Miliband fails to learn Labour spending lesson

Haha.
The Telegraph are scathing about the people currently in government. They give Cameron a very hard time.
You wouldn't know that of course, buried as you are in your student pamphlets.

First rule of thumb is to know your enemy.That's why I make a point of always reading the Guardian and mugging up on what new propoganda it spews out (see arse licking interview with Milliband today.)

Moondog

And I would accept the drivel from the Torygraph as gospel, dont think so.

I might just as well read the Daily Mail Hate.

Thanks Jack. Glad you found it useful.

Put down your Guardians for a bit and have a go at something more challenging Newwave

what newwave said.

just look at the policy nad stats regarding DLA the government estimates that there is approx 0.5% of people claiming DLA who shouldn't be, but they want to cut DLA by 20% by those calculations that means the tories are happy to take the food from 19.5% of disabled peoples mouths!

Moondog

Hahahaha NewWave has, I see, rapier like debating skills. She'll be smashing up her toys in a funk next.

Nice reply but I note you are unable to refute my points with any facts just a ridiculous diatribe.

What an embarrassingly absurd and cheaply sentimental viewpoint Edwardo. Or rather it would be if it didn't indicate that you had swallowed this peddling of lies hook, line and sinker.

Trust a Tory to see concern for others as "sentimental" I suspect you would need a dictionary to understand the concept of "greater good" although I am sure you well understand what "self interest" is.

As for "peddling of lies" what lies, those such as:

those with the broadest shoulders will bear the biggest burden.

No top down changes to the NHS

Changes will not affect front line services

We will keep EMA

No changes to child benefit

No increase in VAT

Abolish student fees

(all copyright call me Dave & honest Clegg)

One thing though at least you give the lie to the Tories idea of a "Big Society"

I dont expect a coherent reply as I suspect it is something you are incapable of.

Ttosca's link to Left Futures is worth a read.

The article starts with an interesting critique of Labour in opposition. Then it covers the structural deficit (£40bn) and provides a fairly comprehensive list of 'the lefts' ideas for tackling the deficit without the need for cuts to public services. It even has numbers (though no workings).

Very interesting - thanks ttosca.

'SWC, you know I am right Tories are selfish'

Hahahhaaa Newwave has, I see, rapier like debating skills. She'll be smashing up her toys in a funk next.

'I resent being called an idiot because I don't want to see the elderly, disabled and single parents of this country starving and/ or homeless sorry. I'm not quite that selfish to see my own gains as more important.'

What an embarrassingly absurd and cheaply sentimental viewpoint Edwardo. Or rather it would be if it didn't indicate that you had swallowed this peddling of lies hook, line and sinker.

I have to say that this thread has restored my faith in MN. I stopped reading a while ago because most threads seemed to be mindless drivel.

I am glad to see that apart from one idiot everyone understands what has happened.

Socialists are only good at one thing and that is spending other people's money. They certainly did that during their 13 years and now it is time to sort the mess out, again.

"If Labour made the same cuts there wouldn't be the same fuss made at all, no strikes or anything."

Oh there would. Because unions are the Labour pary, believe that the Labour front-bench is there to do their bidding and know that they will respond to pressure for fear of losing grass-roots support. That's what happened in the seventies and there's every reason it would have happened again today if Labour were cutting public expenditure.

But Labour aren't in the hot-seat so it's rather an academic point :)

I generally consider myself to be a bit of a lefty and am in favour of quality public services and strong support for the vulnerable; however, I felt very let down by the last labour government, apart from taking Britain into an illegal war to support Dubya's revenge fantasies and religious visons. Despite the early new labour claims to have found the Third Way, balancing business and state, towards the end they fell into the very old labour habit of tax and spend.

Of course financial crisis was a global problem, but this just served to highlight those economies that were living on credit. Many economies have not been hugely effected and are now continuing to show healthy growth. At the end of the day, the last government failed to manage the economy properly.

I resent being called an idiot because I don't want to see the elderly, disabled and single parents of this country starving and/ or homeless sorry. I'm not quite that selfish to see my own gains as more important.

Obviously labour are not to blame for the financial crisis unless they were also running Greece, Ireland and many others.

No wait wasn't the financial crisis GLOBAL when did labour govern the whole planet?!

Hells teeth, it is too late, excuse the spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and the inability to make my point clearly.

Being in opposition is the best thing that could have happened to Labour. When you look at it there is such a difference from when Labour brought in rather crap ideas such as tuition fees and then when this lot have to put them up all of a sudden there are huge protests. Not the only example but one of many.

Miliband is awful, his attack dog Balls is even worse. It should have been his brother in charge but instead the unions got there way.

If Labour made the same cuts there wouldn't be the same fuss made at all, no strikes or anything. Maybe some mumblings or grumblings but nothing on the scale of what will happen because they are not in power.

It worries me that no one really seems to see this or expose them for this but I guess that is just the way it is. I've seen what they did to Scotland and the stranglehold they have with the sheeple voting for them because they are "working class". Yeah, right. The SNP have had constant bad press since they got into power albeit on a one seat majority and with the focus on what they haven't done then no one really sees what they are doing. I rue the May election because I know the idiots are going to vote Labour again, it will be so depressing to be back in the hands of Scottish Labour.

Yes you are right. But Labour themselves were going to make huge cuts in public services as well. Darling told us how bad it would have to be. Labour are no different to the Coalition. As the OP said, all the rest is merely acting by the thespians on the opposition benches. If you watch the Andrew Neil 'This Week' show, you can see the truth, and you will see ex-Labour ministers nodding along with Portillo and saying that cuts need to be made and that Osborne is being very 'bold', maybe too 'bold' and taking a great risk, but that they agree that cuts need to be made, but maybe they shoould be done more cautiously than the 'bold' Osborne is doing.

claig

Yes, on that point I agree with you. I just think it's disingenuous to blame New Labour and then call for public spending cuts.

There are plenty of people who still actually believe the huge deficit was caused by public spending, rather than the bank bailouts.

Just under half (49%) of the people polled said Labour was to blame for the cuts that are set to hit the public services, in contrast to the quarter (26%) who point the finger at the coalition.

This suggests the Government's argument that their predecessors overspent and "maxed out the nation's credit card" has hit home with a significant number of voters, despite Labour's claim they were forced to deal with a global financial crisis.

tinyurl.com/642wdyz

But yes, New Labour is definitely to blame for deregulating the financial sector.

I agree with you, but I think it was caused by Labour's "light touch regulation", not by public spending. It was on Labour's watch. Labour knighted 'Fred the Shred' for his services to banking. Labour left a note saying 'there's no money left'. So after Labour's mismanagement, the chickens have now come home to roost, and cuts now need to be made, because it is too late and as Labour's Liam Byrne said 'there is no money left'.

Of course, there will be enough money to pay MPs' expenses and to increase the foreign aid budget, but for the rest of us "there is no money left".

Alternative to ideological cuts to public spending:

Here is an article which discusses some of the many options to reduce the deficit besides the ideological Tory cuts which will not only harm society itself, but will be counterproductive in actually harming the economy.

www.leftfutures.org/2010/06/an-alternative-to-cuts/

Hi all. I'm new here.

The financial situation this country finds itself in right now is not the result of New Labour spending on public services - however prolific they may have been.

The deficit before the financial meltdown and subsequent bailout was at 3% of GDP. This is pretty average for the EU, even somewhat below average.

After the trillion pound bailout, and after the financial crisis caused a recession, massively decreasing tax receipts and putting more people on to welfare, the deficit shot up to over 11% of GDP.

The Tories (and the Lib Dems, for that matter) are propagating the narrative that the financial situation we're in was caused by New Labour. This is obviously useful to them, so they can both blame the opposition party, and because they can then claim that the ideological cuts they're putting through are necessary; if the deficit was caused by public spending, then it can be fixed by cutting public spending.

This is a narrative which must be fought, because not only is it false, but the welfare of the vast majority of the public is at stake.

There are people in the third world who earn less than a dollar a day. Do you think the employers should advertise for those workers and pay them a dollar a day, because they don't think those wages are poverty wages? Should we give them visas, so that the employers can keep their costs down? Or should we pay our young people a decent wage for a day's work? Should we tell the employers that there is not an endless supply of cheap labour abroad and that they will have to raise their wages in order to attract staff?

The people who leave their country & travel hundreds of miles to do those agricultural jobs I mentioned don't regard the work as being demeaning or the wages as poverty wages. They're not running houses & families or taking two week holidays normally, they're typically younger single people happy to live on site, work hard, play hard and put some cash away for the future. What's wrong with that?

The 'decency' is doing an honest job and getting paid a fair wage for doing it - you need to have a word with Bob Diamond and his ilk.

My interpretation of a 'decent living' is not necessarily monetary. The 'decency' is doing an honest job and getting paid a fair wage for doing it

Sorry but poverty wages are never noble and the minimum wage is a poverty wage, A decent wage should cover your reasonable household bills including housing and clothing, a two week holiday once a years and a reasonable amount of leisure costs.

My interpretation of a 'decent living' is not necessarily monetary. The 'decency' is doing an honest job and getting paid a fair wage for doing it - even if it's minimum wage and even if some extra help is required. When you've got employers in agricultural communities still having to pay extra to go via overseas agencies to find suitable staff despite there being many people locally who are unemployed, there has to be something wrong with that picture.

Chil as I said I have no time for those who can work and wont if a decent job is available.

Please tell me your interpretation of a "decent living"