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 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?

But seriously, there all from the same stock, educated the same way, have the same end game anyway..... The election, it just makes you believe that you have a choice, that democracy has been served, that there's freedom of choice. The policies have already been agreed, all the General Election will decide is who will be seen to bring them in and take the credit or failure afterwards....

And if you get Balls as chancellor, he will be a private fee paying schoolboy!

2517GEORGE Send an email to 2517GEORGE View 2517GEORGE's profile - 11 Dec 2014 17:13 - 52804 of 52809

and tried to create a voting base of benefit claimants,............ends

and since when have people who reply completely on benefits have ever been considered to be a VOTING BASE.........dear oh dear.

GEORGE out of touch im afraid, nothing personal but you need to stop reading the right wing press papers.

Those who choose to live on benefits as life style (which is dammed nigh impossible now) are the least likely people of all to go out and vote on election day.

Riot club ie, snob club

Class War 2014: The Rich Kids of Snapchat
Posted by David Hencke

The Conservatives don't need people on benefits to vote for them, just as Maggie didn't.

don't be such an arrogant little shit :-)
conseravtives need ever goddam vote they can muster ...... it's all going to be a very close run thing

That is not what I meant. They don't need policies to attract people on benefits. Maggie and the present party just need to have policies that they believe in. Miliband is dreaming up slogans and policies to attract people who are on benefits as a cynical ploy. He has no real policies, that's why there will be no detail till after the election.

But Cameroon doesent believe in anything outside his own interests.

Mind you, the other two are the same.



Which leaves ukip, which at least has something to hang it's hat on (norra lot granted) a single policy that would transform the UK.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
5:45PM GMT 11 Dec 2014
The Advocate General for Scotland argues there is no excuse for the Scottish Government refusing to answer Freedom of Information requests about the former First Minister's spending on luxury accommodation.

The Coalition Government’s most senior adviser on Scots law has delivered an outspoken attack on the SNP’s secrecy in government by highlighting their attempts to prevent disclosure of Alex Salmond’s luxury hotel stays.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the Advocate General for Scotland, said the watchdog in charge of ensuring public bodies comply with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests had delivered a “pretty damning indictment” of the Nationalists’ behaviour.

The Liberal Democrat former Deputy First Minister referred to a request for details of the hotels in which Mr Salmond stayed while abroad that the Scottish Government had refused despite the trips being funded by taxpayers’ money.

But he told an FOI conference marking the tenth anniversary of the legislation that Nicola Sturgeon, Mr Salmond’s successor, made some “very positive noises” before her appointment about being more open.

The Telegraph disclosed in March how the then-First Minister had argued that making public which five-star hotel he stayed at in Chicago during his trip to the Ryder Cup would jeopardise his safety.

We later discovered that he spent £3,000 on four nights with his wife in a “grand deluxe suite” at the Peninsula Hotel, which covered more than 1,000 sq ft of floor space and a marble bathroom.

In other examples involving this newspaper, Mr Salmond fought a seven – month battle to prevent details being made public of how he used more than £250 of taxpayers' money to buy a pair of tartan trews.

He paid back the money only after this newspaper tabled an FOI request that would have disclosed the purchase.

The former SNP leader also used taxpayers’ money to twice go to Scotland’s highest civil court to prevent disclosure of how much his local income tax would cost families.

Lord Wallace cited a later example of another newspaper that also tabled a request about Mr Salmond’s hotel use, which resulted in the FOI commissioner issuing a highly critical response attacking Scottish ministers’ “unacceptable” failure to respond.

“What is the great secret about which hotel abroad the First Minister stays in on public business and the cost of that accommodation?” Lord Wallace asked.

“Now, Nicola’s predecessor has many qualities, but a shrinking violet he is not. It is hard to imagine that when staying in a hotel, he does so incognito.”

The former Scottish Liberal Democrat leader said it would not have required “any great effort” to find the information as records of Mr Salmond’s travel arrangements and expenditure would have been readily accessible.

But he told the Edinburgh conference he had been “struck” by the number of times the FOI commissioner has ruled that Scottish ministers have failed to reply to a request within the prescribed timescale of 20 working days.

Liam McArthur, a Lib Dem MSP, recently tabled a parliamentary question asking how many times Scottish ministers have failed to reply within that deadline.

But Lord Tankerness said Ms Sturgeon had refused to provide a response on the grounds that it could only be obtained at “disproportionate cost”.

He acknowledged that it can be difficult to honour previous promises of open government “once real power is wielded” but encouraged her to stand by what she has previously said.