Ed will get his turn at character assassination if he wins the next election.
True. It will happen. Tony Blair was the second greatest prime minister this country had according to the media of the time. Then Iraq happened and he never recovered. The press never liked Gordon Brown at all..... they did love Cameron though and granted I am pretty shocked his honeymoon has ended even earlier than I was expecting. He is almost certain to be a one term prime minister.
I'm beginning to wonder if something of a post-neoliberal realignment could be emerging in the UK
Liberalism is going to have to readapt in a way that does deliver more broad-based prosperity moving forward, instead of wealth being permitted to become so heavily accumulated at the very top. Indeed, an OECD report, suggests that income inequality is rising faster in the UK than in any other rich nation, and when it comes to welfare spending the UK is a derisorily low 15th
The primary factors driving poverty are 1) unemployment; 2) low wages and 3) inadequate welfare benefits
Neoliberalism has resulted in "grossly unequal amounts of misery" (there does, however, need to be inequality to spur aspirations), which is why there simply has to be a viable 'middle way', that would require regulating the excesses of the market and creating a more fair society - but how do we get there?
We've been riding the neoliberal merry-go-round for 30+ years now and from the 'Monetarist Recession', downwards, its been as good as the hell to any ordinary person who falls off. And, frankly, we as a nation can be, and should be, better than that. Then, of course, there is the more downside aspect of globalisation, which in many developed economies could have contributed to an 'expanded' public sector, which is why the West is going to have to get 'firm' with their private sectors to procure the jobs their populaces need - and if that means reducing the tax burden considerably on private enterprise but in a way that rewards only those who create jobs so be it
Lets get one thing straight. I'm no protectionist advocating tariffs on cheap imports (that would be foolish) but the bottom-line is we need jobs - and on living wages - if we are to, ultimately, reduce reliance on the welfare state
Its clear now looking at recent swings against austerity in Europe, and the fact that one in three French voters cast votes for anti-neoliberal, anti-globalisation parties ranging from the far left to the fair right, that political leaders need to take heed and adress the concerns of ordinary people, who are feeling the pinch
I am always amazed as to how stupid and fickle people are.:rolleyes:
Fickle? I'd say its becoming obvious that this whole "We'are all in this together" coming from the Coalition ain't gonna wash and nor should it
Oh and austerity-queen Angela Merkel's CDU has just suffered a brutal swing against them in elections for Gemany's most populus state North Rhine-Westphalia. Maybe Germans, along with the French, the Greeks and the Italians, have had enough too
Mind that said, Germany's rate of unemployment at 5.7% ain't that intolerably high. For now a fall in demand for her exports in Europe is been offset by demand beyond
In any case, an open mind is superior to a closed one.
In politics it's the other way around. The closed mind is superior. It wins elections. It's all down to people who vote for a certain party not on the basis of any policy. but simply because they always vote for them, or it's who their parents always vote for, or to keep the other party out, Or are harbouring deeply entrenched views and outdated views that mean that they wouldn't vote for a certain party even if they were the best both nationally and for the individual in question. (cutting off the nose to spite the face.) These poor souls we call the grass roots.
In politics it's the other way around. The closed mind is superior. It wins elections. It's all down to people who vote for a certain party not on the basis of any policy. but simply because they always vote for them, or it's who their parents always vote for, or to keep the other party out, Or are harbouring deeply entrenched views and outdated views that mean that they wouldn't vote for a certain party even if they were the best both nationally and for the individual in question. (cutting off the nose to spite the face.) These poor souls we call the grass roots.
Unfortunately true -- yet those who do not fall into this category are dismissed as fickle idiots.
The unrepresentative electoral system does not help, mind.
in the latest you guv poll in The Sunday Times, Ed Miliband has taken over Cameron as the most popular, Labour also hold a 12 point lead over The Tories
Labours election victories and Ed's new found popularity, all achieved without him or his party lifting a finger, amazing. The problem with such a strategy is, it is totally dependant on the failings of the government and Cameron and not anything constructive, or positive Labour have come up with.
So if Cameron or the government entered better times, Labour would lose what it has gained. Labour need to seize the momentum and prove they are not just the protest party, coming up with some new fresh policies.
All of Ed's proposals to rescue the Eurozone and indeed the world are resonating across the country. I have no doubt he will be PM in 2015 will Ed Balls as chancellor.
Finally we will have 2 people in charge who know how the economy works. They certainly have the right experience, being in Labour's top economic team in the years prior to the crisis.
The current one is a byproduct of the austerity measures.
I suspect you'll find that the catalyst for the 'Crash of 2008' and the ensuring 'Great Recession', which unless you were asleep these past four years was very much a global phenonemon, was a loss of confidence in the US sub-prime market
Can a British government really be blamed for a loss of confidence in the US sub-prime market?
Well they sold all the gold when it was at its lowest price,spent all the money on public services while increasing the consumers via migration and deregulated the city. Worse of all they did not save for a rainy day and ran up huge debts.
Remember Browns billions he was going to spend, what if he had saved some of that, it could have meant austerity and cuts were a lot softer.
That's not Labours way though, they are the nice party because they give away other peoples money remember.
Labours election victories and Ed's new found popularity, all achieved without him or his party lifting a finger, amazing. The problem with such a strategy is, it is totally dependant on the failings of the government and Cameron and not anything constructive, or positive Labour have come up with.
It's hollow popularity. Labour are picking up support because they are the defacto protest party. If you look at the Bradford west by election (safe Labour) it was won by a viable candidate. Same with the local elections in Scotland. The SNP gained more than labour because ,in part, they were seen as the viable option for the protest vote.
Given that the protest vote traditionally goes to the libdems. If we had a solely Conservative (majority/minority) government. We'd have a more accurate picture of labour's popularity as they wouldn't be befitting from the protest vote. Likewise the libdem position would be dramatically improved.
Well they sold all the gold when it was at its lowest price,spent all the money on public services while increasing the consumers via migration and deregulated the city. Worse of all they did not save for a rainy day and ran up huge debts.
Remember Browns billions he was going to spend, what if he had saved some of that, it could have meant austerity and cuts were a lot softer.
The UK's net public debt as % of GDP, in 2007, was lower than when John Major left office, though we were running a deficit of 2.7% of GDP and were certainly not by any means the only major developed economy not to be
Spain, as of 2007, was running a budget surplus; while the spectacularly felled 'Celtic Tiger' was running a balanced budget ... aren't turned out too well in either has it
That's not Labours way though, they are the nice party because they give away other peoples money remember.
Who did they give "other peoples money" away to? You're sounding like the Blessed Margaret :rolleyes: ranting on about socialism (whatever that may be)
Labour rode the neoliberal merry-go-round as much as any Conservative government would have done
I suspect you'll find that the catalyst for the 'Crash of 2008' and the ensuring 'Great Recession', which unless you were asleep these past four years was very much a global phenonemon, was a loss of confidence in the US sub-prime market
That as may be, but it was their watch and they take responsibility.
That as may be, but it was their watch and they take responsibility.
Funny I don't recall a Conservative government ever being held to account, or taking responsibility, for the 'Monetarist Recession' or that of the early 1990s
What is it about the UK which holds Labour to a high standard and the Conservative's to no standard?
Labour saw the UK through the 'Great Recession' without any horrific return to a double-digit rate of unemployment
Funny how Labour blamed the world economy when things went wrong during their era, they don't seem to be quite so keen to accept the role of the Euro zone, for lack of growth in the coalition era.
Funny I don't recall a Conservative government ever being held to account or taking responsibility for the 'Monetarist Recession' or that of the early 1990s
In response to a post that holds the Conservative Government to account for the current mess? Really?
Funny how Labour blamed the world economy when things went wrong during their era, they don't seem to be quite so keen to accept the role of the Euro zone, for lack of growth in the coalition era.
The Coalition was dealt a growing economy with unemployment falling and a deficit running at 10.2% of GDP, having fallen from its 2009 peak of 11.5%, on the back of growth . Yes there are problems in the Eurozone but its austerity-driven. Its hurting but it ain't working
In response to a post that holds the Conservative Government to account for the current mess? Really?
Well that ain't the way I read it . Anyway, the Coalition has one thing on its side, of course, its called time. Much could happen for better or worse between now and then
The Coalition was dealt a growing economy with unemployment falling and a deficit running at 10.2% of GDP, having fallen from its 2009 peak of 11.5%, on the back of growth . Yes there are problems in the Eurozone but its austerity-driven. Its hurting but it ain't working
So do you favour more borrowing to finance growth? Finance is not my political area of expertise, I just know from my own finances, that I prefer to spend within my means, as much as possible.
Comments
True. It will happen. Tony Blair was the second greatest prime minister this country had according to the media of the time. Then Iraq happened and he never recovered. The press never liked Gordon Brown at all..... they did love Cameron though and granted I am pretty shocked his honeymoon has ended even earlier than I was expecting. He is almost certain to be a one term prime minister.
Liberalism is going to have to readapt in a way that does deliver more broad-based prosperity moving forward, instead of wealth being permitted to become so heavily accumulated at the very top. Indeed, an OECD report, suggests that income inequality is rising faster in the UK than in any other rich nation, and when it comes to welfare spending the UK is a derisorily low 15th
The primary factors driving poverty are 1) unemployment; 2) low wages and 3) inadequate welfare benefits
Neoliberalism has resulted in "grossly unequal amounts of misery" (there does, however, need to be inequality to spur aspirations), which is why there simply has to be a viable 'middle way', that would require regulating the excesses of the market and creating a more fair society - but how do we get there?
We've been riding the neoliberal merry-go-round for 30+ years now and from the 'Monetarist Recession', downwards, its been as good as the hell to any ordinary person who falls off. And, frankly, we as a nation can be, and should be, better than that. Then, of course, there is the more downside aspect of globalisation, which in many developed economies could have contributed to an 'expanded' public sector, which is why the West is going to have to get 'firm' with their private sectors to procure the jobs their populaces need - and if that means reducing the tax burden considerably on private enterprise but in a way that rewards only those who create jobs so be it
Lets get one thing straight. I'm no protectionist advocating tariffs on cheap imports (that would be foolish) but the bottom-line is we need jobs - and on living wages - if we are to, ultimately, reduce reliance on the welfare state
Its clear now looking at recent swings against austerity in Europe, and the fact that one in three French voters cast votes for anti-neoliberal, anti-globalisation parties ranging from the far left to the fair right, that political leaders need to take heed and adress the concerns of ordinary people, who are feeling the pinch
Actually only around two million people are 'fickle' in the UK.
Of those, around 150,000 decide the fate of Governments.
In any case, an open mind is superior to a closed one.
Fickle? I'd say its becoming obvious that this whole "We'are all in this together" coming from the Coalition ain't gonna wash and nor should it
Oh and austerity-queen Angela Merkel's CDU has just suffered a brutal swing against them in elections for Gemany's most populus state North Rhine-Westphalia. Maybe Germans, along with the French, the Greeks and the Italians, have had enough too
Mind that said, Germany's rate of unemployment at 5.7% ain't that intolerably high. For now a fall in demand for her exports in Europe is been offset by demand beyond
The idea that a Tory Government would spread a financial burden evenly is absurd.
Those who make up the swing voters evidently didn't see this coming.
In politics it's the other way around. The closed mind is superior. It wins elections. It's all down to people who vote for a certain party not on the basis of any policy. but simply because they always vote for them, or it's who their parents always vote for, or to keep the other party out, Or are harbouring deeply entrenched views and outdated views that mean that they wouldn't vote for a certain party even if they were the best both nationally and for the individual in question. (cutting off the nose to spite the face.) These poor souls we call the grass roots.
Unfortunately true -- yet those who do not fall into this category are dismissed as fickle idiots.
The unrepresentative electoral system does not help, mind.
Labours election victories and Ed's new found popularity, all achieved without him or his party lifting a finger, amazing. The problem with such a strategy is, it is totally dependant on the failings of the government and Cameron and not anything constructive, or positive Labour have come up with.
So if Cameron or the government entered better times, Labour would lose what it has gained. Labour need to seize the momentum and prove they are not just the protest party, coming up with some new fresh policies.
Maybe they caused it
Can a British government really be blamed for a loss of confidence in the US sub-prime market?
Labour caused the last recession.
The current one is a byproduct of the austerity measures.
I suspect you'll find that the catalyst for the 'Crash of 2008' and the ensuring 'Great Recession', which unless you were asleep these past four years was very much a global phenonemon, was a loss of confidence in the US sub-prime market
Well they sold all the gold when it was at its lowest price,spent all the money on public services while increasing the consumers via migration and deregulated the city. Worse of all they did not save for a rainy day and ran up huge debts.
Remember Browns billions he was going to spend, what if he had saved some of that, it could have meant austerity and cuts were a lot softer.
That's not Labours way though, they are the nice party because they give away other peoples money remember.
Which could have been alleviated if money had been put away in the Blair era, when Brown was chancellor and Balls his right hand man.
It's hollow popularity. Labour are picking up support because they are the defacto protest party. If you look at the Bradford west by election (safe Labour) it was won by a viable candidate. Same with the local elections in Scotland. The SNP gained more than labour because ,in part, they were seen as the viable option for the protest vote.
Given that the protest vote traditionally goes to the libdems. If we had a solely Conservative (majority/minority) government. We'd have a more accurate picture of labour's popularity as they wouldn't be befitting from the protest vote. Likewise the libdem position would be dramatically improved.
The UK's net public debt as % of GDP, in 2007, was lower than when John Major left office, though we were running a deficit of 2.7% of GDP and were certainly not by any means the only major developed economy not to be
Spain, as of 2007, was running a budget surplus; while the spectacularly felled 'Celtic Tiger' was running a balanced budget ... aren't turned out too well in either has it
Who did they give "other peoples money" away to? You're sounding like the Blessed Margaret :rolleyes: ranting on about socialism (whatever that may be)
Labour rode the neoliberal merry-go-round as much as any Conservative government would have done
That as may be, but it was their watch and they take responsibility.
That as may be, but it was their watch and they take responsibility.
Funny I don't recall a Conservative government ever being held to account, or taking responsibility, for the 'Monetarist Recession' or that of the early 1990s
What is it about the UK which holds Labour to a high standard and the Conservative's to no standard?
Labour saw the UK through the 'Great Recession' without any horrific return to a double-digit rate of unemployment
In response to a post that holds the Conservative Government to account for the current mess? Really?
The Coalition was dealt a growing economy with unemployment falling and a deficit running at 10.2% of GDP, having fallen from its 2009 peak of 11.5%, on the back of growth
Well that ain't the way I read it
So do you favour more borrowing to finance growth? Finance is not my political area of expertise, I just know from my own finances, that I prefer to spend within my means, as much as possible.
I deliberately used the same phrasing in response to one post making excuses for Labour and one making excuses for the Tories.
What more do you want? Blood?