Miliband; the cost of living and ‘choking on (stale) cornflakes’.

[Isitmebut]

When Cameron suggested to companies yesterday that based on the oil price fall they should look to pay better salaries, it didn’t sound right to my cereal bowl for several reasons; to begin with not every company benefits directly from cheaper oil, no company should increase fixed costs due to volatile commodity prices near recent price low, and as so close to a very uncertain election in May with god knows what tax rises after, I’d be currently considering how I could CUT fixed costs for the next 5-years.

But what really stuck in my porridge was the sheer hypocrisy of Mr Miliband criticising another leader, based on Labour’s record prior to 2010, and their abject failure since, TO TELL THE ELECTORATE EXACTLY HOW LABOUR WOULD GUARANTEE TO BOOST LIVING STANDARDS, apart from the tax cuts the Coalition have made so far.

For Miliband to accuse Cameron for not listen to ‘cost of living’ pressures, when he served in the last Labour administration and their financial/economic recession - and oversaw a 5% drop in ‘real’ earnings from 2007 to 2010, and answered that by TAKING AWAY the 10p income tax rate and RAISING National Insurance for workers and companies – is frankly dishonest, politics in the gutter.

Indeed for the past 5-years Labour’s two Ed’s have criticised the Coalitions economic plan from Day 1, initially scoffing at PMQT etc that Labour’s plan, similar to Mr Hollande’s in France, to pray the recovery comes soon and raise taxes to penal rates in the meantime – and the result are in, and France proves that for a UK with a far larger deficit than France, following the French plan, economically by now we would be in the merde, worse than the French.
www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/55561-141225-france-strikes-record-unemployment-high-again

Here is Labour’s 2010-205 economic plan,
“At-a-glance: Labour (2010) election manifesto”
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8615297.stm
• Secure the recovery by supporting the economy and halving the deficit by 2014 through growth, fair taxes and cuts to lower priority spending
• National Minimum Wage to rise in line with average earnings by the end of the next Parliament.
• Promise to keep business taxes "as low as possible"

In 2010 what did “fair taxes” actually mean when relative to Labour’s (then) £157 billion overspend, when their tax rises to the rich would raise what, £7 billion, £10 billion, what? Who gets hit next and sees their living standards reduced by the government?

In 2010 “keep business taxes as low as possible”, or other words, with businesses still reeling from the worst recession in over 80-years, a Labour government was going to RAISE the costs of them doing business, but also expecting them to hire a few million employees to replace those lost under them from 2008 and pay better salaries as well. What country has that incompetent economic planning ever worked?

How can anyone ever trust a Labour Party campaigning on the ‘cost of living crisis’, already falling under their watch, who’s last ‘help’ prior to the election was to PUT A TAX ON EMPLOYMENT, that cynically for damage limitation, was legislated to hit voters AFTER the general election they knew they’d lose?

“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.”

No published plans for the budget deficit in 2010 other than to raise taxes, and their 2015 manifesto has the same lack of detail, yet pretending you’ll be better off under Labour when all they know is to RAISE taxes for all.

So back to 'the kitchen table' and improving everyones 'real' earnings, Mr Miliband in Scotland a few days ago said Labour would make a difference, including;

• raising the minimum wage to more than £8 an hour
• banning the "exploitation" of zero hours contracts and "legislate to say that if you do regular hours you get a regular contract".
• freezing energy bills until 2017 so they can "only fall and cannot rise"
• reforming banks to ensure they "work for businesses again"
• taxing bank bonuses and "put young people back to work in every part of the UK"
• and raising the basic state pension

Forget the impracticality of guaranteeing most of these polices, with or without future Labour tax rises to the masses, how will these policies fulfill his intimated boast over the past 5-years, that under a Labour government in 2010 to 2015 there would not have seen a continuation of the fall in real earning for MOST citizens in the UK, due to the longest/deepest recession in the vast majority of citizens memory?

You're so tedious:

To summarise in your view it was the Conservative Thatcher’s ‘big bang’ around 30-years ago, and an opposition Conservative idea around 30-days BEFORE the financial crash, that ‘made Labour do it’ – how very lame and in total keeping with socialist anti Conservative misinformation for over 35-years – in total denial of their own policies, prior to a Conservative administration needing to fix the problems.

No, that's a totally incorrect summary.

It wasn't Thatcher's 'big bang'. It was 30 years of neo-liberalism and financial deregulation which started during the Thatcher-Reagan era which contributed to and allowed the financial crisis to occur.

All political parties, in the US, UK, and in the West which have carried out neo-liberal policies are partially responsible.

...and 'it' didn't 'make labour do [anything]', as Labour didn't 'make' the crash happen.

And there is no need to put 'BEFORE' in capital letters. Of course the years preceding the crash greatly contributed to it happening - how could it not?

Next your “Tories plan £14 bil of red tape cuts” link dated 12 August 2007,

Yes, that was precisely my point - that it was dated 2007. You try to blame the Labour government, but the proposed Tory programme highlights precisely the fact that all governments in the west have been in hoc to neo-liberal dogma for the past 30 years.

The Tories, whom receive almost 50% of their party funding from the City of London, would have deregulated faster and further, had they been in power.

”In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it's critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis.”

Yes, you &^£$"!. That's why I posted that information in the first place!

You seem to be incapable of looking at anything but through the lens of political partisanship; I'm not trying to blame the Tories OR Labour for the crash.

I'm saying that we have a massive political problem on our hands, and it's bigger than any of the political parties. All mainstream parties are now beholden to big businesses and big finance.

And we are headed for another crash!

And actually, those countries (including the UK), who have gone down the austerity route have prolonged and exacerbated their recessions.

Those countries which have gone down the Keynesian route (the US) have faired much better.

I get the feeling Tory HQ and Labour HQ are arguing amongst themselves..........on mumsnet!

Queenofknickers ... alas in nearly 60-years of life I have had nothing to do with the Conservative machine, other than deliver leaflets one General Election in a marginal seat - I even turned down foot soldier drinks/thanks at the Houses of Parliament afterwards - something I now regret seeing that recent documentary on the place.

But for years I have followed politics and economies here and abroad rather than read a novel, so like to cut through the political ball shit with FACTS, after all I and mine have to live here and life is tough, so I dislike political incompetence ADDING to it.

blacksunday ... if you are going to throw a wobbler if someone does not agree with your views e.g. the pre 'neo' good old days of the 1970's, when British Trade Unions got huge pay rises and British manufacturing names disappeared forever, then I suggest you STICK to the subject of the thread.

You only added more misinformation;

• The UK has outgrown the U.S. in 2014, how can we not be in the same league as them versus the likes of France and Italy, similar sized economies to ours, STILL flatlining?

• How is cutting a 2010 annual budget deficit (government overspend) in cash terms (then) around three times LARGER than France, be even called 'austerity' for christ sake, when the option is leave the cuts/tax rises to pay off the national debt to our grandchildren?

• The Conservative red tape cuts were across all industries, why did that point to Conservative financial deregulation now?

• Brown had Hedge Funds/Private Equity supporting Labour in the early 2000's, why do you think he lowered the 'millionaires tax' called Capital Gains tax to a tapered low of 10%?

• In your "non partisan way", you accuse the Conservatives of receiving money from the same people Labour courted, but forget to mention Labour received around 90% of their 2010 General Election from the public sector trade unions - do you not see any link between the growth of public sector jobs i.e. quangos and no jobs and Labour - especially as half the new Labour MP intake are 'sponcered' by Unite?

Which relationship costs the taxpayer masses through the nose, the one with businesses or with the trade unions?

I reiterate an earlier point, I am a misinformation free zone, so if you are going to get upset when you misinformation is countered with facts, I humbly suggest you STICK to the subject - which is on 'real' earnings, where is the policy to put something on everyones table?

Misinformation free zone? You like the 70s, don't you. That was when there was a global problem due to oil shocks. Try looking at the previous 2 decades of economic prosperity and unheard-of security under a system with strong public regulation and services.

The odd thing is, you do know that, on one level I think, or you wouldn't complain about the regulation being repealed. Or you're just playing party politics without looking at the actual problems we face as a country, as people repeatedly try to tell you.

Another odd thing about the 70s is that after those international problems it was apparently decided we needed to try other solutions. Now that those alternative (neoliberal) solutions have been shown repeatedly to fail and fail hard - I also believe another major crash is on the way, one we won't be able to print ourselves out of - perhaps we should have yet another look for further ideas? Yet so many of the vested interests at the top are refusing to even contemplate that. Why is that, do you think?

You also like France which could be useful: I know very little about France (and nothing of Italy, another favourite). One thing I do know: France spends over 55% of its GDP on its public sector. We spend around 50%.

Yet you tell me that our budget deficit is 3 times larger than France's.

Perhaps the amount we spend on our publuc sector has little or no bearing on the size of our budget deficit then?

Gibberingflapdoodle …. Hello again, I see that you also would rather we go over ‘the good old days’ prior to ‘neo liberalism’, rather than discuss which party If any) currently has a policy to sustainably boost salaries, but ok, I’ll go with that.

Firstly I’d like to clear up a few things which you say that I “like”, as I don’t know you well enough to know if you misunderstand what I’m saying or being sarcastic. IMO the 1970’s were economically a UK disaster, and France & Italy pretty much the same - but electorally UK useful as France it particular was the economic country model Labour was building prior to the 2010 election, and was going to follow from 2010 until now, and no doubt until 2020 if regains power.

Generally speaking during the 1970’s, unlike the likes of Germany and Japan then kicking our industrial arses, the UK had an industrial downward spiral of penally high (around 20%) interest rates and inflation, with wages trying to keep up, together with militant trade unionism and penal taxation. By 1979 the basic income tax rate was around 33%, the upper income tax rate well over 60%, the tax on unearned income over 90%, and if a business was lucky to make a profit after all that daily shit thrown at it, Corporation Tax was around 50%.

How was the UK ever going to succeed competing in price, innovation, Research & Development with the likes of Germany, Japan, Taiwan, WHO ALSO NEEDED TO IMPORT OIL, never mind the Chinese within a decade later?

So as we ended the 1970’s, post our 1976 IMF financial bailout and needing to pay it back, UK manufacturing was in a downward spiral having fallen from around 29% of our economy to around 23%, the trade unions were taking on the Labour Party during ‘The Winter of Discontent’ and we were facing a national social disaster - yet what I am told is that the period AFTER that spiralling down economic mare, the FOLLOWING neoliberalism period, is THE failure and not sustainable, rather than what went on before. Hmmmm.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

www.spectator.co.uk/features/3665728/we-came-close-to-losing-our-democracy-in-1979/
More.

Gibberingflapdoodle …. Next you talk about the size of Public Sector, surely the size (in this case) is not important; it is the ability to carry out what it NEEDS to do on the front line?

As if used as a government recruitment vehicle to puff up employment figures, OR gets bloated with administrators to achieve some arbitrary 50% level – it becomes top heavy/inefficient, manager salaries impacting budgets NOW increases FUTURE final salary pension liabilities (currently £1 trillion), those salaries could go to the lower paid professionals, and it usually increases the taxes of the masses to pay for this incompetence.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10698432/Final-salary-pensions-10-times-more-common-in-public-sector.html

FYI from 1997 to 2010, the Public Sector increased employment numbers by around 18%, while the Private Sector employment PAYING ALL THE BILLS had only grown by around 7% - and while this includes the spike down in Private Sector employment after the economic crash, it also includes the near mirror upward spike in Public Sector employment, as if ‘massaging’ the unemployment figures ahead of a general election.

So re our budget deficit versus France, by increasing our government ‘fixed costs’ as tax receipts massively fell/JSA payments rose, plus the over reliance of London City/Financial profits (of around £60 to £ 100 billion a year) that apparently was meant to cure our ‘boom and busts’ but fell away on the crash – all that would go some ways in explaining the 2010 budget deficit 3 x difference with France, who is not the main European financial centre and probably better manages its large Public Sector better.

So re your accusation of “playing party politics” with across economy regulation (and a bloated State full of bureaucrats), the Coalition has been working on reducing all that for 5-years, and while I don’t know if the UK Trollys Tax Guide that doubled under Labour to 16,220 pages has been simplified /shrunk, many other area have been. As well as PRACTICAL tax break help for small, medium and large businesses - therefore better employing taxpayers money to provide SUSTAINABLE economic growth/jobs to help the masses, rather than the not-so-few government quangocrats.

As to City regulation, in the UK after 2008 we decided to add layers of new bank lending regulation (to existing regulations not followed prior to the crash) designed to REDUCE bank lending/risk when they’d got the (crash) message, while at the same bitching the banks are NOT lending enough to businesses/consumers; so talk about closing the regulatory stable door after the (black) horse had bolted, and typical of governments in over compensating AFTER ‘stuff’ hit the fan.

So will there be financial crashes, oh yes. Are our banks now better capitalized to limit the damage, also a yes, but while the we need global investment banking (that has lifted a few billion out of poverty over the past 35-years) and bond borrowers e.g. the World Bank, needs to borrow $2-3 billion in a day and be underwritten by an investment bank (rather than a local building society), we can never be entirely insulated from a interconnected global banking system.

All we can hope is any future financial crash is not similar to the last, as I have seen several banking crashes since the 1970’s, but never one where the inter bank market closed for ANY period of time - never mind see domestic central banks via various new tools in their monetary toolbox, has to try to compensate for this failure in the western inter bank transmission of money - with the likes of a cumbersome collateralized lending programme, over a period of years.

More

Gibberingflapdoodle …. Re the current UK versus socialist France.

France, a socialists wet dream; pro high taxes, pro high government spending, pro EU no matter what, pro social chapter hours working week, pro an overly large Public Sector, anti globalism, all anti business by definition – here is some interesting reading starting with the similarities of what would have been a 2010 Labour/Miliband economic strategy, and its similarities to France’s Mr Hollande’s who DESPITE veering away, didn’t do it soon enough or adapt to a budget deficit economy trying to stimulate the private sector, as we did here.

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

Oct 2013; “French Parliament passes law punishing plant closures”
www.cnbc.com/id/101079582

Sept 2013; “Francois Hollande admits French Taxes are too much”
www.cnbc.com/id/101046068

“France: the new sick man of Europe” - which used to be OUR title in the 1970’s.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/france-sick-man-europe-economy

Mar 2015; French factory decline even worse than Greece

”New orders dry up and overseas demand falls, as output contracts in France at an even faster rate than in troubled Greece”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11444091/French-factory-decline-even-worse-than-Greece.html

And a little piece of Italy, who if memories serves constitutionally does not run annual budget deficits, but whose labour/employment laws, similar to France, are back in our 1970’s and KNOW they have to change, are being TOLD by the European Central Bank they have to change – but politically will not do it, hence France still has near record unemployment around 11% versus our 5.6%.,

Aug 2014; ”Shock as Italy stumbles into third recession”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11016018/Shock-as-Italy-stumbles-into-third-recession.html

So re your “try other options” of the late 1970’s and post 2010, we DID try something different, and while it is by no means perfect, there is NO SHORT CUT to prosperity, especially if saddled with a budget deficit economy, and it provides a stable economic platform to address all the problems in society.

As political parties looking TO BRING DOWN society from the top, rather than BUILD UP society from a solid sustainable platform from the bottom i.e. an education for employment, perpetual private sector jobs growth, offer an aspiration to all, provide all with housing, those parties will ALWAYS run out of other peoples money to permanently address anything, sooner rather than later. IMO

Isitmebut-

I noticed you have a habit of picking and choosing facts to defend the Tories.

The US has consistently had a higher growth rate (faster recovery) than the UK since the financial crash and recession. Here is a chart:

www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-us-vs-uk-growth-2012-4?IR=T

The article notes:

"Now the first thing to note is that the US has recovered WAY better than either the Eurozone or the UK. So if you think Obama has been a disaster, you might first acknowledge that the US has performed better than all its major Western peers.

But beyond that, check out the UK line. The UK was recovering on a fine trajectory right up until early 2010, at which point UK growth hit a brick wall.

What happened in 2010? That's when conservative David Cameron came to power with an agenda of reigning in the debt. Sound familiar?"

More tediousness:

The Conservative red tape cuts were across all industries, why did that point to Conservative financial deregulation now?

What on earth are you talking about? I was simply pointing out the Tories would have deregulated the financial sector even fast and further had they been in power.

Again, I was making the point that these neo-liberal reforms have been going on since the 1980s. I linked to two articles which show the ongoing process over decades. This occurred across countries and governments.

You then pick out ONE piece of legislation - the Glass-Steigall Act - as evidence that Labour were responsible for the crash because this was during the Brown era.

Well, then if Labour are responsible because they were in power because of that one act, then it logically follows that the Reagan, Clinton, and Thatcher governments were also responsible for the crash, since many acts of deregulation occurred on their watch.

Which was precisely my point.

Brown had Hedge Funds/Private Equity supporting Labour in the early 2000's, why do you think he lowered the 'millionaires tax' called Capital Gains tax to a tapered low of 10%?

And?

In your "non partisan way", you accuse the Conservatives of receiving money from the same people Labour courted, but forget to mention Labour received around 90% of their 2010 General Election from the public sector trade unions - do you not see any link between the growth of public sector jobs i.e. quangos and no jobs and Labour - especially as half the new Labour MP intake are 'sponcered' by Unite?

First of all, no doubt Labour are influenced by the unions. Unfortunately, far less so than used to be the case. They are now ruled by finance and big business, though not yet quite to the extent that the Tories are.

Secondly, being influenced by unions is a good thing. As opposed big finance, unions represent the interests of millions of workers across the UK, explicitly and implicitly, since workers conditions affect each other.

Far from being a thing a bad thing, any party should be proud that they are sticking up for the rights of working people - that 95% of the population.

Which relationship costs the taxpayer masses through the nose, the one with businesses or with the trade unions?

The one with business, without a smidgen of a doubt. Tax breaks and business subsidies cost the UK tax payer tens of billions annually. The system we have now is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

I reiterate an earlier point, I am a misinformation free zone, so if you are going to get upset when you misinformation is countered with facts, I humbly suggest you STICK to the subject - which is on 'real' earnings, where is the policy to put something on everyones table?

What actually happened is that:

a) I countered your ridiculous assertion that Labour was responsible for the global financial crisis.

b) Since you seem only be able to think that I must either be a Labour or Tory support, and that an attack on one is a defence of the other, you concluded in your own small little mind that I was blaming the Tories for the financial crisis.

c) You go a little bit over the top trying to disprove something which I never asserted: namely, the Tories were responsible for the financial crash.

I'm not interested in wasting my time with you constantly countering Tory HQ propaganda. Please stop campaigning to me for the Tories.

blacksunday …. With respect, may I remind you of the SUBJECT of this thread, so it is YOU that keeps mentioning the Conservatives, peddling decades long anti Tory socialist misinformation/propaganda, getting peed off and using expletives when you don’t like the FACTS countering that smollocks - and refuse to accept the current UK recovery for your OWN political ends.

This is a thread about a Labour Party (not Conservatives) who for years has looked to politically capitalise on the FACT jobs/wages suffer during and immediately after a severe recession, especially one that was caused by financial ‘events’ - and DAILY I hear their leader (I’m concerned about as choking on his corn flakes on this subject) and his MPs intimating that under a tax increasing Labour Party, the masses will be better off – so what is wrong with saying ‘show me the money’, well at least the policies? Do you have an input on the subject per chance?

So let me dispel the other political smollocks you present, with FACTS.

The Financial Crash; I NEVER brought into this subject Thatcher, a John Redwood (when in opposition) late 2007 idea, or said Labour were responsible for the western financial crash, WHAT I DID SAY AND QUALIFY at the top of this page, the Labour policies from 1997 in UK banking deregulating made the recession worse AND due to how over extended the banks were, delayed the recovery – and unless looking at what happened under Labour from 1997 to late 2007 mentioned above you can directly counter my points,WE ARE AGREED.

So “on what you were simply pointing out” of what you WANT TO BELIEVE the Tories would have done, please chill, as unless you have qualified proof the FSA an earlier RBS link shows was a ‘financial ball dropper’ under government deregulation instruction, formed by Brown in 1997 within a regulatory tripartite (where funny old world ‘the clunking fist’ Brown controlled two out of three ‘regulators’), was ever on a Conservative 1997 agenda.

Next you’ll say the Conservatives were going to sell over 40% of our gold in 1997, and deny that the City, the BoE and other central banks advised him NOT to sell it at a 20-years low price.

The U.S. Recovery; the American recovery versus the UK was so as their economy in 2008-2010 was far better balanced than ours, they gave huge tax cuts to the masses and under the Obama Democrats (the U.S. Labour Party equivalent), they in the link below have $18 trillion of national debt to prove it – despite benefiting hugely from the tax revenues of Fracking.
www.usdebtclock.org/

The DNA of all Americans hates the cost, red tape and interference of ‘big government’; so while the UK in 2008 decided to economically ‘pump prime’ using it’s money on inefficient government spending and government job creation (both of which was unsustainable and therefore gives the wrong kind of GDP ‘growf’, but still reflected in our GDP figures), American politicians looked to help the Private Sector.

The then dip in UK GDP after 2010 was the result of the Coalition weaning the UK off of annual government deficit/debt ‘growf’, helping the Private Sector companies and citizens with tax cuts (similar to the Americans years earlier), thus rebalancing the economy from unsustainable to sustainable economic growth.

The rest about a mainly public sector trade union movement, funding/sponsoring the Labour Party from the Leader, most of the shadow cabinet, current MP’s and prospective MP’s downwards, and have NO influence on Labour’s fat government ‘anti austerity’ view, or the resulting national debt from 2015 we will pass on to our grandchildren – I will treat with the contempt it deserves, and leave this to a thread about the subject, should you wish to start one.

Thank you for the French links, will have to read. You puzzle me generally with the way you seem to see the problems of the current situation, but then go all out to absolve and support the tories who have and will only mak(d)e them worse. Still, guess I have my own blind spots.

GibberingFlapdoodle ..... What I see are the problems in nearly every government department the Conservative led coalition inherited from a socialist Labour Party - as unfortunately there was no 1997 ‘default button’ to take them back to the policies, national debt, budget deficit, social home build averages, economy, they handed over to Labour – and can work out looking at socialist France and what Labour have said since, nay now repeating from 2015 onwards, ‘there but for the grace of god……’

No doubt what you might call ‘a bedroom tax’, my ‘blind spots’ see a ‘Spare Room Subsidy’ urgently brought in to try and release up to 800,000 spare council/social bedrooms, to try and ease the 5 million desperately needing larger/homes, Labour forgot up to 2010, with no plan in their manifesto I can see to sort it.

So whereas I am not policy blind in that with the benefit of hindsight the Conservative led policy was too ‘blunt’, seemingly ‘uncaring’, and has not worked as hoped - I go a step further and think wouldn’t it have been nice if when we had the guarantee of a huge growth in demand and a few hundred £billion for government quangos - the ‘caring’ party who SAY they represent the poor, might have followed their own 2003/4 Commissions report, and built the millions waiting some extra homes.

Now we have seen Mr Miliband’s less than average kitchen(s) in one home, may we now see details of the 5-year long policy Miliband said Labour would make a difference to what is on the “average family’s” kitchen table, as looking at the following policies mentioned in Scotland this month, I’m unclear Mr Miliband understands what is deliverable, never mind how it would reach the tens of millions that FORM an ‘average family’.

• raising the minimum wage to more than £8 an hour

The £8 rate is promised by the end of the 2015 parliament (by 2020), but the minimum wage is set by the fully independent Low Pay Commission, considering what small, medium and large businesses can afford, and the £6.50 rate was recommended for 2014, included “plans for bigger increases in future than in recent years.”

So just as long as the Private Sector led investment/jobs economic recovery continues, the UK is ALREADY on track for £8 an hour minimum wage.

The danger is if politicians STALL the recovery and STILL raise the minimum wage to £8 (against the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation with small business survival bias e.g. high street shops), not only will it signal more penal government controls to the whole Private Sector, but cause an economy struggling to contract further, as investment and job growth is reversed.

• banning the "exploitation" of zero hours contracts and "legislate to say that if you do regular hours you get a regular contract".

While there are no doubts a Zero hour contract terms and conditions to the several hundreds of thousands of employees do favour the employer and need reforms.

However the (too often) heavy hand of the State has to be very careful as currently not every employee wants a regular contract AND there is a danger that those companies entering into the Zero Hours contracts as cannot afford to or predict work demand over the next year or so – are forced to reduce employee numbers now and in the future, rather than issue new employee contracts – restricting the chances of those unemployed needing ‘work experience’ before considered for full time work.

• freezing energy bills until 2017 so they can "only fall and cannot rise"

In 2010 Labour’s last Energy Minister (a certain Mr Ed Miliband’s) legacy was a English energy sector facing energy ‘brown outs’ by 2014, a £157 billion government budget overspend, and a Private Sector (since 2004) expected to both pay for and build, several nuclear energy power stations and all sorts of stuff’ providing green energy.

Having realised that ‘freezing’ energy bills before the oil price within A YEAR nearly halved would have been a consumer disaster, Labour now want to replace it with a pending unworkable pending energy company disaster, as how can any government FIX a price to consumers, when all energy companies will have bought energy wholesale (mainly via the Futures markets for several months plus ahead) at different prices???

So forgetting that WE URGENTLY STILL NEED the Private Sector/energy companies to INVEST in providing us and future generations with the infrastructure ‘kit’ to provide our energy needs - what happens to the viability of existing energy companies IF ENERGY PRICES RISE AS QUICKLY ANS AS HIGH FROM WHERE THEY FELL and they cannot raise prices?

• reforming banks to ensure they "work for businesses again"

I really don’t know what this means, as now several years past the worst of the banking crash, the prospects of penal business taxation and a more sustainable UK economy, banks are able to fund the lending to viable businesses – when both can currently plan ahead within a far less risky economic growth scenario – so what extra lending State controls are needed, when the extent of the financial crash impacting on our economic recession, was due to banks lending to anyone with a pulse.

• taxing bank bonuses and "put young people back to work in every part of the UK"

What is the maximum banking bonus CASH sum that can be paid out, I thought was very small, also bearing in mind those receiving them can have them clawed back several years after having been awarded one?
So HOW can any government practically budget for a key policy expenditure, when the cash sums that can be drawn down are relatively low, and many have to accept their owns banks shares as the bulk of the bonus with ‘x’ years selling restrictions on those shares (ON TOP of the several year claw back provision).

So someone please correct me if I am wrong, but with all those bonus payment restrictions, interest rate deposits offering diddly squat, and penal Labour taxes above current tax rates would await you – it will be better for bankers to LEAVE their bonuses in their banks until such times a clawback has passed, and the likelihood of a 2015 Labour government having crashed and burned the economy again, being thrown out of office.

• and raising the basic state pension

To what, bearing in mind (2012 figures) the unfunded State Pension liability is £3.8 Trillion and unfunded Public Sector pension liability is just under £1 Trillion, both to come out of annual government budgets whenever drawn – is this an election promise as it IS ‘unfunded’ and on top of the current £1.5 Trillion of UK National Debt, Labour wants to heap more annual government overspend debt upon via unspecified ‘investment’?

The Coalition has just ensured a better State Pension payment formula via its ‘Triple Lock’ malarkey, after the previous Labour governments higher inflation rate and new taxes raising the ‘costs of living’, like Council Tax up over 110% during their 13-year administration, forgot the buying power of State pensioner’s regular incomes, while also decimating Private Pensions by withdrawing tax relief.

In conclusion; To me this looks like a Labour list of populist policies to be delivered as soundbite pledges rather than a joined-up-policy approach acknowledging what has been done, what will happen anyway, and what if could be delivered SADLY CONFIRMS Mr Miliband neither understands the business world or markets – a huge red warning flag to future UK growth/investments/jobs.

How can a Labour Party and leader promise current and future generations better living standards when after 13-years in power were responsible for the current fall, and show they still want to tax and bash an economy to growth as before, rather than offer policies to encourage the Private Sector into sustainable job and wage growth?

How can a Labour Party and leader promise current and future generations better living standards when after 13-years in power were responsible for the current fall, and show they still want to tax and bash an economy to growth as before, rather than offer policies to encourage the Private Sector into sustainable job and wage growth?

They weren't responsible for the 'current fall'. Casino capitalism and all Western governments complicit in 30 years of deregulation, financialisation, and privatisation are responsible for the crisis.

Hope this helps.

Also, the Tories have handled the economy miserably, as the UK has experienced the greatest fall in living standards since the Great Recession.

Austerity has held back the UK and delayed growth recovery.

Thanks for the Tory party HQ propaganda update, though.

Wow!

blacksunday .... nice socialist soundbites, you're soooooo Miliband policy supermarket.

What a shame many of the posts in this thread factually blow that 'left is best' view out of the water - as FYI this thread is ALL ABOUT what Miliband would have done to fix what Labour broke over 13-years - so as 'propaganda' can only be judged so IF the facts DON'T stack up, the records of two parties from what they inherited to what they leave.

Albeit in 1979, 1997, 2010, or probably 2015, thanks to dodgy English boundary lines favouring Labour.

Raising minimum wage is actually a very good idea. Wealthier people tend to save or invest excess income, while poorer people will spend it. Marginal propensity to consume and all that.

How can a Labour Party and leader promise current and future generations better living standards when after 13-years in power were responsible for the current fall, and show they still want to tax and bash an economy to growth as before, rather than offer policies to encourage the Private Sector into sustainable job and wage growth?

That's a very good question. I haven't seen much in the way of evidence that Labour (or Red Tory as I like to call them) are serious about seeking alternatives to neoliberalism. As you pointed out in an earlier thread, Nu-Labour oversaw further deregulation of the financial sector.

I keep hearing from every Labour MP that 'the average person is £1,600 worse off' - but are they?

I understand that this figure is in real (inflation adjusted) terms and is calculated on the average people's gross salary.

So in the real world and please correct me if wrong;

• The £1,600 gross figure was heavily influenced by the fall in real earnings that started around 2007 under Labour, the worst fall from 2009 to 2011, so at best SHARE the blame, but had no policy idea before or since - on how to pay everyone in the private sector a salary above inflation.

• The £1,600 gross figure does NOT include any actual pay rises that would make on their measure, the average rise a POSITIVE figure of over £1,000.

• The £1,600 gross figure does NOT include any tax cuts e.g. rises in peoples Earnings Allowance under the coalition.

• The £1,600 AVERAGE gross figure will includes the rich, rather than take the average paid employee which would be a much lower figure.

• The £1,600 would have been higher under Labour's tax rises i.e.. the 2009 National Insurance and Fuel Duty increases to come in 2010 and reversed by Osborne - and every tax rise we saw from 1997, like Council Tax that went up 110% in 13-years and a Labour 'fav' as they think the rich pay more.

So on what basis does Labour say we would have been better off under them, in 2010, or from 2015, when they say they will reduce the deficit "fairly", which means similar tax rises to the masses we saw from 1997 to 2010?

Just who is putting Labour’s disingenuous soundbite attacks together, as how long did they think they get away with quoting a ‘£1600 worse off on the kitchen table’ figure, when that GROSS earnings figure did NOT include the pensioner households and IGNORES benefits and lower taxes under the Coalition?

”George Osborne: Ed Miliband's cost of living election pitch has been 'demolished'

”The Institute for Fiscal Studies says people will be better off next year in milestone hailed by George Osborne as a 'significant milestone'
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11484316/George-Osborne-Ed-Milibands-cost-of-living-election-pitch-has-been-demolished.html

”George Osborne's claim in his Budget speech that households will be £900 better off on average than they were in 2010 has triggered a political row, with Labour insisting people are worse off.”

”However Paul Johnson, the head of the IFS, said that overall people are likely to be better off next year.”

”He said: "Average household incomes have just about regained their pre-recession levels. They are finally rising and probably will be higher in 2015 than they were in 2010, and possibly higher than their 2009 peak."

”Mr Johnson said that the Tories and Labour are using two different measures to assess living standards.”

”Labour has claimed people's gross earnings are £1,600 less than they were in 2010, while the Tory figures are based on disposable incomes.”

”Mr Johnson said that while there is "much truth" in both figures, Mr Osborne's figures give a "fuller" picture of living standards."

”He said that the figure on gross earnings does not include pensioner households and "ignores" the taxes and benefits.”

Err... you post that like it's a good thing.

Only just recovering from 2010 levels is hardly something to boast about. This has been the slowest recovery from recession on record.

Secondly, Osbourne's figures show disposable income has returned to pre-recession levels, overall, people are worse off because there is less money being put in to social security and public services - which they will ultimately pay for.

Whilst this may excite small-state free-market conservatives, the majority of the population don't want to model the economy on the United States.

Thanks for more Tory propaganda, Isitmebut. But before you try claim that the IFS endorses Osbourne's budget, you should read the report:

Here is what the IFS actually has to say about the budget. You can read the report by download it directly here:

www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/budgets/budget2015/budget2015_pj.pdf

"Before saying anything about the details it is straightforward to paint the
broad picture. Average household incomes have just about regained their
pre-recession levels. They are finally rising and probably will be higher in
2015 than they were in 2010, and possibly higher than their 2009 peak.

But that still represents by far the slowest recovery in incomes in modern
history. Having household incomes crawl back up above pre-recession
levels six or seven years after the recession hit is no cause for celebration."

and

"As ever there is much truth in both numbers. Real earnings have fallen, as
Mr Miliband says. Real incomes should be above their 2010 level as Mr
Osborne says.

We are for sure much worse off on average than we could
reasonably have expected to be back in 2007 or indeed back in 2010."

Again. Everyone here can read the full report for themselves.