Very strong +0.8% growth in Q3

I agree with LadyBlaBlah on this one.

Any strategy to get us out of our economic hole will be open to criticism.

Ed M had the pick of two economists with treasury experience to be his Shadow Chancellor and yet he picked Alan Johnson.

Clearly, he didn't want someone who would be tempted to devise an alternative to the Coalitions economic plan (and I'm sure Balls would have been difficult to hold back).

So, Ed M is going to sit and wait for the Coalition to mess up. Of course, he will help that process along, where he can . And there will be enough vague hints about taxing the rich, closing tax loopholes, and delays in reducing the deficit, to give the impression that there really is an easy, pain free alternative.

Exactly Chil

But there isn't an election coming up anytime soon so what's the rush?

" we all know the press would have a field day with that."

And the press would be right to do so. You can hardly expect voters to follow you if your message is 'I'm not sure what I'm doing but will play it by ear'. Those who want to lead us have to nail their colours to the mast and commit to a strategy. If the circumstances change, fair enough, the plan changes ... but having no plan will not get you elected.

I just think if Labour wants to boost its credibility then it needs to think of alternatives and present them to the public. Having Alan Johnson say he wants tax rises but he is open ended about which ones just won't cut it.

The same can be said of the Tories though

They should have had a landslide but the vagueness was too much

I agree there should be more courage in stating what you stand for - we know now they are in power what they stand for but they never really positioned themselves there in the GE campaign ( this is a crucial part of integrity), however for Ed at the moment, there is a problem because noone really knows whether this thing can be solved. So why commit if you don't know - some would say that he should say he doesn't know for sure what the right way forward is......but we all know the press would have a field day with that.

Yup, negative, uncommitted politics, which lead to a Labour defeat, and a coalition government.
No-one knew who to vote for. Many, particularly the traditional Labour voters, didn't bother at all.

It's time for Labour to offer a cogent strategy that the country can identify with.

The country knows it wants the deficit dealt with and it knows it will need cuts. It's how to manage those cuts that's important to us.

Really? If I were Ed, I would wait and see what happens with the gambles they have taken - if they fail, it is at that point people will be screaming for an alternative, and that is when he should go for it. IMHO obviously.

The criticism that they do not offer ideas as to how to deal with the deficit and other problems is unfounded. I agree with the vagueness of the ideas, but they offer ideas of an alternative. This is however, a cross party problem. Have you ever looked at the Coalition agreement - it says things like "improve commitment to industry".

vagueness is the name of the game apparently

Indeed.
The cuts are massively unpopular, but folk are not so stupid as to just accept that nothing has to happen.

What they are constantly asking is, okay, what's the alternative.

At the moment, Ed looks clueless. If he had viable alternatives, the country would take him seriously. The rank and file of the Lib Dems would also be made to sit up and listen.

I would have more time for Labours criticisms of the coalition and its policys if they actually came up with alternative ideas in how to deal the deficit and the countrys other problems. Its very easy to criticise

Let's not forget that all of the parties were vague about cut policies at the GE. So to say Labour need a cohesive and comprehensive policy at the moment is, for that reason, shit.

If the coalition breaks up when growth declines, recession hits, unemployment spirals and interest rates head up, then that is when Labour need to have a less vague policy and become a real alternative. If I were Ed, I would not rush in either to show my hand.

Lady Blah - I don't think it is a 'shit' argument, that Labour need a cohesive policy of their own.

For one thing, the party look foolish simply opposing everything when people all around the country are begging them to set out an alternative. We don't want the tory cuts and wantt o get behind a properly well thought out strategy.

What we don't want is a round of studenty demos.

For another, the coalition is fairly fragile. It is not at all certain that it will last a full term. It is possible that the Lib Dems stop supporting the government at some point.
Labour, in my view, need to be the alternative, not the opposition.

longfingernails, you are surely not suggesting that the q3 growth was magicked up by the Coalition during their first 4 months? If you think the 0.8% is so significant you should be praising Gordon Brown.

It's a lovely idea that "cuts stimulate growth". Suggests the delightful image of a well pruned garden. There is little logic to it unfortunately. The cuts will inevitably have a very damaging effect in many areas of the private sector.

If you think things still are not uncertain.....

Labour don't need to rush to offer policies. They are in opposition and will be for the foreseeable future. It is a shit argument that they need a detailed proposition of what they would do.

If you think things still are uncertain you are living in a dreamworld. The cuts have not been specific. Councils for example have to decide where they will implement the required cuts - and who will be affected - the private sector will be included in this as contracts are dropped or reduced. There is no certainty about anyone involved in any way with the public sector.

The whole talking down of the economy was an error imo. Confidence is an elusive thing and it was not given enough credence if growth is the overall plan.

@huddspur. I think you're right about the consumer confidence returning now that we know the scope of the cuts. The uncertainty was driving confidence down as everyone assumed the worst and hunkered down for the impending storm. 2008/9 we had whatever the opposite of 'panic buying' is (panic thrift?) amongst many who were not remotely affected by redundancy, share-price falls or a drop in their income. I think the same is true at the moment.

The growth figures are the best in this quarter for 10 years, I think this is really positive news.

Lady B - It is ironic that the Coalition are trying to reduce our reliance on the very 'markets' of which you are so dismissive. Labour (even Darling) planned to increase our dependence on them over the medium term.

The markets don't think that its BS ladyblablah and that is who we owe money to and the people who have the power to make our lives very uncomfortable.

On the credit rating thing - this is the same S & P who gave a triple AAA grading to total junk and ramped up institutions just before the crash back in 2008?

Look at what they did to Ireland. They basically went bust and they were downgraded to AA

Its all BS

Yes LFN your political stance is very clear - I am not saying cuts aren't necessary, but I do wonder at the underlying principles behind them (don't be a woman, a child, poor, disabled...)

You have a real problem with unions LFN - why is that?