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 think the big economic problem on the horizon will be inflation, not unemployment.

That is why I am a bit wary of the VAT rise.

Inflation is the inevitable consequence of the quantitative easing and low interest rates binge.

Hopefully the big fiscal cuts will compensate for the big monetary stimulus.

thebrownstuff LOL :o

As for the OP - as others have stated, Labour don't need to be offering alternative policies for now. They need to set the pathetic rhetoric you keep quoting about "the worst deficit in the Western world". Untrue. The coalition are doing a good enough job in self combusting and becoming parodies of themselves - if anyone can hear any single one of them talk without saying the soundbite "sorting out this almighty mess left by the last Labour government" bla bla bla, then I will eat my own head. Ed don't need to worry for now.....they are doing his work for him.

Just a query - but for all this talk about cuts and deficit reduction, how come in November there was the largest government borrowing of any month ever recorded and the deficit went up way beyond analyst predictions?

poor george

LadyBlaBlah It is a serious problem - so what do you suggest to do about it?

I hope it is just the Debt Management Office being prudent. They should borrow as much as they can now, while the market interest rates are at historic lows (because Britain is seen as a flight to safety compared to Eurozone countries, and even the US). Profiling the way we borrowing over the next couple of years intelligently could save billions of pounds in interest payments.

However, I fear it is because Labour's toxic legacy is even worse than expected.

May I take you back to 2008?

LFN, really it is not true that Labour did not penalise people who didn't look for work, or claimed Incapacity Benefit when they didn't deserve it

Well, as someone has commented in the article I posted:

Are "November's borrowing figures" the reason why we need decisive action?

Or are "November's borrowing figures" the consequence of decisive action?

Or put another way (by another commenter):

Austerity driven cuts = low growth = high deficit = we need more austerity = lower growth = higher deficit = we need even more austerity = even lower growth = even higher deficit = ok now we really need austerity.

Surely the signs that they have made idiotic decisions are clear (house prices, borrowing, inflation, unemployment, available jobs) that it really is time for Plan B.

Why do Labour oppose a £400 a week limit for housing benefit, then?

Why do they oppose housing benefit claimants having to live in 30th percentile properties, rather than 50th percentile properties?

Labour ignored the working class, did everything possible to encourage a scrounger class, and imported millions of foreign scroungers for purely electoral reasons. That it started to reverse some of its own bonkers policies towards the end of its term, isn't something to be particularly proud of.

If Labour really cared about welfare reform, it would have listened to Frank Field or James Purnell, instead of marginalising them.

Growth was very high (perhaps too high, bearing in mind our inflation level) in the lead-up to November, so that isn't a very plausible narrative, LadyBlaBlah.

Firstly, growth wasn't 'very high' in the lead up to November - it grew 0.7% for Q3 2010.

Are you saying that it is not true that many economists and others predict that pressing on with austerity measures will depress the economy and lead to real-term wage cuts?

"imported millions of foreign scroungers"

Oh dear LFN that really is scraping the bottom of the Tory barrel

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.

How will he do this? by increasing the minimum wage above poverty levels or by cutting benifits to below starvation level?

LBB, the Tory barrel has no bottom.

In most organisations the cream rises to the top, in the Tory party the scum sits on the surface.

During Osbournes parliamentary speech outlining his cuts the filth on his back benches were laughing and shouting "more more" did they give a flying fuck that lives would be blighted? not for one moment, did they worry that the cuts would lead to people dying due to lack of care, never entered their heads.

And LFN says to describe the Tories as uncaring is "stupid" what i would ask her whenever was the Tory party decent and caring. Never in my life time

I am in favour of more immigration - much more immigration - but only the right sort of immigrants. Highly qualified, highly skilled immigrants, yes.

Those who are just going to scrounge, no thank you.

Sadly, I don't think we should unskilled immigrants working really hard in low-paid jobs either - though I would far rather have them here than a native dole scrounger.

Of the 610,245 immigrants to the UK during the July to September 2009 period, 371,000 were students who can apply for a NI number and work part time legally, but cannot claim benefits.

That leaves 239,245 potential benefits claimants.

Of these 239,245, 112,000 were work permit holders and their dependents, all of who can work, apply for a NI No but who again cannot claim benefits.

That leaves 127,245. Of these 85,000 were UK residents, some of whom may or may not be perfectly entitled to claim benefits. Others due to the length of time spent outside the UK, will not be entitled to claim certain benefits. That leaves us with 42,245.

29,085 of these were from eastern European countries that require worker registration. As stated above, some of these are entitled under reciprocal EU arrangements to certain benefits.

Of the remaining 13,160, 5,055 were asylum seekers. The remainder would be Youth Mobility, Ancestry visa entrants and such, none of whom can claim benefits.

The "foreign scroungers" thing is very well backed up by the evidence.

There is a particular problem of benefit scrounging amongst particular ethnic groups.

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/11/work_benefits_and_ethnicity.html

No doubt Labour will say it is because certain groups of immigrants are oppressed, that they need support, that they need coddling. I say, nonsense. If you want to come to Britain, then don't sponge off the State. It's that simple.

Overt racism is all but dead in London - the last time I experienced it was over 8 years ago.

That BBC report doesn't in any way back up your 'argument' LFN and in no way is evidence for 'foreign scroungers'.

It is fairly clear that certian ethnic groups put more demands on the State than others.

It has nothing to do with being an immigrant or being ethnic - some ethnic groups do far better than the White British population.

Is it cultural? Is it because of particular historical migration patterns? The correct answer to all the above should be: WHO CARES?

If you come to Britain, and aren't a net contributor to the Exchequer after three years, I believe you should be kicked out of Britain. What exactly is the benefit of immigration if so many immigrants end up scrounging? And I can bet that attitudes towards immigration would be far healthier if immigrants were seen to be contributing.

As someone from an immigrant background, I would support such changes wholeheartedly, and so would most of the "right sort" of immigrants - those who want the opportunities that Britain provides, without being a burden on the British taxpayer.

Take a leaf out of the USA immigration policy. You can't sign on unless you've been there 8 years and that's with a visa to stay.

British scroungers are bad enough, without importing foreign ones!

I don't understand what you want to change? As the figures above show, there are a tiny minority of immigrants who are allowed to claim benefits??

You keep saying that people are scrounging, the figures do not support that. The laws and rules do not support that.

You say that people would have a better attitude towards immigrants if they weren't scrounging.........they aren't. So actually what needs to change is your disgraceful racist attitude perpetuating myths about ethnic groups.

lololol at "Red Ed'

Is your problem with the word "scroungers"?

If so, then sorry, but I believe a high proportion of all benefit claims are "scrounging", even if they are "legal".

What have I said which is racist? I want to actively discriminate - and do so on the basis of economics.

Those who come to this country should enrich this country, not impoverish it. That is not racist.

Neither is it racist to point out that there are particular problems of benefit dependency (which I call scrounging) amongst certain ethnic groups.

complimentary The US system for legal immigration is pretty good - we could learn a lot from it.

Unfortunately, they have a particular problem with illegal immigration, made almost impossible to control, due to their massive land borders.

We don't really have such natural problems. Most illegal immigrants coming into Britain these days either come as bogus students, or overstay their visa, I think.

LFN, is your true nature now showing itself, I do hope not, although I detest your policies and all your party stands for i would not have thought you a racist (like many many Tories).

newwave What have I said which is racist?

I want to discriminate on the basis of economics, not skin colour, religion, gender, sexuality or anything else. Something very objective - is it likely to be worth Britain's while to take a given immigrant, or not?

I just don't understand how that is racist.