Options
Has Labour Fundementally lost the Economic debate?
OvertheUnder
Posts: 4,764 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I honestly believe that Ed Milliband's problems are due to his total failure to address the Economic problems of the UK and to provide solutions - forgetting to mention the deficit in his conference speech is just one example of their avoidance of the issue.
Surely there must be a logical reason why we haven't seen any creditable economic policy from the Labour party?
Surely there must be a logical reason why we haven't seen any creditable economic policy from the Labour party?
0
Comments
Yes and No
Yes they lost, the principle argument. Countries which did not follow the same policy as Osbourne are now retreating, their growth less.
No - because there are still issues that need addressing - notably that people's incomes are not keeping up - or do not seem to
Isn't that an oxymoron
People just don't trust Labour with the economy.
Do they trust the Tories however or just distrust them less...if you get what I mean than Labour ? I dont know of any party that I can honestly say puts what is good for the nation about party ideology.
Ed's painful ineptitude is only part of their woes. Whoever was leading it would still have to sell a bunch of polices so half baked, Paul Hollywood would have a breakdown.
I'm not sure I trust any of them at this point. I tend to distrust all of them to varying degrees.
That has a certain electoral appeal so long as nobody asks why they think they'd have been better off under Labour. Let's not forget that they were going to enshrine their austerity plans in law, plans which would have seen the deficit cut even further than it currently is by now (their target was 50%), so all in all they're only really appealing to the willfully ignorant.
Labour's desire to be seen to oppose everything and their inability to talk frankly about painful decisions they'd have had to have undertaken themselves has obliterated their economic credibility
I must be one of the lucky ones. Unemployed in 2010, promoted in 2014
http://www.cityam.com/1415634220/iod-businesses-back-ed-miliband-europe-warns-over-credibility-over-tax-policies?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
His tax policies definitely are an area of concern if we want a competitive economy.
People are being forced off the dole, foreced into declaring themselves as self employed anything and are being told to claim Tax Credits instead! That is why borrowing and the annual deficit is going back up again not down and that the wages figures of people are not going up.
If Labour were in charge the press would be going mad about it but because its a Tory led Government the Tory supporting press are giving them a free pass on it! >:(
are you saying that you think they should have cut Public Spending deeper so as to meet the target of wiping out the deficit?
Or shag his producer.
This isn't the elephant in the room. It is the room.
The whole growth ideology behind capitalism has to be done away with. Infinite growth is impossible. The recession\depression we're in is due to the reality of this interfering with the economic delusion of continual growth.
Central planning is needed when we the electorate\public aren't socially responsible.
Labour need to stop handing out sweets and start handing out greens.
This is where the Conservatives have stolen a march on them.
To be fair, he does have a policy - the same as Hollande's policy which is failing miserably in France.
Yes he stood shoulder to shoulder with Hollande in 2012 and said their way was the way forward for Europe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/francois-hollande/9424496/Francois-Hollande-breaks-protocol-posing-with-Ed-Miliband-on-Elysee-steps.html
He said: "What President Hollande is seeking to do in France and what he is seeking to do in leading the debate in Europe is to find that different way forward. We are in agreement in seeking that new way".
Fast forward to 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11218338/Life-in-France-Now-is-our-winter-of-discontent.html
Britain might want to think carefully before voting for Ed Miliband's Labour next year: already there are rumbles of raising taxes that David Cameron lowered, and reversing cuts. This sounds distressingly familiar: if we're any indication, it's a recipe for gloom, doom and disaster.
Is there any wonder it gone quiet on economic plans and is gimmicks for headlines.
A debt based money supply requires infinite growth or it collapses. That's why debt is rising, both public and private. It's also why deflation is feared so much, without inflating away the debt created by a debt based money system, banks lose out and whole thing ends in unpayable debt.
On the subject, either party have to do what is required to keep the money supply growing in order to pay back what's already been created. (debt) Most of parliament don't even understand the system of money, as noted in a poll not long ago, and just do what the advisor's and donors say.
Bottom line: Ever more debt is required, house prices will be kept high and increased if possible, immigration will remain high (new borrowers) and wages will be kept low (donors requirement). Red. blue or yellow, makes no difference but the idea that Tories are economically competent is laughable. They use debt just like all the others, just hide it in plain sight and their media chums ignore it.
Labour are limited by their failure in office. Challenging cuts looks like spending too much.Labour also still has no meaningful alternative policies on bringing in avoided taxes, or speeding up growth.whats been offered is halfbaked and/or trivial.
The big unknown are the Tories cuts. Its obvious that there's nothing significant left to cut - except for the aid budget which cameron has bizarrely ringfenced , and Labour would have difficulty cutting themslves. The non statutory non benefits and non ringfenced budgets are all already savaged. There's zero room to cut policing, firemen, prisons, legal services, local government, flood defences or transport more. Health is already ring fenced and theres increasing demand there, and agreement more money is needed.
And the mystery is how they will go for these cuts - when there's already shifts underway to reverse the impact where cuts have already gone too far. Cameron is already talking about spoending more on transport and the north. Hs2 and HS3 are obviously needed, and taking them away will lose votes. He can't cut flood defences as its politically an above water issue in critical SW seats . The terrorist threat makes policing cuts more politically sensitive. He seems to have told the army he agrees they can't be cut more, and agreed with the Navy that they need to complete and tretain both carriers. The RAF is already short of aircraft to deal with Russian incursions, and Iraq, and Nigeria, at the same time.Trident expenditure is trivial early on and spread over the next 20- 25 years and the need will be more obvious as the Cold War returns, and if Iran nuclear talks look like failing. . The service chiefs will resign if he renages on the implicit promise of 2010 that things would improve post 2015. and there's also the NATO commitment to spend 2% of GNP that can't be broken without contradicting other statements of policy and pledges. .
If you need to spend more on health and defence, and transport and housing are major political issues , where on earth are you going to cut - after 5 years of cuts already ? Are the few people they have agreed are sick going to be told they have recovered? Its difficult to see what financial wheezes there are left.
There's an issue there for Labour - but their problem is they will look as if they are forgetting the debt problem - and Milliband has already left that impression to be confirmed.
I didn't mean to imply the Tories are more adept where the economy is concerned. They aren't. What I meant was the Tories policy to implement austerity measures was done to assure our creditors we're serious about tackling our debt. We're not, but it gives the impression. This was the responsible thing to do.
Whereas Labour had painted themselves into a corner by promising no direct taxation (among other things), but had no way of raising the sums required for their spending proposals. NHS underfunding is ample proof of this. Labour baulked at the thought of austerity when they were in government.
Now the Conservatives are using it as a sign of Labour's fiscal ineptitude.
Other parties aren't any better. Honestly, the only difference between Tories and Labour that I can see is what pet projects they choose to waste taxpayer money on.
Neither party has the will to do anything meaningful with the big 2 of public spending (NHS and pensions) because they know it would be political suicide to do so.