Miliband STILL surprised about the ‘cost of living’ crisis?

[Isitmebut]

Isitmebut …for those politicians with Economics degrees, it does not seem money or time well spent if they didn’t ‘get’ that after ANY recession - never mind the worse recession for 80-years and previous migrant policies that meant 2 million new citizens LOWERED the wage rates for lower paid BEFORE the financial crisis of their making – that it ALWAYS takes years for businesses & therefore wages to recover.

Recessions, especially big stonking ones, are called recessions, for a reason. D’ah.

Mr Miliband & his financial guru Mr Balls have a nice P.P.E degree that includes E.conomics AND they were in government when they reversed the lower band income tax rate band, increased council taxes over 13-years by over 100% (for what?) and over those same 13-years saw the oil price rise from around $20, to just under $150 a barrel, without lifting a finger to help the population on THOSE cost of living rises.

Trying to control electricity prices when he didn’t build a single nuclear reactor in power, so we will have power ‘outages’ at the next big winter, can not work. Splitting banks to boost lending when we have far less of them since 2008, is another gimmick.

According to BBC figures, the UK had 580,000 under 24-year old unemployed in 2004, a rise to 711,000 by the crash, and handed over 921,000 to the coalition in 2010; spot the trend on a 'big picture' problem?

If he had any real ideas how to solve our core problems, how did that happen during the boom decade to 2007, that won’t get worse under them, without any money left?

Fiddling here and there, like moving deck chairs on the Titanic, won't solve the problems he left, IMO.

TheGreatHunt - Surely the best way to discredit the Taxpayers Alliance is by authoritatively questioning their findings?

Generally speaking, based on the evidence over several years, of huge increases in government employee number and sums of money they spend, with that fact in mind, is it a stretch to believe that their findings are based on their founders political affiliations, rather than serious concerns – and would anyone with strong Labour Party affiliations, ever held their own party to account for overspending and bad spending – including news papers like the Guardian?

Here we have the Daily Mail looking at tens of thousands of new dubious local government jobs/spending, so did these adverts and hiring happen, or were THEY made up along with the near 1,000 Quangos mentioned earlier?

• ‘Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat, Policy & Research official’ on £37,543 via Manchester City Council? Or
• ‘Assistant Director Supporting Communities’ on £90,000 via Liverpool City Council? Or
• ‘Climate Change Officer’ on £38,585 via Braintree Essex Council?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

The fact is, if Council Tax went up over 110% in 13-years under Labour, doesn’t the taxpayer need to know if their taxes are being wasted?

So Labour was never going to account for itself and why should it? ‘The people’ were told by Brown, that as he ran the “prudent” government, via a mantra at every opportunity - and that he would only borrow to ‘invest’ - and was getting huge public support to do so, with parliamentary seat majorities of well over 100 seats.

But as Brown’s “investments” were in UNSUSTAINABLE 100% taxpayer funded big ,fat, government , was neither here nor ideologically there, to them – and as that ‘cut less, tax more’ theory was the Ed Balls economic model from 2010, THANK GOD they were not re-elected in 2010 as heaven knows where our debt levels would be now.

Around 2004 when the Taxpayers Alliance was formed to expose the waste of taxpayers money, Labour didn’t want to answer any questions on immigration either; remember anyone questioning Labour’s immigration policy was called ‘racist’ and the BBC has since admitted purposely covering up the subject?

But don’t take my word for it, the BBC has already apologised for their ‘liberal’ coverage (by like minded presenters and production staff) of both the dangers of the E.U. and migration into this country, which COULD have made a huge difference to the outcome of previous elections after 2004.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354713/BBC-chief-admits-We-deep-liberal-bias-migrants--changed.html

www.thecommentator.com/article/1953/exclusive_bbc_left_wing_political_bias_illustrated_through_uk_political_funding_revelations

Peter Mandelson has since admitted mass immigration was planned by Labour a few years before, as has ex government aid Andrew Neather, who intimated that their new multicultural society, where the lower paid economic migrants tend to vote for socialist political parties, this was a covert electoral strategy to increase their votes in regions that their vote was historically weak.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

In conclusion, whether it is the Taxpayers Alliance or not, ALL governments need to be held to account on THEIR policies, especially if the State news agency is colluding with them and some newspaper think that ANY spending/debt, is GOOD spending and debt

TheGreatHunt…sorry I didn’t see your last post as I hadn’t flipped over to page 2.

I’m new here, but two things make me laugh, the socialist view that whether it was 1979 or 2010, that Labour left this perfectly functioning economy, with no national debts, and that there was ANY, repeat ANY, chance of carrying on as before, without serious long term policies – and the other being those spouting socialist mantras, don’t OWN UP to how they vote, yet always blame the Tories for Labour’s near criminal actions in government, pathetic.

Labours Private Finance Initiative spending splurge (as detailed on my previous post) was initially OFF UK BALANCE SHEET, like some dodgy hedge fund, so was not seen on the national debt figures to be HELD accountable – hence THE POINT of someone like the TaxPayers Alliance exposing ANY bad governance.

Manufacturing in the 1970’s fell from around 29% of our economy to around 22%, WHEN THERE WAS LITTLE ELSE, so when Wilson gave the miners (if memory serves) a 30% pay rise, to a manufacturing industry reeling under an economic price/earnings spiral, no matter how much they deserves it, what was THAT going to do to manufacturing (and the peoples) fuel costs, if they and the power stations didn’t import coal from the likes of Poland, where it was FAR cheaper?

So for most of our industry whether fully taxpayer funded or not, was inefficient, too expensive to consumers – so was losing in competitive markets, well before Thatcher came to power, with huge penal tax rates to business and the people, hanging on to a lost cause.

Now YOU tell me how with Labour inheriting a decent growing economy in 1997, that THEY can lose over 1 million manufacturing jobs in the 8-years BEFORE the crash, as most of the Labour politicians back then, ARE STILL IN PLACE, and lost over 1.4 million manufacturing jobs in total.

Under the Tories manufacturing remained at around 22% of our economy from 1979 to 1997, as NEW less employee intensive industries were formed in the UK, and the Trade Unions moved their attention to the Public Sector – which as they supply around 90% of Labour Party funding, it EXPLAINS why our manufacturing was left to decline to 11% of our economy - and much the big, expensive, wasteful State, could NEVER have addressed by Labour WITHOUT a dose of coalition reality.

The Labour administration will be known as ‘The Rotten Parliament’, as this MP expenses, cash for Lords, hidden policies administration, took over a lean functioning State getting close to balancing the country finances, and they had the best decade to improve society on all levels, but left the country in an unbalanced financial mess – yet you still blame the Conservatives?

Tribal politics are a fact of life, but when are the people and the politicians that CAUSED the mess, going to accept responsibility for problems caused on THEIR watch – rather that pretend that the coalition caused, rather than is trying to fix, Labour’s problems?

TheGreatHunt

Well then you're a bit naive. Of course it matters, especially coming from a group like the TPA.

So if the same research came from a group whose politics you approved of, you would consider it high quality.

I'm not the naif here.

I have never ever seen posts with such variegated formatting for emphasis on mumsnet. It reads like one of those adverts headlined "The truth about Britain's finances they don't want you to know and what you can do to protect your family's money!!!"

Does the echoes in the chamber sound different this way, I wonder?

H.H.M.G….I've read your post a few times and I’m not quite clear if you are thanking me for being different, or not lol.

Briefly and without variegation, my first impression is that posters on here have very strong views and whether they are trying to misinform in purpose or not, their posts (and mine) can get very long, especially if posters repeat what the previous poster had written before answering it – so in highlighting various paragraphs, it both shortens the length of the post and may help those interested in the subject (but have a life), to speed read.

As for your impression on what I’m trying to say; are YOU saying that posters here would rather NOT know the truth why the country is in so much trouble, why it must not be repeated so their grandchildren’s children are not still paying off the debt , or indeed be concerned about their own family money e.g. influences Fixed Rate Mortgages?

I didn't say that flatpack.

If the research comes from independent bodies, independently funded then I will give it more credit.

However not the TPA who have been known to be a bit "shoddy" with their data.

Would you believe any data from a left leaning equivalent to the TPA flatpack...?

I bet you wouldn't.

I think I'm saying that claims of "the truth" in relation to tricky economics questions are an excellent signal that confirmation bias lies ahead.

TheGreatHunt

I didn't say that flatpack.

If the research comes from independent bodies, independently funded then I will give it more credit.

What is 'independently funded'? Do you mean 'taxpayer funded'? How is that independent in any way?

However not the TPA who have been known to be a bit "shoddy" with their data.

I'm sure you can back that vague smear up.

Would you believe any data from a left leaning equivalent to the TPA flatpack...?

I bet you wouldn't.

I would certainly scrutinise it more closely than I might data from a group who share my political ideology. But I can and do change my mind when presented with cogent arguments from my political opponents.

I would certainly scrutinise it more closely than I might data from a group who share my political ideology why? Surely scrutinise them both.

There are plenty of taxpayer funded independent organisations - by independent, I mean politically independent, as their money is not directed by hm treasury.

Google the TPA. Subject them to the same sort of scrutiny that you would a leftie organisation. Don't get me to do your work for you.

TheGreatHunt

why? Surely scrutinise them both.

It's a natural reaction to agree with stuff from people who share a similar ideology to you. It's certainly a step up from your stance, where you totally disregard something produced by people who you disagree with, and try to make up fantasy scare stories about them. You don't even bother to scrutinise, merely disregarding with a wave of the leftist hand, safe in the knowledge that you're above mere research or knowledge because your cause is just.

There are plenty of taxpayer funded independent organisations - by independent, I mean politically independent, as their money is not directed by hm treasury.

What a curious definition of independence you do have.

Google the TPA. Subject them to the same sort of scrutiny hmm that you would a leftie organisation. Don't get me to do your work for you.

Ahh, the lazy get-out of the smearer. "I know the truth, but I'm not telling you." Thanks, but I won't waste my time since you clearly have no actual arguments.

And neither do you. In fact you've not convinced me that the TPA are that wonderful - you just blindly follow them whereas I've taken the time to find out a bit more about them. In fact you spend more time copy and pasting other people's posts than actually constructing decent arguments.

TheGreatHunt & flatpackhamster…IMO you are both going around in hamster wheel like circles as whether there WAS any dubious Taxpayers Alliance data (which if true, people could always challenge), the sheer size of the waste in taxpayers money from around 2003 onwards, VALIDATES their cause.

We are not talking small rounding errors in figures, we are talking about a huge unbalancing of the economy, wasting many tens of £billions every year – as proven by some of the links I provided earlier.

An economy does not go from borrowing £30-40 billion a year (it shouldn’t have been) to balance it’s books to borrowing over £150 billion a year, if the cost of the waste and fraud within the State and benefits was kept under control through the good years, and then pared back as soon a the economy got into trouble, from 2008 onwards.

HomeHelpMeGawd…regarding your last comment about “those claiming the truth in tricky economic questions” having bias – well I’d add to that blatant political lies counting on the peoples ignorance IF a political party denied responsibility to a problem they caused - and despicably claimed to the people that they screwed in so many ways, that THEY could somehow fix prices the current government could not.

So let me keep this simple and totally discredit Miliband’s claim on the source of the current earnings to prices problem, as if Miliband didn’t know that a recession is called a recession for a reason, with help of a non political speech from a qualified source via a BBC website I could provide, if the link to his speech is considered tricksy for some.

The former governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, described it as a "ferocious squeeze in the purchasing power of take-home pay".

"Since 2007, increases in VAT, import prices and energy prices have together pushed up the price level by as much as 15%, squeezing real wages. As a result, we have now experienced the longest period over which real wages have failed to rise since the 1920s," he said in a speech in January 2012.

The Bank of England has consistently said that it believes inflation will fall back to its 2% target. It is pinning its hopes on lower oil prices and import prices.

The Bank also points to the spare capacity in the economy - the people looking for work and unused factory space, for example - that can be brought into use as the economy begins to grow again without pushing up prices."

The 'cost of living crisis' was a great soundbite which people related to when things were going badly.

But there's two problems which will really undermine Labour's relentless focus on the 'cost of living crisis'

1. The economy is starting to grow again. Unemployment is coming down so overall people are starting to feel more confident. Yes perhaps they have less spending power now but people have gotten used to it and change their lives accordingly. Some may still be bitter about it but.....

2. Fundamentally people still do not trust that Labour could have done anything different over the last 4 years nor do they trust Miliband/Balls would do any better if elected.

So by the time the election comes, they'll be preaching a message that most voters won't care about. The main question voters want to know is who can be trusted more with the economy.

Unfortunately, as some politicians clearly realise, many of the people TAKE their political knowledge via soundbites without a second thought for the facts, as they are just looking at the here and now -and certain ‘issues’ like prices, incomes and class will always gain votes, whether through their intended policies, they so badly betrayed their own class or not.

So based on their record in power and the current blatant electoral lies, how could anyone explain Labour’s continual lead in the polls if that was not the case.

So based on their record in power and the current blatant electoral lies, how could anyone explain Labour’s continual lead in the polls if that was not the case.

Given the bleak economic picture over the last few years, the real question is why hasn't Labour's lead been more! I agree with you that many people take their political knowledge from soundbites and don't truly understand the economics behind it. Even so, their lead hasn't been massive and i read this morning that their lead is now only one point ahead of the Tories. Independent Article

The fear for Labour is that as the economy improves people will either forget about the last few years or give the coalition credit for turning the economy around. Basically Labour have a lot to lose and little to gain right now.

Agree with niceguy.
Facts: the economy is growing. Unemployment is falling.
(Ok, so the economy is growing because of zero hours contracts, bug employers paying little or no tax etc and unemployment is falling because the DWP are forcing people into unsuitable often part time work....)
Balls is a knob and does nothing for labours chances at the next election.
I do wonder if many labour supporters (And I include myself) just wrote off the next 5 years after ed was made party leader over david.
The Tories and lib dems must have thought all their birthdays had come at once!
I like ed milliband. But he is not party leader material.

But what a Choice!
Osborne vs balls....
Osborne is an elitist tosser who only cares about making the rich richer.
Balls doesn't seem to know what his policies are.

Yep as I've said before. The next election really comes down to the least worst choice rather than who is best.

I don't rate Osbourne very highly but Balls has that smug face I want to punch every time I see him on TV

I want to smack the smarmy smirk off both of them :(
With a sledge hammer :)

Isitme, confirmation bias does not mean what you think it means, based on how you responded to me. Wikipedia has a very serviceable explanation.

Labour have recently changed their soundbite message from 'The coalition recovery plan isnt working' to 'we have a cost of living crisis' because the economy is starting to improve. They bang on about this at every opportunity, regardless of the topic. It is a wearying, rather ameturish media response tactic.

They never thought recovery would happen and are totally unprepared for this. Milliband is out of his depth.

Anyone watch the thick of it? :)

Love it! Just like real life