Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

By Michael Deacon, Parliamentary Sketchwriter
3:11PM GMT 11 Dec 2014
The Labour leader gives a speech in which he pledges to deliver ‘common sense spending reductions’ – but won’t say what they are until after the election

Ed Miliband was somewhere you might not have expected to find him: the London HQ of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. This felt mildly surprising, because the job of an accountant, after all, is to help clients minimise the tax they pay. But perhaps Mr Miliband’s audience was a group of special Left-wing accountants, dedicated to helping rich, Islington-dwelling clients maximise the tax they pay.

“Is that Soakem & Blowitt? Yes hello, I wonder if you could help me. This 45p rate I pay is far too low. What would you advise?”

“Have you considered smoking 4,000 cigarettes a day, madam? Tremendous duty on tobacco these days. Plus with a bit of ‘creative licence’ I reckon we can persuade HMRC your income is twice as big as it actually is!”

The Labour leader had come to give a speech. It would, the press was informed, contain a significant announcement about the deficit. Frankly, we’d have considered it pretty significant if it contained the word deficit at all – and happily, unlike his speech at party conference, it did. Twenty-four times, in fact. Labour, declared Mr Miliband, would “deal with” the deficit. It would “tackle” the deficit. It would even “reduce” the deficit.

By this point you may be thinking, “Goodness, this sounds like sterling stuff, bravo Miliband, never knew you had it in you. Just one question: how do you plan to go about it?”

This, I’m sorry to report, is where the waters become muddy. At party conference, Mr Miliband forgot to mention the deficit. This time, he forgot to mention how to clear it.

All we were told was that he would enact “common sense spending reductions”. “Common sense spending reductions”, of course, are different from “Tory cuts”, because “Tory cuts” are bad. “Common sense spending reductions”, by contrast, are nice. Indeed, “common sense spending reductions” are if anything better than no cuts at all, because they will enable Mr Miliband to “reshape public services so they deliver better for people”, and achieve the correct “character of growth”.

But exactly what spending, in his common sense way, would he reduce, and by how much? “The right way to make these decisions,” explained Mr Miliband patiently, “is in government.” That is, once he’s “gone into departments” and worked out “how we make these reductions in the most sensible way”.

So, to summarise: he’ll happily tell you what he’s going to cut. But only after you’ve voted for him.

For some reason I have this vague memory of Mr Miliband spending the last two months attacking the Tories for failing to disclose what cuts they’d make in the next parliament. But perhaps I dreamt it.

Naively, journalists persisted in asking what precisely it was that he’d come to announce. Mr Miliband tolerated this intrusion calmly. “Look,” he said, in answer to a question about borrowing. “I want to be sort of clear about this…”

I Want to Be Sort Of Clear About This. He could make that the title of his memoirs.

yes ed I agree tax us well off raise the tax on homes over 1m not 2 m
I would sooner pay more to support the services at the end of the day we all
want a good hospital in the end and good doctors

yes ed raise the taxes on 2m homes and raise income tax
put it to the country to vote on the issue you will win hands down
the voters are not daft they no they need the services more than a few
extra pounds in their pockets and ever one I speak to says they would be happy to pay more , we are not greedy people we want to no we have a doctor and hospital if we ever need it

Russell Brand and Nigel Farage on QT 2nite, all we need is Bob Geldof on the pannel, don't think his never been on QT

only selfish greedy bastards say no they would never help any one .
they work for the devil

I do not mind paying more taxes bring it on

you should not have druggies on the tv

Are talking about Bob Geldof ?

Well said TANKER my friends agree, a few bob on income tax in return for services restored to Labours reign and people would be a lot happier, its just the Nasty selfish Tories who want to pocket everything and have people living in the gutter who stop this.

Wont be long believe me that we are like Germany...... 1st World War.

Just around the corner unless labour get in.

So much for the new EDUCATION secretary............ a private, fee-paying Surbiton High School girl.

http://order-order.com/2014/12/11/watch-nimo-refuses-to-answer-10-year-olds-maths-question/

pathetic.

I think you'll find that Russell Brand is a reformed user, I wonder if the same could be said of Osbourn??

Sorry for the tardy reply
Fred
I am well aware of DC & GO's many failings and U turns, and unlike some on here I do not blindly follow a particular colour.
gf
you need to take those red blinkers off and give your memory cells a prod.
2517

GEORGE wrong.

Fred post that chart up on debt and show GEORGE the error he has been brainwashed into believing.

By Dan Hodges
1:31PM GMT 11 Dec 2014
Maybe one day I will understand Ed Miliband's plan to win the election

One day, when both of us are old and grey, (or in my case greyer than I am now), I’d like to sit down with Ed Miliband. I’d like to settle back, crack open a nice bottle of wine, and ask: “Ed, what happened? Explain it all to me. Talk me through it. Just so I can finally understand. What were you thinking back then? What was the plan? What were you trying to do?”

I can’t answer any of those questions today. Ed Miliband and his party have now reached the point where it is no longer possible to rationalise in any meaningful way what they are trying to do to win the 2015 general election. Their actions simply defy analysis. They are no longer rooted in space or time.

For four-and-a-half years Ed Miliband has pursued a simple strategy in relation to Britain’s deficit and looming debt mountain: he’s pretended it doesn’t exist. Oh, there was some talk about tough choices and making democratic socialism relevant in an era where there wasn’t a lot of money to spend. But Labour’s leader didn’t mean it. And his party knew he didn’t mean it. And the country knew he didn’t mean it.

Instead, Ed Miliband chose to focus on other issues. Recasting capitalism. Tackling energy prices. Confronting the press. Tweeting about the sad death of Bob Holness.

Some people – I was one of them – questioned that strategy. If Labour didn’t come up with a credible stance on deficit reduction, we warned, then the party would struggle to regain their reputation for economic competence. The Tories would open a commanding lead on the economy, and that would in turn, be potentially fatal for Labour’s election chances.

Those concerns were dismissed. The people raising them were disciples of “the old politics” we were told. Blairite holdouts at best, closet Tories at worst.

So off Labour went, pretending the deficit wasn’t a problem. Or at least, wasn’t a problem in political terms. And, predictably, the Tories began to open a lead on the economy. But it didn’t matter, we were told. That would all change because the Coalition’s policies would push the economy into a new recession, and George Osborne’s reputation for economic competence would be destroyed.

But it didn’t happen. The Tory lead on the economy increased. That didn’t matter, we were told, because it would just turn out to be a paper recovery. A “jobless recovery”, some said. George Osborne’s reputation for economic competence would be destroyed.

But it wasn’t. Unemployment fell. It didn’t matter, we were told again, because we were in the midst of a cost of living crisis. People weren’t feeling better off. And because of that George Osborne’s reputation for economic competence would be destroyed.

At the weekend the Observer showed that the Conservatives had increased their lead on the economy to 14 points. George Osborne’s reputation on the economy hasn’t been destroyed. Labour’s has.

But last week, amid the darkness of Labour’s disastrous deficit denial, a small chink of light appeared. It was nothing more than a faint sliver, so thin as to be almost imperceptible. But it was there.

Analysis of the Autumn Statement showed that the Conservatives plans involved cutting public spending as a percentage of GDP to levels not seen since the 1930s. The BBC picked up on it. There was an almighty row.

Journalists from Labour-supporting papers, looking to exploit the row, phoned the Labour Party for comment. They were told: “We’re not pushing this. Our focus is going to be on how to reduce the deficit.”

For four years Labour has ignored the deficit. Anyone in Labour’s ranks advocating a tougher stance on the deficit has been publicly lambasted. Shadow cabinet members who have pressed for a tougher stance have been sacked or demoted. Deficit reduction became such a peripheral part of Labour’s political strategy that in his speech to Labour conference Ed Miliband, by his own admission, forgot about it all together. And then, at precisely the moment where the Tories present Labour with an opening on cuts, Ed Miliband decides to beat his ploughshares into axes, and proudly announce his own plan to slash public services.

“Ed Miliband vows to wield the axe on public services to balance books”, was the headline in the Independent. This morning it was being favourably retweeted by loyal Labour MPs.

A few minutes ago Slasher Ed finished describing how the axe will be wielded. This is what he said. I am not making it up.

Labour would “balance the books” he said. But not on what he called “productive investment” like roads, and other major infrastructure projects.

There is no such thing as “productive investment”. He invented it. It’s borrowing, plain and simple. Labour won’t actually balance the books at all.

Labour would “tackle the cost of living crisis to stop reduced tax revenues making the deficit bigger”, he said. If you recall, initially Labour said it would borrow for growth. But the economy started growing. Then Labour said it would borrow to reduce unemployment. But unemployment fell. So now Labour is pledging to borrow to tackle the cost of living crisis, which Miliband has said is caused by low wages. So in other words, Labour is now planning to borrow to artificially drive wages up.

Labour would introduce “sensible spending cuts” he said. Honestly. He really said that. “Sensible spending cuts”. In contrast to the Tories “silly cuts” presumably.

There would be tax rises he pledged. But only for “the wealthiest”. Not for “everyday people”. Who “everyday people” are, he didn’t say.

And there was one final promise. Unlike the Tories, Labour would not make any pledges that were not “fully funded” he said. This promise was instantly put to the test. Having just committed himself to balancing the current account during the lifetime of the next Parliament, could Ed Miliband explain which cuts would be needed to meet that commitment, he was asked? No. He couldn’t.

This is Ed Miliband’s strategy for winning the next election. He will pledge to take the axe to public services, whilst simultaneously attacking the Conservative Party for wanting to take the axe to public services.

He will tell people he will eradicate the deficit. And to get them to believe him, he will pretend there is a new form of borrowing called “productive investment” that is not borrowing. Even though it is borrowing, and everyone knows it’s borrowing.

He will tell people that we cannot solve the cost of living crisis without increasing borrowing in the short term. Having told them we couldn’t bring the economy back into growth or reduce unemployment without increasing borrowing in the short term, then watched as the economy returned to growth and unemployment fell.

He will tell people that he can eradicate the deficit and protect public services without raising their taxes. Though taxes will still rise. But not for them. For somebody else.

He will tell them he will make no uncosted pledges. And when they ask what he will cut to meet his pledge to bring the current account into balance he will refuse to answer.

It must all make sense to Ed Miliband. One day, it might make sense to me. But not today.

shortie - thanks for that link, the body of which i have now read
in honesty, i would still not change anything i posted earlier

for example
of course it would be wonderful if there were lots more (highly) skilled jobs and good uk citizens with the qualifications to fill them ...... ask sir james dyson

however, that is not the case, and to make such political waffle that labour will "create" them is frankly, just so much waffle
there is no such thing as a magic wand - or at least not in this context!

2517,

If you look back you will find that I have been critical of Labour governments and periods of stupidity in the unions.

My political position would be to left of centre, but in spite of many faults the recent labour government had, I think, attempted to take into consideration the "needs" of the whole of UK population which may have reduced the benefits of some of the "idle" rich.

My irritation with this present tory party leadership is their greed and wish to protect those of their own ilk, if necessary at the expense of the UK as a whole.

They appear to feel they have a right to govern for their own enrichment.

I think the phrase Mili-disaster sums up Labour.
2517

And todays prize for the longest cut & paste goes to..........

Fred--------''but in spite of many faults the recent labour government had, I think, attempted to take into consideration the "needs" of the whole of UK population which may have reduced the benefits of some of the "idle" rich''.
No, they helped create a myriad of highly paid non-jobs, and tried to create a voting base of benefit claimants, all at the expense of hard working families.
2517

Do you mean like Fund managers, Bank directors etc. Who are still running wild under Dave and Georgie boy.

Of course they paid their taxes in the Cayman Isles etc..

Get back in your box!

fred - why do you nearly always prefix the word "rich" with the descriptive "idle" or something equally pejorative?