‘Cost of Living’; a cunning plan?

[Isitmebut]

Mr Miliband has said ‘that the cost of living will define the NEXT General Election in 2015’.

Prior to the 2010 General Election when we were 2-year into what was to be called the ‘great recession’, I do not remember measures to address the cost of living other than a temporary cut in VAT by a few percent, which apparently was also meant to turn around the economy, boost Private Sector confidence/jobs, and help reduce the national debt.

And I cannot recall within the Labour 2010 manifesto plans to improve the cost of living within a general economic view of ‘cutting less, spending more, & raising taxes’, which clearly meant more government spending and imposing more business/personal taxation including the annual rise in Council Tax.

“Ed Balls says that the average British family is £974 worse off than in 2010”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/03/ed-balls-average-family-worse-off-2010

“Ed Balls tried on Thursday night to spike the coalition's guns on the eve of the increase in the personal tax allowance to £10,000 by releasing figures showing that the average family will be worse off by £974 a year by the time of next year's election.”

“As David Cameron hailed Britain's recovery from a "long, deep and difficult recession", the shadow chancellor accused the coalition of compounding the financial pressure on people with tax changes which have involved "giving with one hand but taking away much more with the other"

So when Mr Balls talks of how worse people are off in an average of the population, I’m unclear to what he would have done about the ‘cost of living crisis’ post May 2010, or what a Labour government would do post May 2015.

But lets remind ourselves of what a recession usually means, and try and work out why ‘the great recession’ that began sharply in 2007/8 wiping close to 7% of our national output (more than virtually any other country at the time), could have negatively impacted our cost of living situation up until now.

“Period of general economic decline, defined usually as a contraction in the GDP for six months (two consecutive quarters) or longer. Marked by high unemployment, stagnant wages, and fall in retail sales, a recession generally does not last longer than one year and is much milder than a depression"

www.businessdictionary.com/definition/recession.html

So my question is, without any cunning plan I could see back in 2010 - and the freezing energy prices since – how would a Labour government have REDUCED our cost of living pressures from 2010 to 2015, when they told us they would tax more than the other parties, who were ‘to cut’ more instead?

Isitmebut does anyone else know?

[Isitmebut]

Labour’s Minimum Wage Link will affect the recovery/jobs.

“Minimum wage hike could be coming to Britain”

www.cnbc.com/id/101684423

“Britain's opposition Labour party will pledge to raise the statutory minimum wage if it wins the next election, as the wages of economies' lowest paid workers make headlines worldwide”.

“Labour party leader Ed Milliband will announce plans to increase the minimum wage over the course of the next parliament by linking it to the UK's average earnings.”

“The minimum wage in Britain is currently £6.31 ($10.62) an hour, and is due to rise to £6.50 in October. It is set by the Low Pay Commission, an independent government body.”

“Labour has not revealed what it would raise the minimum wage to, saying the exact amount would be announced closer to the next general election in May 2015.”

“In the U.S., President Barack Obama is trying to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour.” Funny old world.


Whether a business is small, medium, or large, it has to plan/budget ahead, the largest several years, looking to invest new money domestically, overseas - or even relocate existing businesses to business friend countries in order to compete in terms of Productivity, in a global market place where the cost of doing business can determine if a profit is made, or even a company’s medium to long term survival.
www.investopedia.com/terms/p/productivity.asp


Wages are a major component of Productivity, so how can ANY blanket national formula work that ties in a national wage average of ALL business sectors, with lower profit/profit margin sectors, where trying to ‘keep up’ with a national wage structure will either make them shed staff, or go out of business.

As the UK recovery gathered pace, IMO the economy could initially have a dangerous UPWARD SPIRAL of the BoE raising interest our Base Rate to contain inflation, and minimum pay rates continuing to rise along with the economy - which will both become wage growth inflationary and counter economic growth as UK businesses become less Productive – resulting in a kind of self induced ‘norm’ of Stagflation (flat economy with high inflation) affecting people's spending power.

What with populist rent controls that could smother the Private Rental market when we need it most;
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1977704-UK-Interest-Mortgage-Rates-WHO-S-in-control?pg=1

And an ‘energy price freeze’ when Energy Minister Miliband left the Uk in a dire nuclear energy situation, totally reliant on the Private Sector to invest in the UK, to stop our lights going off within years;
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/1983467-UK-Energy-Policy-Price-scandal-outages-due

Miliband’s attempts at unworkable State controls, to curb the effects of a SEVERE recession plus the home and energy shortages that are all of their own making, may be populist vote winners that resonate on the doorstep – but they send major alarm signals to business (and landlords) of the negative conditions to expect from 2015 under a Labour administration.

I would therefore not be surprised if on the continuing weight of planned State interference businesses hold back on the further investing and creating of new jobs in Britain - AND put in place contingency plans to scale back the size and employment numbers of their current businesses - until after the 2015 General Election.

In 2015, the UK will still have a large annual Budget deficit and therefore accumulating National Debt; Mr Miliband’s ‘cost of living offers’ may not DIRECTLY increase them via state spending, but as the UK needs sustainable economic growth and/or much higher taxes TO PAY THEM OFF continual threats of State intervention that look good in electoral pamphlets but will kill off investment, is economic madness.

[Isitmebut]

Re today’s ‘cost of living’ issue and the State controls answers Mr Miliband is still flogging, I wonder what he’d like to say to those workers on Private Pensions Labour ‘raided’, struggling on incomes to cover their ‘cost of dieing’?

Never mind the often derisory annual increases Labour/Brown gave State Pensioners, Labour’s policies have produced a massive pension inequality between the Public and Private Sector workers, starting back in 1997 in his very first Budget, that 17-years later, would have severely impacted their ‘cost of living’ from whatever pension provisions the Private Sector had – and no doubt PUT UP the cost to the taxpayer of funding Public Sector pensions, Final Salary in particular..

When Labour came to power in 1997, they made three ‘raids’ not in their manifesto; they sold nearly half our gold at a 20-year low price, hiked up Housing Stamp Duty from a flat 1% rate, and took away pensions dividend tax relief, Brown was warned not to do as it might kill Private Sector Company pensions, especially Final Salary..

“The man who stole your old age: How Gordon Brown secretly imposed a ruinous tax that has wrecked the retirements of millions”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266662/The-man-stole-old-age-How-Gordon-Brown-secretly-imposed-ruinous-tax-wrecked-retirements-millions.html

To-date, according to the OBR that ‘raid’ has saved the UK Exchequer around £118 billion, but the cost to Private Pensions (that back in 1997 were the best funded in Europe), that both lost that tax relief AND accrued performance from the investments, at a modest rate, is over £250 billion. Private Pensions were not just for wealthy people, they were for everyone, especially those working for companies that looked to give THEIR workers a similar pension to most State workers.

• But since 1997, the number of Private Sector workers with a defined benefit pension has collapsed from 5million to 1.7million.
  

• And in 1997, 34 per cent of staff at Private Sector firms were in a final salary – or defined benefit – scheme. By 2012, this had slumped to just 8 per cent – just one in 12.
  

In a double-whammy to those that have lost their Final Salary pensions, for those companies managing the liabilities that provide the Public Sector Final Salary schemes (and remembering that Labour hired around 1 million new Public Sector workers in 13-years to around 6.1 million), that same dividend relief raid means it now takes MORE taxpayer funds to GUARANTEE those schemes payouts.

And as the majority of the £1.2 trillion Public Sector Pension liability (that comes out of annual government budgets when fall due) is unfunded, it is another big ‘Prudence’ Brown expenditure time bomb he left, along with Private Finance Initiative Schemes, annually out of NHS and our Education budgets for decades to come.
www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities

If I understand correctly, the Local Authority pension fund is separate and that is where just over 22% of your Council Tax goes to fund – and this will give you some idea why Council Tax under Labour went up over 110% in 13-years – arguably(?) so much fairer than the Poll Tax Labour politicians used to march against, yet is now a current Labour high ‘cost of living’, of just being in a home

“Revealed: Labour's crazy town hall 'non-jobs', including the walking co-ordinator on £32,000-a-year and the roller disco coach.”

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

[Isitmebut]

Labour to kill the private rented sector?

As a part of Mr Miliband’s attempts to alleviate the ‘cost of living’ and other consequences of their previous administration - with a housing market with a huge ‘supply’ problem and a UK Base Rate shortly to rise from it’s lowest level ever since 1694 when the BoE was founded – Labour from 2015 would “cap rent increase” and scrap rental charges.

So on top of the threats to the largest Home Builders on ‘profits’ regaining confidence/profits after the losses through the great recession, Miliband now wants to discourage the Private Rental market and those that run checks/manage a BTL on behalf of landlords.

“Annual rent-increase cap proposed by Labour”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27225421

“A future Labour government would cap rent increases in the private sector and scrap letting fees to estate agents to give a "fairer deal" to tenants.”

“Ed Miliband will pledge to end "excessive" rent rises when he launches his party's campaign for local council and European elections.”
“An "upper limit" on rises will be put in place based on average market rates.”

“The Labour leader will also call for longer, securer tenancies and rental charges of up to £500 to be axed.”

“The Conservatives said evidence from other countries suggested rent controls lead to "poorer quality accommodation, fewer homes being rented and ultimately higher rents".

Until we start building more homes annually than the roughly 115,000 average over the last 20-years, whether social or not, this country has to rely on the private rental market to provide to homes to those that cannot, or will not buy, as in the rest of Europe – so to put fear of big government regulating after 2015, when our Mortgage/funding levels could be trending upwards can only discourage the builders, the investors and the agents NOW projecting forward is politically irresponsible at best.

The problems of renting abuses have to be addressed, but the fundamental facts are that THE PRICE of a home and INTEREST RATE FUNDING cost are key to the viability of private renting, so if big government wants to impose their own formulas on landlords, they will just sell, reducing the stock of properties to rent.

The ‘benefit’ of such ideological head-up-bottom attacks on the home market and professional and private participants COULD have a good short term affect on prices, as the housing market absorbs the private landlord sales, but hardly ‘joined up thinking’ when addressing our population growth and THEIR housing shortage during ‘a decade of plenty’ as detailed by Shelter.
england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis_landing/the_housing_crisis

[Isitmebut]

Channel changing last night I caught a minute of Labour’s P.Political negative campaigning broadcast that was such bad propaganda, in ‘the cost of living’ crisis message (that began several years ago and they have no answer to solving), they are STILL quoting that ‘average families are £1,600 worse off’, when even Mr Balls math at the beginning of this thread estimates £974 from 2010 – before the tax rises they told us about, but didn’t detail.

The last figure the Daily Politics had was £400 as the wealthiest hit for several thousand skewed the average – so if they want to keep any semblance of credibility on the effects of a recession, never mind The Great Recession started on their watch – as a political party they should at least agree on a figure,whether its wrong or not.

[oopsadaisyme]

isit dont really need you to say anything, Nigel Fararge gaining his own status, and there is a majority in this country (us 'underclass' skint and fed up of bullshit folk) who watch alot of tele, and saw the debate, the documentary, etc) - even 'gogglebox'! All of which painted him in quite a good like -

UKIP, party politics aside, people vote popular, Boris Johnson proved that, watch the power of media, everyone knows his name now, and everyone talking about him -

I couldn't tell you the name of the leader of the liberal party, but we all talking bout Nigel Farage -

[Isitmebut]

Oopsadaisyme…..sorry, what do you want us to say, Ukip have one European policy ‘to leave the EU’ that they cannot deliver themselves and after 20-years they do not have a manifesto of domestic policies to stand on - as Farage rubbished the 2010 ones as “drivel” – so they ain’t got any policies, you don’t care about policies, GOT IT.

news.sky.com/story/1200525/nigel-farage-disowns-ukip-manifesto-as-drivel
"UKIP leader Nigel Farage has disowned the party's entire general election manifesto - which he helped launch - branding it "drivel”.


But in the real world where either the Conservative Party or (more likely) a Labour Party is guaranteed to form the next government in 2015 and one has a history of hiking everyones taxes more than the other…..there isn't the choice of a wasted vote.

It will be interesting when Ukip publish their 2015 manifesto, as can’t be all things to all parties, I wonder if they’ll keep the one level 32p Flat Rate of Income Tax and National Insurance the lower paid voted for in 2010 (see manifesto in the BBc link below)– when it was meant for the rich.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617187.stm

And you won't find that manifesto anywhere else on the internet as...

"UKIP spokesman Michael Heaver confirmed that the party’s 2010 election manifesto had been removed. While the party now opposes the planned high-speed north-south rail line, the 2010 document advocated building three new routes. “We’re in the process of updating everything,” Heaver said by telephone.”

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/u-k-parties-prepare-for-2015-by-erasing-web-histories.html

[Isitmebut]

Re ‘the cost of living crisis’, THERE IS NO SHORTCUT, especially in a relatively high inflation economy like ours - other than through Private Sector growth and productivity = more jobs = a tighter labour market = higher salaries – unless you raise taxes from businesses, which is self defeating as they end up cutting jobs to pay for it – and Labour are clueless how to boost the Private Sector, they only know how to tax it.

So how you DON’T create jobs is keep raising National Insurance levels, as that is a tax on jobs – ask Mr Darling, or Mr Osborne that reversed them, and gave more NI cuts help to small businesses and soon to hire young workers.

2009/10; “Labour’s plans to increase national insurance next year will cost jobs, Alistair Darling has said.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7539343/Labours-planned-National-Insurance-increase-will-cost-jobs-Alistair-Darling-admits.html

“In his evidence, Mr Darling defended his plans to increase national insurance, saying it was necessary to raise extra money to reduce Government borrowing, which will be £167 billion this year.”


And over 4-years later, they still haven’t learned their lesson, looking to plug fund NHS funding gaps mainly caused by Labour’s Private Funding Initiative pressures on Hospital Trusts annual budgets for decades to come, WITH THOUGHTS of a another job tax’ plus resurrecting Labour’s preferred Death Tax of 10-15% of ones estate?

“Labour considers raising national insurance to fix £30bn NHS 'black hole"

“Drastic action needed to keep NHS in anything like its current form, says former minister Frank Field, as elderly care costs rise”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/19/labour-national-insurance-nhs?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position2

Typical, they don’t ever consider alternatives/reforms to their own bad policies, just new taxes to compensate for them.

[oopsadaisyme]

My god, this is 'mumsnet', and all this politics in official argument???

Hello. little person here, we gonna vote at the end of the day, but not for this-

UKIP going to have a field day come 2015 -

[Isitmebut]

JassyRadlett....Re Labour's 2010 manifesto, please tell me what plans Brown YOU SAW to boost the economy via the Private Sector, as I saw none other than form large regional quangos.

So then it's down to core socialist ideology, which is so similar to France, after you lectures on my knowledge, you have now not only been rumbled, but lost all credibility with me.

Labour's disastrous economic and social legacy means there will be no 'clean slate' for them, no matter how much the old and new spin doctors try - of which you are clearly one.

“How Francois Hollande changed but Ed Miliband stayed the same.”
www.trendingcentral.com/francois-hollande-changed-ed-miliband-stayed/

“Back in the summer of 2012, Ed Miliband was exalting his new hero across the channel, French president François Hollande. The Labour leader could not have been more generous in his praise for his opposite number in the French Socialist Party:”

Miliband: “What President Hollande is seeking to do in France and what he is seeking to do in leading the debate in Europe is find that different way forward. We are in agreement in seeking that new way that needs to be found and I think can be found.”

“The man Miliband pledged an ideological allegiance to was the François Hollande of old. Two years ago the new French president was naively idealistic; stubborn in his belief that big government, high spending, more borrowing and punitive taxes on the rich was the path to economic recovery. He was a nice man, but meek, bookish, a nerd. It is not difficult to see why Miliband liked the idea of emulating the politician who was, essentially, a baguette-brandishing Ed.”

“In the two years that followed Hollande changed, but Miliband didn’t. France was brought almost to its knees as unemployment hit a 16-year high and Hollande’s approval rating reached a record low for a French president. As the rest of western Europe slowly began to recover, it was the one country that had chosen a socialist route that stagnated. Ferraris queued up at the French-Swiss border as wealth creators tried to flee their nation’s new debilitating tax rates.”

“And so, at the beginning of this year, Hollande changed. Out with the old failing mantra of the state, in with significant cuts to public spending. Out with the old tax the successful regardless of what it does to the economy dogma, in with generous tax cuts to businesses. No longer does Hollande want to be called a ‘socialist’; he is now a pragmatic ‘social democrat’. His critics on the left call it a ‘lurch to the right’.”

“Presented with first-hand evidence of how such policies have ruined a neighbouring country’s economy, Miliband is telling voters that he will do exactly the same thing if they give him a chance. The very same policies undertaken by the old Hollande, which the new Hollande now rejects, are being embraced with vigour by Labour’s leader back home.”

“Unlike Hollande, Miliband is not going to waver from his dogmatic ideals no matter the consequences for his country. Unlike Hollande, Miliband will never be pictured in a motorcycle helmet on the front page of a tabloid with a bodyguard delivering him and his mistress a bacon sarnie. If he wins in 2015, we only have to look across the channel to see what will happen. Don’t say you weren’t warned.”

In conclusion this is proof a Labour 5-year UK anti austerity programme would have been an economic and social disaster, resulting in much higher interest rates to satisfy our institutional deficit funders and a significantly higher National Debt to pass on to our grandchildren than the likely £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) in 2015

[oopsadaisyme]

With respect, everyone I know doesn't care one bit about manifesto or economy - we're just skint, and worse off now than ever -

Everyone I talk to looking to Nigel Farage right now - weather they agree or even understand his politics or even that of the UKIP party, he's standing out as a leader who at least has something to say!

Frightening - but people warming to him very much -

Boris Johnson syndrome, popularity and confidence will win alot of votes, watch

[JassyRadlett]

Well, Labour's 2010 manifesto and Hollande's economic plan weren't identical, or even close, so that's a false argument.

What I'm saying is that of course all political parties will say things would have been better under them an no one has a crystal ball to know how our economy would have responded particularly in a time of dramatic contraction in our key export market. I've heard compelling arguments either way. Which is why I'm less interested in blame than at looking forward at what might work best in the future based on current circumstances and evidence. I think that's a key point where you and I differ.

[Isitmebut]

JassyRadlett...I will get back to you on many of the issues, you have brought up, but just a few points I'd like to make in the meantime;

Firstly in a democracy 'what Labour has a right to do' re being better off under them; of course they do, but as they did not have a clue how to stimulate the Private Sector - and even budgeted for National Insurance (jobs tax) and Fuel Duty hikes after the election, it is safe to say we wouldn't be, having under Labour followed France's failed economic model.

Oh and it would help if they got the 'worse off' figures right, as I hear some Labour MPs say £1,600 and here Mr Balls says £975, whereas The Daily Politics point out the fact the rich are around £6k worse off, it makes the average worse - and 'most' families governments are concerned about are £400 worse of in the greatest recession since the 1930's.


Next re your last paragragh, whose record is this, Labour's in 13-years, when our population increased by 2.5million people and BTL ballooned after mortgage lending exploded after 1997 - where was the "control"? We needed more homes as Brown's Barker report told him, not experts in red tape and regulations.

"However a government that built a million homes, including on the green belt, controlled buy to let and increased regulation on landlords may well find reelection a tricky prospect."


Finally, here is the only post I believe we have 'debated' prior to this - and it ended in a disagreement over what governments control in a domestic economy - so feel free to finish it as it wasn't me who went MIA, which I found 'frustrating'
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2045534-Labour-to-ban-external-working-MP-s?pg=2

[JassyRadlett]

Honestly, I didn't stomp. I got bored of you not answering people's direct questions, so disengaged. When you first appeared, I thought, great, interesting points of view but I became increasingly frustrated at the way you interact - or not - with others to the point where once or twice I wondered if you were actually a Labour stooge. I'm being honest here - I've seen poster after poster try to debate issues with you or point out flaws in your argument but you can't seem to ever accept your argument may be flawed. Given that this area is massively complicated and absolutely nothing is certain, even the world's foremost experts have nothing more than theory and experience and they are all certainly sometimes wrong. Even you.

On the cost of living issue? I think if anyone had had all the answers on this in 2010 it would have been in manifestos, but it certainly wasn't the totemic issue then that it has become four years later - in 2010 it was all about competing plans for economic restructuring, which were basically austerity-lite vs austerity-medium.

I'm not a member of the Labour party, but they are within their rights to say that people would be better off today under a Labour government, just as the Coalition will say that people are better off as a result of their policies. No one can pull a Sliding Doors to determine whose plan would have been working better at this point, and certainly at the election and beyond economists were lining up to back each approach and criticise the other. None of us know - it's as simple as that.

I do think both VAT cut and base tax rate increases (obviously brought in by governments of different colours) were probably among the best ways to drive a consumption- and services-based economy and certainly better than the stimulus giveaways tried in other economies where people used the lump sims to pay down debt rather than consume more. Improving the economy and controlling inflation are, to me, key to tackling cost of living issues. Low inflation and sustainable consumption drive sustainable wage growth. There is no question that consumption suffered a serious hit as a result of the recession, the question for me is whether with different drivers (including public rhetoric which didn't match actuals - ie politicians talked people into thinking they were experiencing terrible austerity when some weren't hit nearly as badly as they thought) it would have rebounded sooner.

Housing costs are a side and somewhat separate issue that need to be dealt with by policy levers - and successive governments have in my view failed to tackle this leading to problems not just with housing costs but with the cost of eg childcare where premises make up a large proportion of the cost.

However a government that built a million homes, including on the green belt, controlled buy to let and increased regulation on landlords may well find reelection a tricky prospect.

[Isitmebut]

JassyRadlett….I’m sorry, but I disagree with everything you have said.

Taking your points one-by-one, my ‘expertise’ or what I’d call opinions, comes from near 60-years of life, following economics and global politics for about 35-year of them - and as I like facts rather than just accept often ignorant populist and political rhetoric – I like to share them with others via links etc, as hopefully it broadens posters minds.

As to ‘engaging with others’, I have no idea what you are talking about, as on the Political Board, I’m constantly engaging with others and probably have around seven threads on the go as we write. You accused me of that on a post a few weeks back when I widened the debate ON THE SUBJECT, you didn’t politically like where it was going, so threw a hissy fit and stomped off. If you want me to post the links where I am actively involved in debates, let me know.

As to “root causes” I’m all for that via policies of both sides in a ‘cause and effect’ timeline rather than get bogged down in tedious micro issues e.g. why we have a major problem, rather than why some individual is not getting the welfare/benefits they are due, so tend to avoid them UNLESS the blame is going over the top e.g. ‘Conservatives exist to punish the poor’, which I find widespread on these boards, which I believe is inaccurate, offensive, and stupid ideological rhetoric.

So if you are correctly looking for political ‘balance’ on these boards to appeal to a wider reader base, as I’ve already encountered posters coming out of the woodwork saying they hardly read/post on Mumsnet anymore due to the vindictive reaction they have had from Labour supporting posters, I’m happy to help add that balance.

And FYI I have similar ‘debates’ with Ukip posters, so I’ll scrutinise anyones policies full of smoke and mirrors, including Conservative if seen/asked.

BTW do you have a view on this subject; how could Labour have given everyone an above inflation salary and who was going to pay for it, as Labour’s new guru David Axelrod mentions it again as a key Labour platform/policy for 2015?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2057186-Labour-signs-up-Obama-s-Axelrod-No-We-Can-t

[JassyRadlett]

I'm simply suggesting that, since you are setting yourself up as an expert over and above all other views, and refusing to engage with other ideas about economics and politics including from those who think both political parties have made economic errors (which is frankly more credible and likely), then there are ways you can improve your own credibility as an expert.

I've seen this pattern of behaviour from you on numerous threads so I see little merit in trying to debate issues with you as you have no real interest in actually debating the root causes and effects of issues rather than Labour-bashing, which is tedious.

[Isitmebut]

JassyRadlett…”mentally lazy”, “willing to argue the issue”,” your credibility”, “spelling”. Hmmm.

With respect, may I suggest that you worry about your own subject input rather than mine, as I wasn’t aware that spelling is a condition of this board - but I find often used as a cheap shot by posters who don’t like what you are saying, but have no answers of their own to put forward.

Furthermore I am willing to argue/debate my the accuracy points with anyone, especially as often qualified with links – I find it beats mindless opinions that would be labelled political propaganda if not for it’s ‘colour’.

And on that subject may I suggest you remind yourself of the subject of the thread, as the ‘cost of living’ crisis has been mentioned time and time again by Ed Miliband and he says that it will continue up until the 2015 General Election and I have a questioning mind.

So as Mr Miliband appears to have a solution to ‘the cost of living crisis’, is it so unreasonable to ask what Labour would have done differently for a problem that has continually lasted at least 6-years and a few years before that e.g. 5% UK inflation around the financial crash???

[JassyRadlett]

As ever, your ideas of economic causation/correlation are interesting and I do always enjoy your analysis of what is down to global influence/events and what is directly attributable to UK government policy. I've mentioned to you before how mentally lazy it is to respond to any criticism of political decisions or affiliations you support with 'but Labour were worse' without being willing to argue the issues on their own merits.

So all I have to add is that your credibility would be enhanced if you were to spell the Chancellor's name corectly.

[Isitmebut]

Custardo…I have no idea what the above has to do with the subject of the post, but if there is an ethics angle, I list all Labour’s doners e.g Private Equity managers and wonder why Brown lowered Capital gains tax to a tapered low of 10% if not for City folk - and why other got government contracts or a peerage for cash, investigated by the police.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2055494-DWP-Block-Report-To-Cover-Up-Work-Programme-Shambles

But back to the question, how was Labour going to ensure everyone was paid salaries over inflation, that’s all he has talked about and is Milibands main policy, someone must have an answer – get Mr Balls or the bright Mr ttosca on the case.

[Custardo]

Philip Harris is the founder of Carpetright and has an estimated fortune of £285 million. He has donated nearly half an million pounds to the Tories.

Harris has been handed the property deeds of millions of pounds worth of state schools, for free. Harris Academies

Once these state schools are converted into academies, they are still taxpayer funded, but this funding is now topsliced by Harris directors who award themselves ridiculously inflated salaries.

The director of the Harris Federation £317,000 plus pension contributions in 2012, with a further five individuals at the pseudo-charity earning in excess of £140,000.

[Custardo]

Adrian Beecroft has donated over half a million pounds to the Tories since 2005. Beecroft is the head of the private equity group that administers Wonga

[Custardo]

lets introduce workfare so my chums who own multibationals (and donate to my party) can get workers and not pay them haa ha haa haa haa haaaaa, oh lets make it better than that, if you take one of those umemployed bollockses, not only will you not pay THEM anything, we ( cough i mean the taxpayer) will pay YOU for being so generous to my party so willing

[Custardo]

and policy decisions specifically specifically to line the pockets of those who contribute to the conservative party

look at the fucking bullshit acadamies named after and run by people who donate to the tories

bankers getting away with everything

EVERYTHING, big fucking bonuses for those who fail - what the ACT~ UAL fuck?

we are all in this together are we

are we fuck

[Custardo]

look, i doubt whether either asshat party could do anything really.

what is objectionable is all parties taking advantage of the expenses system
buying champers on my money whilst there is another rise in foodbanks in the country

and then keep on telling us that 'we're all in this together' and it is utter bullshit

what is objectionable is jobs for the boys and jobs for my mates from uni, paying wives, sisters, brother to be a pretend 'secretary' on taxpayers money whilst people go hungry or are charged extra for something fictionally called a spare room, brought about by successive governments inability to invest in social housing for the poor - not caused becuae poor people suddenly have big fucking houses.

it's unjust. It's unfair. it's disgraceful that people are committing suicide becuase they can no longer cope

[Isitmebut]

BTW This was Labours key policy, how comes it seems that no one in the Labour Party, their apparatchiks, or their apologists (like you) who keep repeating the electoral opportunist lie, KNOWS THE ACTUAL ANSWER?

[Isitmebut]

ttosca...re your post you didn't answer my question.

HOW WOULD LABOUR have increased everyones wages OVER inflation, when unemployment under them would have gone higher and so would interest rates and the National Debt - so no room for tax cuts to take the lower paid out of tax by increasing the tax start threshold to £10,500??