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.

blacksunday ..... I have READ the report on earning (the subject of this thread) and the FIGURES within, and the FACT remains (as per the IFS quotes below) *that people DO NOT PUT THEIR 'REAL' GROSS SALARIES ON THE KITCHEN TABLE, they put a net salary after the inclusion of benefits and substantial tax cuts under the coalition - hence around £900 better off.

”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

”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.”

Clearly the propaganda is yours and Labours, pathetically trying to pretend that after the worst recession in 80-odd years, real earnings would be going up, when recessions are called so as there is a DECLINE, not IMPROVEMENT, in economic activity.

Real earning were falling under Labour, indeed the worst was between 2009-11, what did Labour do in their last few years to improve earnings other than TAKE AWAY the 10p income tax rate, and PUT UP National Insurance and Fuel Duty?

In fact Labour made MORE mistakes by NOT lowering taxes from 2008 like other countries to stimulate wage and economic growth, preferring to tax higher and spend badly, as I was about to explain in reply to a previous post of yours...

more

Blacksunday ... answering your previous post on the last page and the IFS's observation on how slow the recovery has been, impacting real earnings - much of the problem being Labour were applying their fiscal £££ stimulus BEFORE AND AFTER the crash, spending it on a bloated State rather than help businesses/citizens.

OF COURSE IT HAS BEEN THE SLOWEST RECOVERY FROM RECESSION since the LAST economic recession that followed a financial recession, for the following recessions we k-e-e-p going over;

• When the banking system is broken, even the portion of the Private Sector that isn’t damaged and is confident enough to invest, they CANNOT do so until the banks and money transmission system is fixed, and even then, will be made to offer out loans and mortgages in a risky/fragile economy, having been told by government (post financial crash) to be more risk adverse.

• UK Manufacturing and the way to ‘trade our way to economic growth’ already decimated by Labour 2-years before the crash, was by 2010, to be around 12% of our economy, halved from the 23% the Conservatives handed to them in 1997.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

• The Labour government in running a government budget deficit stimulated economy PRIOR to the financial/economic crash, and also having the largest budget deficit in Europe, were unable to give UK businesses/citizens the fiscal help they needed via tax cuts other countries did, but even then, most of the countries that did give huge tax breaks, are STILL growing slower than the UK.

• The Labour government from 2008 therefore should have at least REVERSED some of the numerous taxes they put onto the Private Sector in their so called economic ‘boom’ by trimming the ££££size of the State and state employment that had seriously ‘boomed’ in their first 10-years, at a faster percentage rate than the private sector jobs financially SUPPORTING the public sector (see the forth graph in the link below) – but irresponsibly Brown did the opposite, Labour used taxpayers money to help COMPENSATE for the fall in private sector employment, by INCREASING public sector employment.

www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-22/uks-holiday-cheer-in-four-charts

As to “public services” and what they the taxpayer “ultimately pays for” you seem unable to comprehend that the taxpayer and non taxpayer citizens HAVE ALREADY PAID, having the money for fat often inefficient government and local government, eating into annual government spending budgets for years and RAISING business/citizens taxes, making them LESS resilient to the financial/economic crash.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

The facts is that a lot of the PUBLIC SERVICES/JOBS government created from 1997 to 2010 (as highlighted above) was both a huge DRAIN on taxpayers and PREVENTED tax cuts to the masses from 2008 to STIMULATE the economy by a Labour government that economically believes that whether the UK has an annual £150 billion or £90 billion budget DEFICIT – that the BEST way to stimulate the UK economy, is by pumping £billions into the pockets of the Public Sector, rather than relieve/help the Private Sector.

Go argue with a Labour supporter.

I also suggest you try being a bit more terse.

Good luck.

Blacksunday …. This was the previous comment of yours on the previous page;

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

Within a debate the reasons why UK salaries have NOT risen in real inflation adjusted terms are several, so cannot be conveyed in a similar sized sentence to yours, never mind a tricksy soundbite used by senior politicians that both studied economics and may be the new Prime Minister & Chancellor within weeks.

Similar to you, for political ends, they chose to blame the Coalition for the fall in real earnings, when CYNICALLY THEY KNOW that the Great Recession started on Labour’s watch, their lite banking regulation made a financial crash worse and the economic recovery harder, and it did not even occur to them to reverse their previous taxes on businesses and citizens, never mind offer a real fiscal stimulus when ‘real’ earnings were falling.

So as their measures were to take money AWAY from the masses around 2010, I will ARGUE/DEBATE with anyone, using qualified facts, why the Coalition handed a £150 bil government overspend by Labour, have done more than a responsible job in trying to mitigate the fall in ‘real’ earnings, by offering tax cuts etc to the masses.

The fact the probable next Prime Minister and Chancellor of this land, campaigning on kitchen table politics but STILL chooses to tell the people a blatant lie that their average kitchen table is £1600 worse off under the coalition, tells me that they are so desperate, they will say anything for power – so I dread to think what they’ll do IN government.

How about an El Presedenti Miliband & Generalissimo Balls, writing another 4,300 laws, and not satisfied with a huge English electoral boundary line advantage (of around 30 Westminster seats) includes another bit of legislation to ensure a socialist grand coalition stays in perpetual power - with a dictate on the Public Sector that it ‘pays for itself’, as its red rosy tinted knowledge of economics INCREASES national debt and taxes, runs the Private Sector/jobs, into the ground.

My god you don't half go on a bit.

When a future P.M. and Chancellor repeats the the 'less well off' mistruth or any mistruth several times a day, in the past I tried 'liar, liar, pants on fire' - but at a time when soooo many people are calling for debates to explain their policies, it kinda lacks clarity.

And I seriously find it disingenuous if a party is specifically blaming the current Coalition government for the 'real' term fall in salaries since 2008, they refuse to acknowledge what the Coalition HAS done to help net take home pay, via lower taxation, even if 'lower taxation' is not in the accusers own fiscal vocabulary.

On last nights Miliband Paxman interview and questions afterwards, AGAIN I hear what he WANTS on the likes of Zero Hours, but not how he is going to achieve it, without endangering the NUMBER of zero hours jobs currently available, that could also impact those currently in full time work.

Especially if going to load up the small & medium businesses costs of doing business, with anything like the number of new taxes the last Labour administration put on them.

NO details on anything really, just a populist wish list that NEVER mentions how they will maintain the current economic growth, never mind increase it dramatically so LESS need for spending cuts and higher tax rises we'll hear about AFTER the general election.

I haven't even read the thread - but you have a LOT of time on your hands!

Which is hardly your problem ... unless you disagree with what I say or have answers, and then we get a debate going to INFORM rather than accept false promises.

Me and mine had 13-years of those muppets, we listened to the Blair lies 'things were going to get better', right before we had the biggest financial and economic crash in 80 odd years, so I question what I'm being told.

On Zero Hours Contracts; Labour has just changed their recent policy of the State FORCING companies to convert such contracts to full time jobs from 12-months to 12-weeks, maybe before May it will be 12-days, and the 12-days of Christmas (with a jingle rather than soundbite) at that.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/31/workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-to-get-regular-contracts-after-3-months

What guarantees are there that the job WILL be converted to full time, rather than pulled, and others in either Zero, or full time contracts, asked to work longer hours some of the want of those just 'toasted' - especially the other zero hours workers?

What happens to the workers who WANT to work zero hours, including those in full time education?

I heard Paxman say that there were 700,000 on Zero Hour Contracts, Rachel Reeves today say 1.8 million, and the ONS somewhere in between, but as this link shows, although they have been around since the late 1990's - we are only JUST trying to work out the numbers involved via the ONS, hopefully not just so politicians can 'weaponize' them after they did sod all about them in 13-years.
Apr 30 2014; Zero hours contracts - a work in progress
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27206548

Meanwhile it is no wonder that whether a small, medium or a large businesses, the UK private sector trying to compete in a volatile economic world but STILL need to plan years ahead - are seriously worried we will go economically 'off track', especially on a political whims at election times - when those desperate to win, will change their economy linked policies that AFFECT business long term planning, WITHIN WEEKS?

In our "fair" United Kingdom.

I only saw the 7 Leader Debate up to 9'o'clock, as I'd rather see 'The Good Wife' on More4, followed by 'Suits' on Pick - my confirmed Thursday night viewing.

Isitmebut there were several party leaders saying "fairer spending cuts, fairer budget deficit reduction, fairer earnings, fairer tax rises, fairer economy" - without a shred of detail.

The "Millionaires tax rise" in Labour's last month of 13-years in power raising between zero and £2 billion and a Mansion Tax that is likely to depress prices in those properties as cash poor owners move down to compete with lower prices properties, has to go an awfully long way to INCREASE spending, when they have no clue how to guarantee CURRENT spending, if they screw the economic pooch.

So who then is deemed 'fair' game to tax?

Mother said that there are no such thing as fair-ies, and I'm only beginning to realize, she was right.

(Ain't that right, Tinkerbell?) lol

Re the Zero Hours ‘crisis’, one of many Miliband crisis-is-is he sees now for his manifesto, but doesn’t think the national debt mountain he’s party left is one, based on how many times he forgets it.

Further to my post further above, it appears Paxman was right, the numbers of people on the contracts is under 700,000, and many of whom WANT to be on a loose employment contract.

So to be a Zero Hours crisis NOW with zero inflation, one has to wonder what numbers were on Zero Hours Contracts in May 2010 a time when inflation was far higher (up to 5%) and Zero Hours Contracts that had been around since the 1990’s didn’t even feature in their 2010 General Election manifesto – does anyone have qualified figures?

I ‘get it’ that having one way or another screwed the working poor so much during their last administration Labour need to prove something in 2015, but unless anyone knows the 2010 figures, is this yet another ‘crisis’ designed by Miliband, for Miliband ‘worker’ soapbox/manifesto?

Rather than have to acknowledge nearly 2 million new jobs since 2010 couldn't possibly all for “those at the top”, and explain how any party so anti business, that they are already cautious of a Labour government/taxes, can possibly offer with any confidence, a million or so apprenticeships from 2015-20?

Is anyone bothering to read this?

Nope. No one actually reads these threads. This particular OP is a great argument for the 'hide poster' option.

Ha ha ha ..... Zero Hours are a key policy by Labour, so 'the people' can't ask questions like, why wasn't it a crisis in 2010, what were the numbers. lol

I see Unemployment came down AGAIN this month, and Rachel Reeves was franticly wheeled out to disingenuously say 'every job is a Zero Hour or Minimum Wage job & everyone is £1,600 worse off' - despite the IFS rubbishing that £1,600 figure weeks ago - what IS the point of debating issues with politicians that only tell mistruths?

If we had 1% unemployment they'll still be saying EVERY job in the land was a low paid job, despite the definitive numbers on Zero Hours and the Minimum Wage, several percent of the total workforce. lol

”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

”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 (Labour) figure on gross earnings does not include pensioner households and "ignores" the taxes (cuts) and benefits.”

Who puts their gross pre tax earnings on the table?

What makes it more sickening on the issue of the 'real' (inflation adjusted) earning fall, is that at this thread proves, the COST OF LIVING CRISIS began in 2008, under Labour - yet after THEY took away the 10p tax rate, kept putting up Council Taxes around 3-5% inflation rates and putting up National Insurance and Fuel Duties - so while the fall in 'real' earnings would be THE SAME, taxes under Labour would be going up, rather than down under the Coalition.

So while real earning fell from 2008, how can Labour POSSIBLY claim people are worse of under the Conservatives than Labour? Duh.

I've just heard Ed Balls say again (to the GDP figures) 'the Conservatives don't understand, the economy isn't working for working people' and it needs a new plan.

Firstly does Mr Balls understand that we never saw ANY plan from Labour in 2010 other than 'sit like a rabbit in headlights', we have not seen one solution, never mind for all over the past 5-years - and based on their key policies clearly, we are all either on the Minimum Wage or Zero Hours - and even then, those policies are seriously flawed in the the MW is not set by government and the Zero Hours 'crisis' were not even on their radar screens in 2010, when inflation was closer to 5%, than 0% now.