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?

Hassled The received wisdom in Labour circles is that he should just wait for the coalition to screw up, and then will win by default.

I really don't think that works. Who was the last PM who won an election by "default"? Without making big, controversial decisions beforehand?

John Major, perhaps - but as PM, he had to deal with ditching the poll tax, and the aftermath of ERM, which gave him some credibility in the run-up to 1992. He was not as defined as Thatcher, but he did have ideas.

Before that, you probably have to go back to Edward Heath to get a universally acknowledged non-entity as an elected PM. I actually have a lot of respect for Callaghan...

If he has no policies, why is he called red ed? how would you know?

Partly, because he is very definitely on the left of the Labour party. But mainly, because it rhymes

Actually, I don't think you have to go back that far. I reckon the coalition was very much a result of the number of people on the left who just couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour any more, whether because of civil liberties, the Iraq war, or their general move to authoritarianism.

I partially agree with the old adage that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them - but with a very important caveat. The opposition does have to be credible.

I wonder what would have happened in 1992 if Blair was Labour leader then, instead of Kinnock?

The Tories would not have been able to do what they did in the 2010 election if Michael Howard or IDS were still leader.

Whilst Gordon Brown, with his total inability to communicate, was obviously completely inadequate as a PM, the detoxification (albeit partial) of the Tory brand by David Cameron was very important too.

The thing which Labour needs above all else is economic credibility.

That means they have to either have a plan to deal with the deficit, or to proudly spout Ballsian "deficits don't matter" nonsense.

Dithering and saying "well, we would cut too, but not as much, and we won't tell you what we would cut, only that we oppose every single one of the government cuts" is a bit... well... weak.

Cameron definitely didn't hit the moment the way Blair did, though - it remains to be seen whether he will be a Thatcher or a Heath, I would say.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense - clearly he is more in the Thatcher mould economically - I mean in terms of his longevity as PM, of course.

My guess is "somewhere in the middle".

Funnily enough, I agree with you on the economic credibility front, Longfingernails. Labour need a really clear explanation as to why they are different from the Conservatives, rather than being simply a 'nicer' version of the same thing.

Personally, (and admittedly unfashionably) I feel that they have to grasp the nettle of who controls the means of production. I think both sides will agree that old fashioned national ownership is unwieldy and not a good solution.

Its interesting that even the Conservatives are beginning to talk about mutuality, worker share ownership and so forth (and of course Thatcher was in favour of the latter). To take that a step further and put forward a convincing programme whereby people have real control of the the businesses where they are employed would be a genuinely radical step forward.

(I don't mean in the traditional small workers co-op sense, though that can work well for smaller businesses - and even some larger ones - but in the sense where workers employ professional management to run the business for them.)

Labour has neither to explain nor apologise, the ConDems will defeat themselves, rightly or wrongly they will try to "balance the books" and the damage they cause to the electorates standards of living and to the poor, sick and vulnerable will be the end of them.

The one thing Tories never understand is that compassion (and you dont really expect them to understand it as it is alien to the nature of a Tory) and social decency has a value to society and the Tories lack of both will repulse all decent people.

newwave - you may not feel Labour need to explain or apologise, but they do need to oppose. At the moment they're not really even doing that. I can't believe I'm typing these words, but I agree with longfingernails - they just aren't providing a credible economic alternative. It isn't enough to be an opposition by default - they have to have plans which are easily presented and easily understood. Simply saying "the Coalition is wrong" isn't enough.

And as I said, I'm a Labour member - not an active one at the moment, but a member. If this is how I'm feeling, they have not a chance in hell of converting a floating voter. Whatever additional votes they win in Oldham won't be because they've done a good job, it will be because the Coalition is perceived as having done a bad job, and that isn't just good enough.

newwave Why, exactly, then did Mrs Thatcher win three elections with massive majorities?

Besides, the stereotyping of the uncaring Tory is stupid, and the electorate know it. Anyone can see that Iain Duncan Smith genuinely cares about helping the poor (though not giving them more money).

Free schools and academies will bust open the teacher unions that stifle the potential of children. Highly compassionate to everyone except mediocre teachers.

Putting the country into a mountain of debt to fund pie-in-the-sky everyone-is-equal ideals isn't "compassionate". It is just stupid.

Oh, Labour will easily win big in Oldham. That seems fairly obvious. They will make huge gains in the local, Scottish and Welsh elections in May too.

Whilst important, those elections shouldn't be regarded as completely kosher barometers of public opinion though. They will largely just be about the usual anti-incumbency mood. I think even Boris might be vulnerable to the anti-incumbent mood in 2012 - though he is more likely to pick up Lib Dem second preferences than almost any other Tory.

The general election isn't until 2015 though.

Anyone can see that Iain Duncan Smith genuinely cares about helping the poor (though not giving them more money).

IDS will give them warm words that will heat a freezing home or a rough sleeper then.

No - IDS will align the financial incentives, in order that they find it makes more sense to get a job, and find it makes more sense to stay in a job.

LFN - the last government and all previous governments have introduced financial incentives to get people back into work. It is a myth that IDS is doing anything new in that respect.

It is new however to introduce the feckless, scrounging, "get the bus" rhetoric back into it, all the while slashing jobs.

LFN, what bloody jobs! your party will INCREASE unemployment not reduce it, I ask again what jobs.

Pie in the sky

And before you quote Hameron's BS figures.......

"In response to a question on the increase in unemployment by the Labour leader, Ed Mili­band, at Prime Minister's Questions on 15 December, David Cameron said: "While part of the figures are disappointing, they are mixed because we did see the claimant count has come down in the unemployment figures and also we are seeing an increase in the number of vacancies in our economy. Every day, there are another 10,000 vacancies. So, yes, we have got to get the private sector going, increase the number of jobs that are available." They sure do.
Pretty vacant

The claimant count, which excludes many of the unemployed, including all 16-to-17-year-olds, fell by a paltry 1,200. Cameron misspoke, as vacancies are not rising by 10,000 a day. Far from it. Over the quarter, they in fact grew by only 1,000. So, assuming there are about 91 days in every quarter, the number of vacancies grew by only 11 a day, not 10,000.

Anyway, this increase was driven primarily by a one-off increase in vacancies in the public sector. As is made clear in a note on page nine
of the data release, the estimate for the three months to November 2010 includes vacancies for temporary jobs in connection with the 2011 census, which have been advertised by the Office for National Statistics since October 2010.

Excluding these census vacancies, there were 455,000 vacancies in the three months to November 2010, down 12,000 from the three months to August 2010, or 132 a day. Private-sector vacancies fell at a rate of 55 a day.

"

Taken from here

Whilst important, those elections shouldn't be regarded as completely kosher barometers of public opinion though. They will largely just be about the usual anti-incumbency mood.

Less than 9 months in office, normally the honeymoon period lasts a bit longer.

Think about it, even with all the poor news for Labour the Tories failed to get a majority and after 9 months you think the "country" will vote against them, hardly a ringing endorsement is it.

In 4+ years of taking the axe to valued social services and increasing social division the Tories will be out of office for a long time.

newwave Not true. There are several hundred thousand vacancies, right now.

The policies of this government will shrink the public sector (but not that much, when viewed against the apocalyptic rhetoric). It needs to stimulate the private sector to compensate though. The best way to stimulate growth would be to scrap the 50p top income tax rate - it barely brings in any money anyway. One way to make it politically feasible, though perhaps administratively too complicated, is to say that the 50p tax rate will only be scrapped for those people who can show that they employ 3 or more other people.

LadyBlaBlah Unfortunately, under the policies of the last government, it was entirely rational for certain people to choose welfare over work. That will hopefully not be possible when the new welfare changes kick in.

newwave Tony Blair lost local elections left, right and centre throughout his terms in office. So did Maggie.

Like Thatcher, though, he never lost a general election.

Here's my contribution to the thread Ed's Policies I'm in the know