiaries of the recovery.
I tend to agree with you about regulation. In my view it is flawed and continues to be so. I believe it would be better to focus regulation on the products rather than the institutions. If financial institutions had not been allowed to develop exotic instruments and instead been forced to stick with plain vanilla while having their ability to market complex products to retail customers severely curtailed, they may not have got themselves into the mess they did.
As far as the recovery is concerned, yes its a mystery isn't it? The ONS has just come out and said that we got back to pre-crash levels earlier than they had originally said, (now 3rd quarter 2013 rather than 2nd quarter 2014), and that the economy is now 2.7% bigger than pre-crash. I guess much of that must be export led? UK car exports are booming both in numbers and value and construction has bounced back.
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
Really? David Cameron went to Eton. Nick Clegg to Westminster. Ed Milliband to Haverstock Comprehensive.
Comments
The irony is that the volatility and three way marginals make voting more important but it's less likely you get what you vote for as parties trade off to form a coalition.
My point about Milliband is that he can probably find ten policies like trains and tuition fees which will go down well with voters. But the government has clearly engineered a pre election boom that might be convincing to many.
Milliband has completely failed to land the blame for the recession on the world crash and lack of regulation. More banking regulation is both popular and essential but I don't hear it being touted.
It would essentially mean admitting they got something else wrong other than their spending, borrowing and taxation plans which saw the UK as one of the least capable economies if dealing with the collapse of FS industries
It was them pesky kids.
Strange also that the Tory's backed Labours spending plans until January 2010 - I seem to recall them howling for Brown to spend even more!
I think that there are many things Labour can be proud of; the NHS, the Welfare State, an expansion of nursery school provision, a massive expansion of Higher Education, the minimum wage, legislation re discrimination on the grounds of disability, sex, race and sexuality and Introducing civil partnerships are just a few.
Interesting also that in spite of 13 years in opposition, a once in a century economic calamity and a very unpopular PM, that the Tories were still not rewarded with a majority.
The FS crash was simply the catalyst
It's the lack of balls to do what's unpopular that makes Labour so fiscally dangerous
Ed and Ed have admitted their mistakes in office. It's time their support did so too.
Btw you do realise that in 47 Bevan was baulking at the cost of rolling out the NHS and it was Tory rebels who pushed the vote through?
... regards, Kettle
However feel free to debate and prove what I've said is wrong (without assuming I read the Daily Hate).
The NHS Act was passed in 1946 and Bevan enthusiastically and passionately pushed the bill through on the back of a huge Labour majority with some Tory support. What you have stated is just plain wrong!
Yes of course there were mistakes, as with every Government, acting to cool the housing market and regulate the city would have helped, as would some level of preparedness for a future recession. That said I think both parties were committed to the same level of spending and made similar mistakes re this. However the actual driving force behind the financial crisis was global.
Talking about spending plans is moot. No party coming to power is likely to win huge amounts of oppo support on a ticket of wholesale changes in fiscal ideology. To suggest as much is utter idiocy.
Hence why Brown / Blair said they wouldn't change Tory spending plans back in 95 and ran a budget surplus until 2000.
Maggie offered social mobility to the levels that no Labour Govt have, how many of us have benefited from buying our own house? Taxation, employment and fiscal stability is more beneficial to the lowest 50% under Tory Govts. The list goes on on both sides.....
Tax revenues of the top 10% increase under Tory Govts. As does Corp tax. All of these benefit the "working man". The ideological difference lies in wanting to milk or slaughter your only cow.
Under Labours post GE2010 plans NHS England was not ring fenced and their budget cuts were planned at 18% (following 10% pre GE cuts). Tory plans ring fenced the NHS and called for 18% cuts in Govt spending.
Labour simply, for all their altruistic tendencies, are not to be trusted with the economy. History shows this.
As Brown said before taking office "when a country loses control of its finances it's the poorest who suffer."
I know who I'd rather be in control of the countries budget and it's not Ed Balls (who was economic policy adviser to No11 under both Brown and Darling).
http://www.loonyparty.com/about/elections/
You're comparing a loss of £3.3bn to the £trn's (debt + QE) which we experienced under Labour? You really need some different straws to clutch at.
Cameron wasn't Lamont's right hand man. He worked for a civil servant called Gus O'Donnell in the treasury. O'Donnell went on to work for Brown and Blair.
Our entry into the ERM was in Labour's 87 manifesto too.
The recent performance of the Euro Zone, and various papers on how the UK would have faired had we adopted currency union, demonstrates that the UKs decision to exit the Euros predecessor was a sound one.
Not all the blame for Black Wednesday can be laid at the Govts door. I would strongly suggest Googling George Soros and reading up on the facts.
Other than all of that your post was spot on mate.
These bank failures had a huge impact on the prospects for the UK economy to ride out or recover from the global crisis. It is perhaps typical that Gordon made the gaffe to have "saved the world".
This comment in the House followed the introduction of the policy for bailing out the banks. In fact the policy had been thought up and designed by the Bank of England. But in typical fashion, in this time of severe crisis, Gordon, Alistair Darling and the Treasury dithered for THREE weeks before introducing the measures. And later it was intimated that the dithering had been the Bank's!
That delay was very nearly fatal to the institutions themselves and to the rest of the UK financial services sector.
I doubt it will happen but I'd love the ex-Governor of the BoE to publish his memoirs. BoE Governors tend to have too much class for that sort of thing but I wouldn't put it past the Villa-supporting Mervyn King. It would make an interesting read. And it would certainly be enlightening to do a "compare and contrast" with Alistair Darling's book Back From The Brink.
I'm also interested in this recovery people talk about. My pay has been static now for around 6 years, my colleagues keep getting made redundant and no one is ever recruited to take on the extra work. It's anecdotal, admittedly, but I obviously don't mix with any of the beneficiaries of the recovery.
I thought Cameron was a Special Political Adviser (SPAD) for Norman Lamont not a politically neutral civil servant managed by Gus O'Donnell .
Are you saying the unelected and politically neutral civil service manage SPADs ? I thought it was the other way around and SPADs gave them a sense of political direction and access to the politicians .David Cameron's Wikipedia entry confirms that he was Lamont's 'special adviser' (or right hand man) and no mention of O'Donnell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron
One of the sad features of the current political situation is that all of the current 3 main Party leaders have a similar educational and employment background .
As far as the recovery is concerned, yes its a mystery isn't it? The ONS has just come out and said that we got back to pre-crash levels earlier than they had originally said, (now 3rd quarter 2013 rather than 2nd quarter 2014), and that the economy is now 2.7% bigger than pre-crash. I guess much of that must be export led? UK car exports are booming both in numbers and value and construction has bounced back.