Ed Milliband... on his way out?

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think all Ed has to do is wait a couple of years. I don't think the country like a baldie - and Dave's weave is starting to look a bit Bobby Charlton. I give it 18 months.

 

[Danny-Boy]

He is playing the long game.

There are more dark economic days yet to dawn to ensure the total destruction of traitor Clegg and his power seeking opportunists.

Labour to retake power in 2015.

Thanks Stalin.

 

[ROSM]

you don't seriously believe that do you?

Actually Dave - yes I do.

The economy was recovering in the last 3 months of the Labour government - Darling's plan was bearing fruit. The plan to halve the deficit over 5 years was a reasoned and sensible approach. A halved deficit would have reduced it to approx the level of the economy in 2002 which ironically was two thirds of the level that had been inherited in 1997 (c42% of GDP in 1997 which was reduced to 27% of GDP in 2002 - it is currently 63% of GDP and growing). The structural deficit is still there as tax payments are reduced since the coalition came to power.

When they say the Tories are going too far and too fast they are referring to the aspiration of further cuts that will be made next year and the year after. Up to now there is barely a cigarette paper between Osborne's plans and those of Darling in reality - the difference is that the Tories talk of hard and fast cuts and are playing the macho card so that they can get further cuts (driven by ideology rather than need) through in the next two years.

labours 'crime' was to spend (predominantly on hospitals and schools) in their second term which pushed the deficit back up to 40% which left us weaker to weather the financial crisis. Of course, there are many who would say that investment was necessary to redress the nearly 20 years of cuts in those services.

If there is anything to criticise the last government on there are many things (Iraq, approach to immigration and social engineering, failure to address the benefits culture etc) which should be higher up the list than the economy. However it was the talismanic statement that Andy Coulson wrote down in the first day that all participants of the coalition should preface any tough decision with 'having inherited a financial crisis from the last government........'.

many now are questioning the validity of that argument.

As for Milliband - I didn't vote for him (I went for Andy Burnham) but would have preferred Darling or Yvette Cooper. She should have been made shadow chancellor when Johnson left as that would have really shown if she is up to it. I think she is.

 

[Triggaaar]

you don't seriously believe that do you?

No

 

[Triggaaar]

Nah, they'd have sorted it out by now, the only reason we're still in debt is that the tories have made too many cuts and stopped the economy growing.

you don't seriously believe that do you?

Actually Dave - yes I do.
...
Up to now there is barely a cigarette paper between Osborne's plans and those of Darling in reality

I was being sarcastic that Labour would have sorted it by now, it's clear that it was their irresponsible spending that put us in this situation (again). You actually think Labour would have sorted it by now, but then you go on to say that they wouldn't have done anything different up to this point. You can't have it both ways, you're clearly wrong.

 

[sten_super]

The economy was recovering in the last 3 months of the Labour government - Darling's plan was bearing fruit. The plan to halve the deficit over 5 years was a reasoned and sensible approach. A halved deficit would have reduced it to approx the level of the economy in 2002 which ironically was two thirds of the level that had been inherited in 1997 (c42% of GDP in 1997 which was reduced to 27% of GDP in 2002 - it is currently 63% of GDP and growing). The structural deficit is still there as tax payments are reduced since the coalition came to power.

Either I've misunderstood this or you are confused; the plan to halve the deficit was to have the structural deficit; i.e. the difference between income and expenditure in any one year (measured as a percentage of GDP), rather than the overall level of debt. Unless there are some ridiculously heroic assumptions in terms of GDP growth total government debt (as a % of GDP) would continue to rise.

I think you paint Labour spending 2002-07 in a very rosey light. Given that GDP was increasing by c3% per annum in real terms over this period, and debt (in ratio to GDP) was increasing by c2% pa, that gives real spending increases of around 5% per year, which is a hell of a rate of increase. Given the long period of sustained boom it should have been obvious to all and sundry that a bust couldn't be far away; unfortunately the Labour party had bought in to Brown's notion of 'the end of boom and bust' and debt was accumulated hand over fist. They also of course inherited a booming economy in 1997, so were able to increase debt in real terms while as a percentage of GDP it was declining.

I have always held that the argument of 'maintaining credibility with the IMF' was a red herring argument presented by Osbourne, and that Darling's plans would have done this equally well. Therefore it's fair to argue that the cuts aren't 'necessary', in the strictest sense of the word. It's then very much up to the individual's view on whether it is acceptable to pay the large sums of interest required on such a debt as to whether or not these cuts are the right thing to do.

 

[beorhthelm]

Labour reduced the national debt between 97 and 07 and it remains at historically mediocre levels.

no they didnt. they reduced the debt as % of GDP up until about 2003 then started ramping up the spending again. yes, it may still be below the level started from in 97, but its going in the wrong direction rapidly and with a fat deficit to help it grow.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Ed is an embarrassment. The gravitas of a Guinea Pig.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The Labour Party are an absolute unelectable shower.

1. They were given a standout candidate for leader in David Miliband but have managed to cock that up.
2. They then appointed one of their best politicians in Johnston to Shadow Chancellor - about the only Cabinet position that he couldn't handle. He's gone.
3. They then appointed Brown's henchman Balls as Johnston's replacement, Balls being the very architect of economic disaster.
4. The prospect of having Yvette Cooper in charge is frightening. She makes Harriet Harman look like Mrs T.

And despite all the moving of deckchairs the only policy coming out of the Labour camp is rehashed Brownite failure.

Once the green shoots start to show - as they will - Labour's only hope is on the other two parties beating themselves up. The Lib Dem vote will recover some of the lost ground while I can't see the Tory vote getting much worse - Middle England has already been hit with the loss of child benefits, increase in tuition fees, higher employee and employer NI and the blue vote is still holding firm.

 

[beorhthelm]

labours 'crime' was to spend (predominantly on hospitals and schools) in their second term which pushed the deficit back up to 40% which left us weaker to weather the financial crisis.

Labour, or rather Brown's crime was to ignore his own gold rule about the cycle and started a fresh round of spending when everything suggested a downturn was on the way. he believed that he'd worked an economic miracle (having already dodged one recession in the early 00's) and created a new model of economics free of boom and bust, when it was exactly the same old model, all built on the cheap credit fueling the housing bubble.

 

[Triggaaar]

The economy was recovering in the last 3 months of the Labour government - Darling's plan was bearing fruit.

That's either naïve or fan boy nonsense. The most obvious proof is the independent market that wasn’t keen on Labour’s approach to tackling (ignoring) our debt.

The plan to halve the deficit over 5 years was a reasoned and sensible approach.

Easy to talk of halving a deficit when you know you’re not going to get in.

A halved deficit would have reduced it to approx the level of the economy in 2002 which ironically was two thirds of the level that had been inherited in 1997 (c42% of GDP in 1997 which was reduced to 27% of GDP in 2002 - it is currently 63% of GDP and growing).

The deficit has been growing since 2002, which is just daft given how well our economy was doing. Now that the economy has been battered, it’s not so easy to half the deficit.

labours 'crime' was to spend (predominantly on hospitals and schools) in their second term which pushed the deficit back up to 40% which left us weaker to weather the financial crisis. Of course, there are many who would say that investment was necessary to redress the nearly 20 years of cuts in those services.

The ‘many’ being labour party members. Saying that investment was needed in schools and hospitals is no excuse for running up such high debts.

If there is anything to criticise the last government on there are many things (Iraq, approach to immigration and social engineering, failure to address the benefits culture etc) which should be higher up the list than the economy.

While we were lied to about Iraq, it is the debt that Labour have left us with that upsets me most, it is top of my list for why I haven’t voted for them since 2001.

However it was the talismanic statement that Andy Coulson wrote down in the first day that all participants of the coalition should preface any tough decision with 'having inherited a financial crisis from the last government........'.
many now are questioning the validity of that argument.

That’s the ‘many’ labour party members again isn’t it. It goes without saying that the government needs to highlight the reason these cuts are being made each time the bad news is dished out. There is no hiding from the fact that Labour stuffed our economy.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

The biggest hurdle Ed Milliband has to get over is being Jewish.
There hasn't been a Jewish Prime Minister since Disraeli and ' the men in grey suits ' will ensure that continues.
The likes of Michael Howard, Leon Britton, Nigel Lawson, Keith Joseph etc stood no chance so what chance has this smarmy novice got?
None...nil...nought...zilch...zero...best to cut losses as soon as poss...realise you've made a big mistake..and edge him out. It will only get more painful in the long run.

 

[simmo]

Actually Dave - yes I do.


labours 'crime' was to spend (predominantly on hospitals and schools) in their second term which pushed the deficit back up to 40% which left us weaker to weather the financial crisis. Of course, there are many who would say that investment was necessary to redress the nearly 20 years of cuts in those services.

If there is anything to criticise the last government on there are many things (Iraq, approach to immigration and social engineering, failure to address the benefits culture etc) which should be higher up the list than the economy. However it was the talismanic statement that Andy Coulson wrote down in the first day that all participants of the coalition should preface any tough decision with 'having inherited a financial crisis from the last government........'.

many now are questioning the validity of that argument.

As for Milliband - I didn't vote for him (I went for Andy Burnham) but would have preferred Darling or Yvette Cooper. She should have been made shadow chancellor when Johnson left as that would have really shown if she is up to it. I think she is.

Labour's 'crime' economically was to spend money that they did not have prior to and during the financial crisis. In any case your argument almost contradicts itself. Labour needed to invest in their 2nd term to overturn 20 years of non investment in these services so you say, but what occured during the 4 years of Labour's first term did they not invest then? Were they deliberately underinvesting? Aren't they part righting their own wrongs, by your logic?

Also you keep on going on about investment etc. do you not realise that even if you spent a trillion pounds on the NHS/schools etc. Doctors/teachers/nurses/unions etc. always want and demand more, it is in their nature to paint a picture of perpetual crisis and a brink of financial capitulation to get ever more funds. When are they ever content with how much they are getting? (under Labour or Tory) My personal belief is that in my life there has always been an NHS service and there has always been schools/education, neither has 'collapsed' yet nearly for all that time members of these professions or unions in both services tell us they are on the brink of absolute meltdown unless their is an urgent injection of much needed cash. I also think a government should be economically responsible (i.e living to its means like a responsible individual should be) and that almost above everything else (except war and potential invasion of the British Isles) the books should pretty much balance. Labour in the last few years woefully neglected this (prior to and after 4Q2008) and the position gradually was getting worse and worse.

You are so right about Iraq though. That was Labour's big 'crime' I would say it is the one of the worst things any government over the last 50 years has done. Our country went to war (the MOST important decision any government can make) based on a fabricated, falsified document (where were Saddam's WMD's in the end? the whole reason why we invaded Iraq) How anyone can vote for Labour for many years after that pretty much unforgivable deception of the British people I do not know. British soldiers (and Iraqi civilians) have directly died, yes died (not been made unemployed or have had to take a pay freeze or had their pension contributions cut) because of that. How short some peoples memories are or are some so blinkered as they cannot see the real side of the party that they blindly give their X to at the ballot box.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Labour reduced the national debt between 97 and 07 and it remains at historically mediocre levels.

Everyone conveniently forgets the previous 18 year Tory administration plunging us with a national debt right up shit creek.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Maybe the red wine diet has blurred my memory but didn't the previous Tory govt under Mrs T. sweep to power following 'Old Labour' under Jim Callaghan making a complete hash of the economy (IMF loans etc) and being totally under union control - and the 'winter of discontent' etc etc.

Didn't Ken Clarke as Chancellor start to pay down the national debt and when Blair / Brown eventually took over from J. Major when the Tories lost the plot in '97, they continued with the Tory economic strategy for a few years?

Blair / Brown then failed to reign in the banks and allowed a spend, spend, spend credit driven binge to generate a false feel good factor. We are paying the price for that now......... and no doubt for a few years to come.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Recent history suggests that politicians rarely create an economic upturn but they can sure as hell create an economic downturn.

Thatcher's economic success was underpinned firstly by North Sea Oil and then by the widespread introduction of computers into business. We were helped out of the 1990 recession by the opportunities afforded by the expansion of the European Union, then by the introduction of the internet and wholesale upgrading of computer hardware c. 2000 (remember the Millennium Bug that never happened).

Since then the emerging economies like China and India have helped our export markets and financial services. The development of telecomms helps but we really need to see other markets emerge like Africa / South America.

In business you don't spend what you can't afford. If Labour still can't grasp this basic fact then we're f***ed if they ever get re-elected.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Presume you mean Y. Cooper? If so, good shout... wonder how husband Ed would feel about that?

More generally, it's not so surprising that Miliband has had such a low profile, because the press and public has plenty to entertain it with the coalition and the Tory-LibDem relationship. Previously, Labour in opposition has been the second most interesting party, but now for the moment it's only the third most interesting party. So unless Miliband does something quite spectacular (good or bad) he's not going to get much attention.

Yes, sorry. Of course, I mean Y Cooper... long day.

The fact that she didn't stand in the Leadership campaign stands in her favour, and Labour bigwigs see her as somebody who could unite both wings in the Party, plus have broad appeal in the country. The fact that Harriet Harmen was perceived very highly by female voters during the period she served as interim Party Leader and Leader of the Oppo is in Yvette's favour. Plus, with YC you get Ed Balls without having to elect him.

Regardless of what anybody is saying, there are moves afoot to oust Ed. It isn't a plot just yet, but when/ if it happens it will happen very quickly.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't rate Ed Miliband personally, but for them to elect him and then ditch him after a year would be pathetic. And for whom? Ed Balls? Mrs Ed Balls? The Prodigal Brother?

 

[Bry Nylon]

I don't rate Ed Miliband personally, but for them to elect him and then ditch him after a year would be pathetic. And for whom? Ed Balls? Mrs Ed Balls? The Prodigal Brother?

Oh don't get me wrong - I agree with all of that.

What I've been told is this:

The fundamental thinking in the PLP and Unions is that if Ed was facing a massive Tory majority and a strong economic outlook, they would let him bat on and find his feet.
But the fact is, it's a Hung Parliament with a Coalition government and the most gloomy economic outlook for decades, yet Ed is failing to capitalise when he should be wiping the floor with the Government. He's already got married because he was told to. His next piece of advice will be to stand down, before the moment is lost.

Just repeating what I have been told, btw.

 

[Don Quixote]

The biggest hurdle Ed Milliband has to get over is being Jewish.
There hasn't been a Jewish Prime Minister since Disraeli and ' the men in grey suits ' will ensure that continues.
The likes of Michael Howard, Leon Britton, Nigel Lawson, Keith Joseph etc stood no chance so what chance has this smarmy novice got?
None...nil...nought...zilch...zero...best to cut losses as soon as poss...realise you've made a big mistake..and edge him out. It will only get more painful in the long run.

Load of rubbish, David Miliband is Jewish too, and no one would be citing that idea if he were leader.