Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

100 days of Red Ed

91 replies

longfingernails · 03/01/2011 00:49

What has he done in those 100 days? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

He has no policies on anything, no idea about how Labour would cut the deficit other than the same tired old cliches of "tax the banks".

He has shamelessly and irresponsibly opposed every single spending cut and tax rise to pay necessary to pay for the decade of Labour profligacy.

He still has absolutely no answer to that most fundamental of questions: What Would You Do?

When will he get a grip?

OP posts:
newwave · 03/01/2011 20:27

Anyone can see that Iain Duncan Smith genuinely cares about helping the poor (though not giving them more money).

IDS will give them warm words that will heat a freezing home or a rough sleeper then.

Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 20:17

Oh, Labour will easily win big in Oldham. That seems fairly obvious. They will make huge gains in the local, Scottish and Welsh elections in May too.

Whilst important, those elections shouldn't be regarded as completely kosher barometers of public opinion though. They will largely just be about the usual anti-incumbency mood. I think even Boris might be vulnerable to the anti-incumbent mood in 2012 - though he is more likely to pick up Lib Dem second preferences than almost any other Tory.

The general election isn't until 2015 though.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 20:14

newwave Why, exactly, then did Mrs Thatcher win three elections with massive majorities?

Besides, the stereotyping of the uncaring Tory is stupid, and the electorate know it. Anyone can see that Iain Duncan Smith genuinely cares about helping the poor (though not giving them more money).

Free schools and academies will bust open the teacher unions that stifle the potential of children. Highly compassionate to everyone except mediocre teachers.

Putting the country into a mountain of debt to fund pie-in-the-sky everyone-is-equal ideals isn't "compassionate". It is just stupid.

OP posts:
Hassled · 03/01/2011 20:13

newwave - you may not feel Labour need to explain or apologise, but they do need to oppose. At the moment they're not really even doing that. I can't believe I'm typing these words, but I agree with longfingernails - they just aren't providing a credible economic alternative. It isn't enough to be an opposition by default - they have to have plans which are easily presented and easily understood. Simply saying "the Coalition is wrong" isn't enough.

And as I said, I'm a Labour member - not an active one at the moment, but a member. If this is how I'm feeling, they have not a chance in hell of converting a floating voter. Whatever additional votes they win in Oldham won't be because they've done a good job, it will be because the Coalition is perceived as having done a bad job, and that isn't just good enough.

newwave · 03/01/2011 19:51

Labour has neither to explain nor apologise, the ConDems will defeat themselves, rightly or wrongly they will try to "balance the books" and the damage they cause to the electorates standards of living and to the poor, sick and vulnerable will be the end of them.

The one thing Tories never understand is that compassion (and you dont really expect them to understand it as it is alien to the nature of a Tory) and social decency has a value to society and the Tories lack of both will repulse all decent people.

Takver · 03/01/2011 17:18

Funnily enough, I agree with you on the economic credibility front, Longfingernails. Labour need a really clear explanation as to why they are different from the Conservatives, rather than being simply a 'nicer' version of the same thing.

Personally, (and admittedly unfashionably) I feel that they have to grasp the nettle of who controls the means of production. I think both sides will agree that old fashioned national ownership is unwieldy and not a good solution.

Its interesting that even the Conservatives are beginning to talk about mutuality, worker share ownership and so forth (and of course Thatcher was in favour of the latter). To take that a step further and put forward a convincing programme whereby people have real control of the the businesses where they are employed would be a genuinely radical step forward.

(I don't mean in the traditional small workers co-op sense, though that can work well for smaller businesses - and even some larger ones - but in the sense where workers employ professional management to run the business for them.)

Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 17:12

My guess is "somewhere in the middle".

OP posts:
Takver · 03/01/2011 17:12

Sorry, that doesn't make sense - clearly he is more in the Thatcher mould economically - I mean in terms of his longevity as PM, of course.

Takver · 03/01/2011 17:10

Cameron definitely didn't hit the moment the way Blair did, though - it remains to be seen whether he will be a Thatcher or a Heath, I would say.

Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 17:08

The thing which Labour needs above all else is economic credibility.

That means they have to either have a plan to deal with the deficit, or to proudly spout Ballsian "deficits don't matter" nonsense.

Dithering and saying "well, we would cut too, but not as much, and we won't tell you what we would cut, only that we oppose every single one of the government cuts" is a bit... well... weak.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 17:06

The Tories would not have been able to do what they did in the 2010 election if Michael Howard or IDS were still leader.

Whilst Gordon Brown, with his total inability to communicate, was obviously completely inadequate as a PM, the detoxification (albeit partial) of the Tory brand by David Cameron was very important too.

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 17:03

I partially agree with the old adage that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them - but with a very important caveat. The opposition does have to be credible.

I wonder what would have happened in 1992 if Blair was Labour leader then, instead of Kinnock?

OP posts:
Takver · 03/01/2011 16:42

Actually, I don't think you have to go back that far. I reckon the coalition was very much a result of the number of people on the left who just couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour any more, whether because of civil liberties, the Iraq war, or their general move to authoritarianism.

Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 16:37

Partly, because he is very definitely on the left of the Labour party. But mainly, because it rhymes Grin

OP posts:
StartingAfresh · 03/01/2011 16:33

If he has no policies, why is he called red ed? how would you know?

Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 16:32

Hassled The received wisdom in Labour circles is that he should just wait for the coalition to screw up, and then will win by default.

I really don't think that works. Who was the last PM who won an election by "default"? Without making big, controversial decisions beforehand?

John Major, perhaps - but as PM, he had to deal with ditching the poll tax, and the aftermath of ERM, which gave him some credibility in the run-up to 1992. He was not as defined as Thatcher, but he did have ideas.

Before that, you probably have to go back to Edward Heath to get a universally acknowledged non-entity as an elected PM. I actually have a lot of respect for Callaghan...

OP posts:
Hassled · 03/01/2011 16:23

I voted for Ed Balls. I went to a hustings, asked a question, spoke to the candidates afterwards - he was the one with the charisma, the humour, the sense that he was a human being who would connect to people. The Milibands were just awkward - pleasant but not engaging. And Balls is stronger on the economy, I feel - he would have been shouting his opinions from the rooftops by now and you might disagree with those opinions, but at least they would have been out there. At least there would have been something.

Original poster
longfingernails · 03/01/2011 16:15

Chil1234 As usual, Red Ed is talking bollocks.

Just do the sums. If you spend x a week currently on VAT-able goods, then the new weekly spend (assuming you buy the same goods) will be

y = x * 120/117.5

If the difference between y and x is £7.50, that implies that x was

£7.50/(120/117.5-1) = £352.50.

That is £18330 a year.

Does he really think the average family spends £18330 on VAT-able goods a year? Remember, that excludes food, childrens' clothes, books...

As usual, Labour are relying on voters being thick. Though to be fair, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that Labour voters are incapable of basic numeracy.

OP posts:
Takver · 03/01/2011 16:15

Who did you vote for, Hassled?

As a non Labour member (though I did vote for them on a 'least worst' basis in May) I wasn't inspired by any of the candidates. Do you think the others would have been better at this stage?

Blackduck · 03/01/2011 16:13

Riven - bit like shooting fish in a barrel though isn't it :)

Takver · 03/01/2011 16:13

Interestingly, IIRC people were predicting the problems that we now have way back in the mid 80s pre Big Bang (I'm not as old as all that, honest, I was at school studying economics so had to read the FT for that!!!)

Takver · 03/01/2011 16:11

Canada - I thought they avoided the worst affects of the financial crisis because they had stricter regulation of the banking sector.

And yes, I totally agree, Labour failed to impose such regulation, but since they inherited the famous 'light touch' from the Conservatives I don't think that either party can claim a better record than the other.

sarah293 · 03/01/2011 16:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Hassled · 03/01/2011 16:06

:o How much? Do you owe yourself a fiver?

sarah293 · 03/01/2011 16:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn