100 days of Red Ed

[longfingernails]

What has he done in those 100 days? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

He has no policies on anything, no idea about how Labour would cut the deficit other than the same tired old cliches of "tax the banks".

He has shamelessly and irresponsibly opposed every single spending cut and tax rise to pay necessary to pay for the decade of Labour profligacy.

He still has absolutely no answer to that most fundamental of questions: What Would You Do?

When will he get a grip?

I know, the silence is deafening isn't it?

What exactly would Labour cut? It's no secret we're financially in dire straits. He's said Labour would also make cuts but not so deep. So ok then mate, where? How? Who would be the losers if we'd have voted Labour?

They are same old Labour. Spend Spend Spend. At least in the old days they tried to tax the rich to compensate. They don't even do that no more!

Red Ed, are you serious he isnt even pale pink Ed hardly red in tooth and claw.

As for policies he hardly needs any at the moment as the parliament is for 5 years, I dont remember "Dave" having much apart from hug a hoodie up until the election apart from keeping EMA and CB being retained as a universal benefit.

All Ed needs to do is wait for the electoral backlash against the cuts and the cracking of the coalition. In 5 years time Labour will be a shoe in and the Tories will never lose their "Nasty Party" tag.

Newwave, for once I totally agree with you.

As Mervyn King said, whoever won the election would be forced into austerity measures so deep that they will be out of power for a generation.

Aye, Labour party had a lucky escape at the election. They now need to regroup, write some decent policy (hopefully), try and repair the damage done to their credibility and prepare for the backlash...

NG2 every cloud has a silver lining :o what i worry about is the social damage which will be inflicted on the poor, sick and vulnerable by the Con Dems that will probably take a generation to repair.

Terrifying NW. I work in disability field and it is worse every day. The latest being ILF, but more to come...

Red Ed, that makes him sound like an alpha male! It should really be dead Ed, that more suitable for him and his policies, mind you as the OP says, I don't think he's got any!(policies that is!)

rofl

I love you socialists. Yeah cos Labour did such a stunning job. Let me see if I can sum up the facts:

1. Labour inherited a sound economy and balanced budget
2. Everything went fine whilst they didn't touch it
3. Thanks to 13 years of Labour "investments" we now have one of the largest deficits on record, in Europe and are forced into severe austerity measures.

Oh and under Labour's fantastic policies.....the gap between rich & poor still widened. Despite their priority of eradicating child poverty it still plainly exists. We have a larger than ever population whom are completely reliant upon benefits. Benefits we can only pay by borrowing money we don't have.

Oh yeah. Rock & roll. Bring back Labour cos the Tories are so nasty since they want us to leave within our means.

He's at it again today saying the VAT increase is the 'wrong tax at the wrong time'. Once again resembling the Harry Enfield character who used to helpfully pop up with his arms folded and tutting 'you don't want to do it like that'.

We expect the Opposition to indulge in some naysaying - that's their job after all. But he doesn't seem to be in favour of anything either. Wasn't conscious of him supporting the students, for example. Will be interesting to see what he does if/when there are public sector strikes or protests. Colours and masts and all that.

Niceguy2, I just wonder where the international financial crisis fits in your neat little list?

Clearly, Labour didn't avoid us getting into the crisis, didn't undo the massive shift to financial services and away from manufacturing that had taken place under the previous Conservative government, and didn't have policies to increase income equality at source (ie pre redistribution through tax/benefits).

But - I didn't see the opposition Conservative government objecting or putting forward alternatives that would have avoided the above.

We need to remember that the massive deficit is due to the vast sums that bailed out the banks, and not the welfare state.

Yes, Labour failed, but frankly, IMO the people who can justifiably say 'I told you so' are more generally from the left, not the right. (And people who would have been seen as very soft left a generation ago, like John Eatwell at the DAE in Cambridge.)

Takver Wrong. Most of the deficit was structural.

While Labour were sticking to Ken Clarke's spending plans in their first term, the economy was more or less OK.

When Brown started thinking he had "abolished boom and bust", Labour decided to run up deficits in the good years because of sheer hubris.

The bank bailout is a blip in comparison.

Labour's debt crisis is almost entirely because of irresponsible spending. The banking crisis merely made its terrifying potential consequences more apparent.

As Labour seems to be so in favour of idiotic declarative laws, I would write a new one, which I am sure they would support. Namely, in the future, if a government wants to borrow more than it takes in tax ever again, it has to get the approval of the British public in a referendum first.

I would say the evidence for that is mixed, to say the least. Agreed, the Labour govt. did run a deficit through the early part of the 2000s, but their argument, which I think has merit, would have been that they were reversing a long period of underinvestment in public capital, and that the overall UK national debt as a % of GDP was low by EU / developed country standards (spreadsheet here for example).

If you look at the Der Spiegel chart here it is clear that even by 2010 we are in a 'less worse' situation than a great many of the Eurozone countries in terms of debt as a % of GDP.

Yes, with hindsight, they needed to increase tax take in the early part of the 2000s, and could easily have done so in a buoyant economy, but they were certainly not alone in Europe in failing to do so, and I would say that there is not a great deal of evidence to argue that the Conservatives would have behaved differently had they been in power.

I think it is very hard to put forward a convincing argument though, that the overall cause of the current financial situation is anything other than the banking crisis.

It isn't hard to put forward a convincing argument at all.

Look at Australia, and Canada - two broadly culturally and economically similar countries to Britain.

They both avoided the worst of the financial crisis, thanks to the economic policies of the conservative governments which were in power a few years ago.

Before the obvious retort: America doesn't count, because Bush didn't act like a real economic Conservative.

He put unfunded trillion dollar tax cuts and unfunded trillion dollar wars ahead of balancing the federal books.

I wouldn't have dreamed of citing the US - I don't think anyone would have used them as an example of balanced budgets.

Now, I don't know a great deal (actually, not much at all post the 1980s) about the Australian economy, but I did read an interesting and convincing article recently arguing that their economy was in a far more fragile state than often stated, and that they were likely to face serious problems in the near future. Annoyingly, I can't remember where I read it, will have a hunt.

I'm a Labour member (who didn't vote for EdM) and have to say I'm back to Depressed Leftie status. He needs to get his act together - he needs to be making lots of noise, he needs to be an omnipresent feature of Newsnight and Today and whatever else with real, credible, tangible policies. People are going to struggle to remember WTF he is soon. The VAT complaint today is the most he seems to have done in weeks, and it's more a case of stating the bleeding obvious than providing us with something we can rally behind.

:o How much? Do you owe yourself a fiver?

Canada - I thought they avoided the worst affects of the financial crisis because they had stricter regulation of the banking sector.

And yes, I totally agree, Labour failed to impose such regulation, but since they inherited the famous 'light touch' from the Conservatives I don't think that either party can claim a better record than the other.

Interestingly, IIRC people were predicting the problems that we now have way back in the mid 80s pre Big Bang (I'm not as old as all that, honest, I was at school studying economics so had to read the FT for that!!!)

Riven - bit like shooting fish in a barrel though isn't it :)

Who did you vote for, Hassled?

As a non Labour member (though I did vote for them on a 'least worst' basis in May) I wasn't inspired by any of the candidates. Do you think the others would have been better at this stage?

Chil1234 As usual, Red Ed is talking bollocks.

Just do the sums. If you spend x a week currently on VAT-able goods, then the new weekly spend (assuming you buy the same goods) will be

y = x * 120/117.5

If the difference between y and x is £7.50, that implies that x was

£7.50/(120/117.5-1) = £352.50.

That is £18330 a year.

Does he really think the average family spends £18330 on VAT-able goods a year? Remember, that excludes food, childrens' clothes, books...

As usual, Labour are relying on voters being thick. Though to be fair, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that Labour voters are incapable of basic numeracy.

I voted for Ed Balls. I went to a hustings, asked a question, spoke to the candidates afterwards - he was the one with the charisma, the humour, the sense that he was a human being who would connect to people. The Milibands were just awkward - pleasant but not engaging. And Balls is stronger on the economy, I feel - he would have been shouting his opinions from the rooftops by now and you might disagree with those opinions, but at least they would have been out there. At least there would have been something.