Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

Do Labour go hunting for the electorate who voted Blair into power 3 times and risk the wrath of the Unions, or side with the core Labour party supporters and the Unions at a risk of being unable to get back the voters who deserted them in the last election?
 

The scale of the rift between Labour and the unions over Ed Miliband's decision to embrace austerity measures has been made clear as a senior leader warned of long-term implications over the "most serious mistake" the party could have made.
Unions affiliated to Labour have been fuming since shadow chancellor Ed Balls told a conference at the weekend that he would not reverse the Government's planned 1% public sector pay cap, which affects millions of workers.
Unite leader Len McCluskey warned that Mr Miliband was setting Labour on course for electoral "disaster" and undermining his own leadership by accepting Government cuts and the cap on public sector pay.
Mr Miliband hit back against his union critics, insisting that Mr McCluskey was "wrong" to attack his decision to embrace austerity measures.
It has emerged that the leader of the GMB has written to the union's senior officials saying that the speech by Ed Balls may have a "profound impact" on its relationship with the Labour Party.
General secretary Paul Kenny said in the message: "I have spoken to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls to ensure they were aware of how wrong I think the policy they are now following is. It is now time for careful consideration and thought before the wider discussions begin on the long-term implications this new stance by the party has on GMB affiliation.
"It will be a fundamental requirement that the CEC (executive) and Congress determine our way forward after proper debate. I will update everyone as events unfold but I have to say this is the most serious mistake they could have made and the Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee." The GMB declined to comment on the message but confirmed it had been sent.
Mr McCluskey said in an article in The Guardian: "Ed Balls' sudden weekend embrace of austerity and the Government's public sector pay squeeze represents a victory for discredited Blairism at the expense of the party's core supporters. It also challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and perhaps his leadership itself."
Mr Miliband responded in a statement: "Len McCluskey is entitled to his views but he is wrong. I am changing the Labour Party so we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around and that requires tough decisions."

blueturando wrote:Hi Mel......Well I tell you what....wouldn't it be nice if the 2 Eds declared at Conference that they will increase the higher tax band to 75% just as Hollande has in France. Stop all the fake Labour BS and put your money where your mouth is.

So far we've had Balls say he will keep the freeze on public sector wages and keep all of the coalitions cuts......so why is it a case of the Tories are evil, but we will do the same (hypercritical) Or does Balls know from his days in the Treasury, that actually....there is no money left, as one of his colleagues kindly reminded us as they left office in 2010

Sometime I wonder if you and Ivan are on the Labour payroll and get paid to spin this cr*p

On offshore accounts, well I have kind of an insiders view here. For 27 years now, I have regularly seen hundreds of 2 up 2 down offices here in Jersey with company name plates sometimes consisting of between 100 and 250 registered company names...for each office. These are companies from all over the world, not just the UK.......So I know you would like to paint this as a Tory problem, but the same thing flourished without a word being said for 13 years of New Labour government.
So are we to take it as 'Red' that Ed Milliband would close down all tax havens?

At least the Labour party would not be giving the Millionaires a 5p REDUCTION in there taxes, while at the same time taxing the pensioners more because they saved for there retirement so what does that say too the future old age pensioners of tomorrow "DO NOT SAVE" for your future because a Tory gov't will hammer your savings.

The only ones spinning of CRAP is done by this shower of dick heads of a so called gov't, and the top spinners of crap is the hedge fund managers and the B(W)ankers not Ivan so if you want to be know as a fair minded Tory voter which I have always thought you to be, before you spout tory party machine crap think11111111111

Yes blue, Labour did make some mistakes regarding offshore accounts, my problem with that is Companies and business make there money HERE in the UK but put the majority of it in off shore accounts so they do not have to pay there FAIR share of tax, just think if the normal man/women of the UK put there salary in off shore accounts before the tax man got his hands on it, who would pay the salaries of this crappy gov't or pay for the tax cut for MILLIONAIRES.

blueturando wrote:Ivanhoe...I have just posted a graph on Germanys income tax rates proving this isn't the case.

Where's the graph Bluey ?

Tosh wrote:The highest earners contribute almost 30% of tax revenue, if you put up their tax by 10% this will make it 33%, and if 10% leave due to high taxation then its back to roughly 30%.

Where will they go Tosh, please tell me ?

Tosh wrote:

We are in a deep recession to quote yourself, precisely because of ongoing right wing policies in this country since the 80's.

mmm, its a global deep recession, and it is forecasted to hang around for another 5 years or more, you seem to underestimate the severity of our situation.

Our recession can only be cured by putting money in people's pockets so they can spend in the shops and this will keep our economy going.

Borrow more money=pay more interest=inflation=higher prices= less for your money=higher wages =borrow more money=Poor Man of Europe =IMF=non-democratic austerity.
We have been on this roundabout once before and we got sick.

We are in a recession due to the vast majority of the British people not having hardly any, disposable income.

We are bumping along the bottom for many reasons, one of which is we owe too much money both personally and nationally, your solution is to borrow more money.

And Cameron's ideological path is simply to continue creating unemployment, putting people on benefits which are also being cut.

Unemployment remains stubborn in countries with growth, when will the penny drop, our governments can no longer control the market, the developed countries have citizens who are technologically unemployable, and it is not going to change..........ever.

And Students having to pay their tuition fees if, and I say, if, they get a job earning the right amount of salary, is a disgrace, when the majority of our own MP's got free education.

Economic and political policies must be flexible and reflect the times, stop living in the past, your policies are rigid and obsolete. Bad ideas just do not last.

Tosh, I have a great idea that will suit you down to the ground. Make people work for literally nothing, inflation goes down, the rich get richer. How about that then ?

Here you go Ivanhoe

Germany individual income tax rates ,2012

Tax % Tax Base (EUR)
0 Up to 8,004
14% 8,005-52,881
42% 52,882-250,730
45% 250,731 and over

We can argue all day, but anyone with any sense know that too much state spending and control is bad for progress and too much market freedom leads to where we are now...Somewhere in the middle there has to be an answer, but who has it????

so if you want to be know as a fair minded Tory voter which I have always thought you to be, before you spout tory party machine crap

Ivanhoe, I am not heaping praise on the Tories, they certainly don't deserve any...but equally I cannot stand the hypocrisy of Labour who opposed all the cuts until asked 'What would you do'?????

18 USA manufacturing industries surveyed, reported growth in September, including food, petroleum and coal.
US manufacturing activity expanded in September after shrinking for three consecutive months, according to a nationwide poll from the Institute for Supply Management.

The results of ISM's closely watched monthly survey were far better than economists had been expecting, with most predicting another month of contraction. The purchasing managers index (PMI), which reflects the acquisition of goods and services, was 51.5 in September – any figure above 50 represents growth. It stood at 49.6 in August.

Dan Greenhaus, chief global strategist at BTIG, said the report was "unquestionably positive". There were signs that the housing market is finally on the mend. Ahead of ISM's latest release economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast PMI would come in at 49.5.

The other good news is that the US unemployment figs have reduced.

Now what is it that you were saying Tosh about "
Keynesian investment not working"??

Hi blue,
You have convienently taken Ball's comment on cuts out of contect. What he was actually saying was that he would cut but not as fast and as deep as the existing load of tyrants are doing. He said he would not be hitting the poor, the sick, the young and the elderly and would use alternative measures that would hit the wealthy. Of course Ed is not going to confirm he will have the top rate of tax hiked. On the other hand he did not say that he wouldn't.

On the subject of tax havens, Cameron has muttered he will" take action", all rhetoric and nowt else. Ed is being clever, for he is not commiting himself on a tax hike for the wealthy, because Cameron will play the game "they will leave the country" and the electorate have been drip fed to believe that.

Wait and see and hope you are not going to fall victim of the tax hike he will definately install if he and Labour get elected, which is highly likely although you and dear Tosh hope otherwise. I was about to say pray, then I thought--non applicable to dear Tosh.

Ed Miliband stole Cameron's clothes today in referring repeatedly to the concept of "One Nation". Nobody now believes that Conservatives have any understanding of the phrase.

As Hariette Harman commented today, Global Banks have always been free to locate their offices wherever it suits them.

Why should Britain want any of them in "our gang" if their only purpose in being here is to rob the Country blind?

blueturando wrote:

so if you want to be know as a fair minded Tory voter which I have always thought you to be, before you spout tory party machine crap

Ivanhoe, I am not heaping praise on the Tories, they certainly don't deserve any...but equally I cannot stand the hypocrisy of Labour who opposed all the cuts until asked 'What would you do'?????

Bluey, What Labour should do and will, after the next G/E, with any luck, is simply make Britain a fair country. Ultra right wing capitalism that w have had since the 80's merely panders to greed and self interest.

I'm sure a left wing small "c" Conservative like yourself, would agree with that !

Where should Labour position itself ?

Today we got the answer: It is a one nation party

This is a very clever move by Ed because it abandons the phrase New Labour but without ditching the core principles behind New Labour, and that is that Labour must appeal to a wide cross section of society, and it must be a friend to the most disadvanaged, and to the squeezed middle class.

What the likes of Mr Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis and Mick Whelan need to understand is that the modern Labour Party are most definitely not anti union, they are on the side of working people, but the Labour Party is for everyone, not just for unions or particular special interest groups.

The only way in which Labour can be electorally successful is to have wide appeal, but without forgetting its roots and its core beliefs - always championing the poor, the deprived, the less well off, the oppressed and those that need someone to speak up for them.

I like the new slogan "One Nation" and thats how it should be, an excellent speech from our next Prime Minister.

witchfinder wrote:Where should Labour position itself ?

Today we got the answer: It is a one nation party

This is a very clever move by Ed because it abandons the phrase New Labour but without ditching the core principles behind New Labour, and that is that Labour must appeal to a wide cross section of society, and it must be a friend to the most disadvanaged, and to the squeezed middle class.

What the likes of Mr Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis and Mick Whelan need to understand is that the modern Labour Party are most definitely not anti union, they are on the side of working people, but the Labour Party is for everyone, not just for unions or particular special interest groups.

The only way in which Labour can be electorally successful is to have wide appeal, but without forgetting its roots and its core beliefs - always championing the poor, the deprived, the less well off, the oppressed and those that need someone to speak up for them.

I like the new slogan "One Nation" and thats how it should be, an excellent speech from our next Prime Minister.

Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis and Mick Whelan, are on the side of working people being made to work longer for less of a pension. This is the Tory way for the working classes. And the Unions "are" doing their job.

Britain is a very rich country, yet our workers are paying the price of free market deregulation since the 80's.

This for me was the main critic' of Ed Milliband's speech.

Also, I never became a Labour supporter and activist to uphold any form of privatisation. I want Labour to go back to it's roots, having been formed care of the Unions in the first place, to protect and fight for the interests of all working people, even if some working people think they are middle class, they are in fact working class, who could still lose their jobs overnight in our continuing market lead country.

Tosh wrote:

We are a nation that has lost it's soul in fairness. We need in Britain a "fair" spread of wealth, decent State pensions for the elderly and forthcoming pensioners.

I assume you are approaching your pension and your idea of fairness is somewhat biased, the elderly do ok and would do better if their families helped out a little.

We need to rid ourselves of the means test by building Social housing at low rents for people who cannot afford to buy, we need to get people out of the high rent private sector, be they paying these rents outright, or in the trap of means tested housing benefit.

How do we establish need exists without testing the evidence, seems rather unscientific and impractical to me. We must not remove responsibility, high rents = big families, stop having children one cannot afford to house and feed, its just basic survival 101. The Beveridge Report did not recommend replacing personal responsibility with state entitlement, in fact it warned of the dangers of this, and nobody listened.

We need to abolish the unjust council tax and bring in a local tax based on ability to pay.

Without a means test ? Good God man, you are all over the place.

And to achieve all this and more, we need to spend more of our own GNP on our own people, including our vital public services.

Which part of structural deficit do you not understand, we already spend more than we earn. I think it is vital we spend money on creating more wealth then we can afford to spend more on our own people, earn first then spend not the other way around, its called debt avoidance.

And if this means taxing the rich more, so be it.

Regardless of how unfair this may be ?

Im not into "soaking the rich". I am refering to fair taxes for services rendered which we all use everyday, including our NHS.

I would like a fair return on my taxes, this means efficient services, including our NHS.

Now you can call this socialism, you can call it what you like. But in the real world it's called fairness.

In the real world its called Marxism, and the vast majority of citizens are not Marxists, this is unfortunae for you but this is the price we must all pay in a democracy. If you would like to impose your views on the majority then Marxism becomes Stalinism, and it has a poor track record.

Britain must prioritise its expenditure and there will be winners and losers, it is impossible in a deep recession for there to be no losers.

Tuition fees make me laugh, people bitching about having to pay £34 per month( £8 a week) once they earn £21k per year ( £400 a week), get freakin real.

You frighten yourself with names and words Tosh.

If Marxism means looking after the most vulnerable in Society properly, giving them dignity, then Marxism it is.

But to screw the poor and disabled to the ground, descriminating against them, marginalising them away from the rest of Society via providing them with disgustingly low benefits, coupled with patronising means testing, while the same system looks after the already rich with income tax cuts, this is an obscenity.

Based on the above factual scenario, if any rich people feel they are being ripped off paying higher taxes to fund better welfare payments for the most vulnerable in our society, then they can feck off then.

It is bad enough that so many working class people in our country continue to vote for the Tory way of tax cuts for the top, and means tested handouts for the poorest people.

Mel,

Now what is it that you were saying Tosh about "Keynesian investment not working"??.

Why do people misrepresent my views and distort facts to prove their point ?

Firstly, I did not say Keynesian investment per se does not work, I said it can be an effective temporary injection in certain economies and in certain economic conditions. Unfortunately we do not have a German £3 trillion surplus and we are not America with the largest and richest domestic market on planet earth. We have net debt of over £2 trillion and a tiny domestic market up to its neck in personal debt. Keynesian investment in these conditions will not increase growth or reduce unemployment, it will increase inflation and reduce competitiveness. Now you can get away with one of these economic factors missing but not both, America has a large internal market with large debt and Germany a small internal market with small debt, we have a small market with large debt. The reason ones internal market size is important in a long term global recession should be obvious, as obvious as the folly of artificially inflating its size with long term government borrowing. DO THE MATH, its no different to living permanently above your means off a high interest credit card, eventually over time the minimum payments crucify you and you learn to speak Greek.
Keynesian investment should be used like a credit card, a short term temporary measure to get over a bump, unfortunately Britain has maxed out its credit card.

As for America, you select one months figures indicating growth and employment but ignore the previous 3 months and ignore the previous 4 years of economic and employment stagnation. Keynesiam investment is barely keeping the world's largest domestic economy from further shrinkage.

Politicians do not want to tell people how bad things really are,and they are very bad and will remain bad for most of this decade.

Britain wil face the social consequences of yet another lost generation, very sad.





.

Tosh wrote:Mel,

Now what is it that you were saying Tosh about "Keynesian investment not working"??.

Why do people misrepresent my views and distort facts to prove their point ?

Firstly, I did not say Keynesian investment per se does not work, I said it can be an effective temporary injection in certain economies and in certain economic conditions. Unfortunately we do not have a German £3 trillion surplus and we are not America with the largest and richest domestic market on planet earth. We have net debt of over £2 trillion and a tiny domestic market up to its neck in personal debt. Keynesian investment in these conditions will not increase growth or reduce unemployment, it will increase inflation and reduce competitiveness. Now you can get away with one of these economic factors missing but not both, America has a large internal market with large debt and Germany a small internal market with small debt, we have a small market with large debt. The reason ones internal market size is important in a long term global recession should be obvious, as obvious as the folly of artificially inflating its size with long term government borrowing. DO THE MATH, its no different to living permanently above your means off a high interest credit card, eventually over time the minimum payments crucify you and you learn to speak Greek.
Keynesian investment should be used like a credit card, a short term temporary measure to get over a bump, unfortunately Britain has maxed out its credit card.

As for America, you select one months figures indicating growth and employment but ignore the previous 3 months and ignore the previous 4 years of economic and employment stagnation. Keynesiam investment is barely keeping the world's largest domestic economy from further shrinkage.

Politicians do not want to tell people how bad things really are,and they are very bad and will remain bad for most of this decade.

Britain wil face the social consequences of yet another lost generation, very sad.





.

I want an increase in the basic State pension for all UK pensioners, and future generations. I want the abolition of the means test in this country for pensioners, and the disabled, social housing for people who cannot afford to buy, of which there are millions, and a decent minimum wage.

We also need to return a manufacturing and Industry base to Britain, and to return the role of the State as investment and subsidy.

Tosh, I apologize if I miss-represented the points you made.

Ivanhoe wrote:

witchfinder wrote:Where should Labour position itself ?

Today we got the answer: It is a one nation party

This is a very clever move by Ed because it abandons the phrase New Labour but without ditching the core principles behind New Labour, and that is that Labour must appeal to a wide cross section of society, and it must be a friend to the most disadvanaged, and to the squeezed middle class.

What the likes of Mr Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis and Mick Whelan need to understand is that the modern Labour Party are most definitely not anti union, they are on the side of working people, but the Labour Party is for everyone, not just for unions or particular special interest groups.

The only way in which Labour can be electorally successful is to have wide appeal, but without forgetting its roots and its core beliefs - always championing the poor, the deprived, the less well off, the oppressed and those that need someone to speak up for them.

I like the new slogan "One Nation" and thats how it should be, an excellent speech from our next Prime Minister.

Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis and Mick Whelan, are on the side of working people being made to work longer for less of a pension. This is the Tory way for the working classes. And the Unions "are" doing their job.

Britain is a very rich country, yet our workers are paying the price of free market deregulation since the 80's.

This for me was the main critic' of Ed Milliband's speech.

Also, I never became a Labour supporter and activist to uphold any form of privatisation. I want Labour to go back to it's roots, having been formed care of the Unions in the first place, to protect and fight for the interests of all working people, even if some working people think they are middle class, they are in fact working class, who could still lose their jobs overnight in our continuing market lead country.

I agree with what you have said about the Unions Ivanhoe, and that is one of the mistakes that Labour made when in power of not getting rid of deregulation that the Maggot brought into been in the 1980s. Yes the Labour party needs to go back to its core values with a twist to bring it fit for the 21st century if you want to the Labour party to win the next G.E when ever that happens, my idea for the next general election "I WANT ANOTHER 1997 LANDSLIDE" so that the Labour party can give us all there policies and not have to depend on the L/Ds (SPIT) as a coalition party.

Privatization - where it is right
State owned - where it is in the best interests of people

For example, most people in this country do not agree with public transport ( the railways ) been privatized, most people do not wish to see wholesale privatization of our National Health Service.

On the other hand, I personaly feel it is / was a crazy idea to nationalize industry, steel, ship building, car manufacture or coal minning.

The so called "third way" as advocated by New Labour embraced both private and state owned institutions or corporations, depending on which was in the interest of the country and the people, there should be no dogmatic approach based on political agendas when it comes to what is best - state owned and run or private.

In February my new water bill for 2012-13 dropped through the letter box, the increase in charges is way above inflation, yet water companies make fat profits, their shareholders are getting nice dividends paid for by the pensioner couple who scrape by.

It is imoral that basic neccessaties like water in which we all need is sold as a commodity for people to get rich and make lots of money, and what makes this even more imoral is the fact that town halls, public services and NHS staff are told "we are all in this together".

There is nothing wrong with private enterprize or private companies just so long as the words "responsibility" and "fairness" are not only adopted but enforced, as Ed Miliband rightly indicated that they would be yesterday.

The most successful economies are ones dominated by social democratic governments and principles, where hard work and private business goes hand in hand with regulation, employment rights, a fair welfare system and decent pensions.

The hard left is finished never to return, the next step is to finish off the hard right, it is they who are the REAL enemy.

oftenwrong wrote:Ed Miliband stole Cameron's clothes today in referring repeatedly to the concept of "One Nation". Nobody now believes that Conservatives have any understanding of the phrase.

He stole more than that OW, he has stolen my HEART yes I was one of those doubters in his ability to lead and end up as PM of the UK, but over the last six months he has stepped up to the plate with bells on and his speech yesterday just BLEW me away and I am so "PROUD" to be a Labour party member and do what I can to support our Magnificent and bloody great Labour party.

witchfinder wrote:Privatization - where it is right
State owned - where it is in the best interests of people

For example, most people in this country do not agree with public transport ( the railways ) been privatized, most people do not wish to see wholesale privatization of our National Health Service.

On the other hand, I personaly feel it is / was a crazy idea to nationalize industry, steel, ship building, car manufacture or coal minning.

The so called "third way" as advocated by New Labour embraced both private and state owned institutions or corporations, depending on which was in the interest of the country and the people, there should be no dogmatic approach based on political agendas when it comes to what is best - state owned and run or private.

In February my new water bill for 2012-13 dropped through the letter box, the increase in charges is way above inflation, yet water companies make fat profits, their shareholders are getting nice dividends paid for by the pensioner couple who scrape by.

It is imoral that basic neccessaties like water in which we all need is sold as a commodity for people to get rich and make lots of money, and what makes this even more imoral is the fact that town halls, public services and NHS staff are told "we are all in this together".

There is nothing wrong with private enterprize or private companies just so long as the words "responsibility" and "fairness" are not only adopted but enforced, as Ed Miliband rightly indicated that they would be yesterday.

The most successful economies are ones dominated by social democratic governments and principles, where hard work and private business goes hand in hand with regulation, employment rights, a fair welfare system and decent pensions.

The hard left is finished never to return, the next step is to finish off the hard right, it is they who are the REAL enemy.

To answer your question WF "Where is the private sector good for the public" No Effing where.

Tosh,
So you lead us to believe you know more about the American problems than----Dan Greenhaus? Chief global strategist at BTIG, said the report was "unquestionably positive".

Will you ever accept that you can be wrong (not often)

At least they have growth, whereas Gideon's mesures of severe austerity is growing nothing but misery for the masses and nothing else except more borrowing, more quantatitve easing, which is doing nothing much to improve growth. Tory ideology seems to be more important i'm sad to say.

Redflag wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:

witchfinder wrote:Where should Labour position itself ?

Today we got the answer: It is a one nation party

This is a very clever move by Ed because it abandons the phrase New Labour but without ditching the core principles behind New Labour, and that is that Labour must appeal to a wide cross section of society, and it must be a friend to the most disadvanaged, and to the squeezed middle class.

What the likes of Mr Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis and Mick Whelan need to understand is that the modern Labour Party are most definitely not anti union, they are on the side of working people, but the Labour Party is for everyone, not just for unions or particular special interest groups.

The only way in which Labour can be electorally successful is to have wide appeal, but without forgetting its roots and its core beliefs - always championing the poor, the deprived, the less well off, the oppressed and those that need someone to speak up for them.

I like the new slogan "One Nation" and thats how it should be, an excellent speech from our next Prime Minister.

Len McCluskey, Dave Prentis and Mick Whelan, are on the side of working people being made to work longer for less of a pension. This is the Tory way for the working classes. And the Unions "are" doing their job.

Britain is a very rich country, yet our workers are paying the price of free market deregulation since the 80's.

This for me was the main critic' of Ed Milliband's speech.

Also, I never became a Labour supporter and activist to uphold any form of privatisation. I want Labour to go back to it's roots, having been formed care of the Unions in the first place, to protect and fight for the interests of all working people, even if some working people think they are middle class, they are in fact working class, who could still lose their jobs overnight in our continuing market lead country.

I agree with what you have said about the Unions Ivanhoe, and that is one of the mistakes that Labour made when in power of not getting rid of deregulation that the Maggot brought into been in the 1980s. Yes the Labour party needs to go back to its core values with a twist to bring it fit for the 21st century if you want to the Labour party to win the next G.E when ever that happens, my idea for the next general election "I WANT ANOTHER 1997 LANDSLIDE" so that the Labour party can give us all there policies and not have to depend on the L/Ds (SPIT) as a coalition party.

Hi Redflag, I could not agree more. A 1997 landslide win is what we want. If it is a hung Parliament again, I cannot see Ed Milliband doing a deal with the Lib-Dems, can you ?

To answer your question WF "Where is the private sector good for the public" No Effing where..

I assume you do not consider working " good for the public ", most people work in the private sector. The public benefit from taxes paid by private companies, what do you think pays for the welfare state ?

The public benefit from taxes paid by private companies,

Surely this should read " The public benefit from taxes paid by some private companies".

Why are Tory supporters calling for Labour to set out their policies...Is it because they have run out of ideas and need some new ones?

So you lead us to believe you know more about the American problems than----Dan Greenhaus? Chief global strategist at BTIG, said the report was "unquestionably positive".

Do you actually read my posts ?

Will you ever accept that you can be wrong (not often)

I am never wrong.

Lol Redflag......If Ed had stood up there and farted the national anthem he would have 'stolen your heart'.

A nice speach, well written for him and well rehearsed, but a speach copied from Cameron who copied from Blair, who copied it from Benjamin Disraeli. A nice gee up for the party faithfull like you and Ivan, but again no substance just political speak and flim flam soundbites.

I am pleased that many of the party faithfull now think Ed is the man to lead them at the next GE though, as this makes the Tories job a lot easier....for that Ed has also 'stolen my heart'

To answer your question WF "Where is the private sector good for the public" No Effing where..

Redflag.......Most of the public 'are' the Private sector and pay for the public sector to exist.
I guess you watch a Television made in the private sector. I am sure you shop for food...in the private sector owned supermarkets. And I hope you don't walk around naked, just because all clothing is produced by the Private sector, who 'don't do any good for the public'????

Surely this should read " The public benefit from taxes paid by some private companies".

Astradt......Are you talking about Corporate taxes, or the billions of income tax paid by people who work for private companies? Just thought I'd ask

Surely this should read " The public benefit from taxes paid by some private companies".

Most.

"Do you actually read my posts ?"

No I can't be bothered because I know what's coming.

When I have on the odd occasion taken the trouble Tosh, I have found you tend to reply with sarcasm when you are cornered and found wanting.

"I am never wrong." A I have said before Tosh, I know you are not oftenwrong, because he is noticeably brighter than you and me, with respect.

The hard left or so called "traditional" Labour need to understand that without wealth creation, then there is nothing.

It is producing, manufacturing, creating, making, constructing, building and providing the things that people want to buy which creates wealth, and whether we like it or not 99% of wealth creation is in private hands, owned by people or companies which sell things, employ people, pay taxes.

The best economies and most successful countries have free market economies with a principle known as "The Social Market Economy" as in for example Germany / West Germany under both the CDU and the left of centre SPD parties.

We do not need to be dogmatic about economics, and we should not be blinkered to reality or have closed minds, the British Conservative Party believes in everything been private, everything must be about profit, but this is a long long way from the principles of Angela Merkel and her right of centre Christian Democratic Union in Germany.

For the Conservatives here in the UK, regulation is a dirty word, public services are two dirty words, but free for all is great, and Cameron & Co would privatize simply for the sake of it, just because to privatize is a Tory principle, and whether it would benefit the general public does not come into it.

There are many private companies that try to operate in a decent way, that treat people fairly, and for those that cannot see the good in private business or in enterprise, then all I can say is that your no better than the Tories who cannot see anything positive or good in public services.

A nice gee up for the party faithfull like you and Ivan, but again no substance just political speak and flim flam soundbites.

blueturando. Had you been on 'Twitter' last night, you would have learned that I'm no fan of political speeches and tend to agree with you about sound bites.

I suppose it's a good tactic to steal a Tory catchphrase, but I don't believe there can ever be 'one nation'. There are 63 million individual interests and they are bound to conflict. Bosses want maximum profits, workers want living wages. Landlords want high rents, tenants want affordable homes. You think that the wealth creators are the rich businessmen who provide the capital, I think the wealth creators are the people who actually do the work.

Ed is the man to lead them at the next GE though, as this makes the Tories job a lot easier

The Tories would be foolish to underestimate Ed Miliband, in the way that they did with Clem Attlee in 1945. Miliband has shown the lead on several important issues, most notably the phone-hacking sleaze. And if you seriously think that anyone who didn't vote Tory last time will do so next time, you're deluded! On the other hand, there will be very many of those who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 who will help to ensure a resounding Labour victory.

Well, I think Ed Milliband was quite impressive on Radio 4 this morning - despite a hostile interview he kept his cool and offered in my view the right amount of detail about Labour policies, wrapped up in an appealing message.
I look forward to seeing his further development of the party's ideas.

IVAN...Believe it or not there is no one more than me that wants to see a more credible and strong opposition. This is the only way governments of any colour even attemp to think of the majority, because they fear loss of power otherwise.

Performance wise it was a much, much improved performance from Ed, but that is only part of the vast task in front of him. Ed and his team need to put forth some radical proposals and forward thinking policies, or we will end up with another middle of the road party and more of the same....Even I dont want that.

One Nation is a nice catch phrase, but I agree Ivan....we are made up of 65 million individuals who cannot all be lumped together under the same umbrella

Politicians over the years have dug themsleves into a hole they cannot seem to get out of. They're stuck with calling eachother names, acting like spoiled brats in the playground while totally ignoring discussion on the issues that voters want hear.

I didn't hear the radio interview but saw Ed on BBC news going on about the usual public school stuff and the tories, while forgetting that most of his shadow cabinet are public school educated too. He was also asked about what he was worth and of course dodged the question, which is a shame because I would have more respect for him and if fact any politician that says, well I'm worth about £?...but so what.

Most of the voting public can see answer dodging from a mile away and it just makes people suspicious of that politician...IE: What has this man/women got to hide?

At the moment we have two fairly wealthy upper middle class men going....'I'm more normal than him'....'Nooo, I'm more normal!!' ect ect back and forth.
Neither of them are 'normal' compared to the majority of us, so stop trying to pretend, it doesn't wash and makes you look stupid

blueturando. At this stage in the last parliament, the Tories had only two policies - to cut inheritance tax (mainly to the benefit of millionaires) and to abolish foxhunting. Neither policy has been implemented.

I'm sure Ed Miliband could spell out what Labour would do if it came to power next week, but if we've got to wait over two and a half years to get rid of these asset-stripping spivs, there's little point in speculating about what it might do then.

I very much doubt if "most of the shadow cabinet are public school educated", but I can't say categorically that you're wrong, and Ed definitely went to a comprehensive school, unlike Cameron, Osborne and Clegg. I'm not sure that any politician should be asked to disclose his or her wealth (and I doubt if many private individuals would want to either), but there's little doubt that Cameron is vastly richer than Miliband, especially if you take into account his wife's wealth.

As for the name-calling, Cameron did promise us an end to 'Punch and Judy' politics, but we all know about his promises, and he's turned out to be the rudest PM ever at PMQT.

Ed definitely went to a comprehensive school

Not just any old comprehensive school...the Marks and Spencers of Comps maybe.....Harvard was a nice touch too...But you know what? I don't care, if he comes up with good old honest policies that he will stick to and are best for the country, well then good luck to him.

My faith in politicians of any colour is at an all time low and I am sure many other voters feel the same. Speaking as just a person here and not a past Tory voter, it would be a refreshing change for someone to stand there and tell it like it is, not dodge questions and really connect with the people. Is this likely? probably not!

As for the name-calling, Cameron did promise us an end to 'Punch and Judy' politics, but we all know about his promises, and he's turned out to be the rudest PM ever at PMQT..

IVAN.....Do you like the punch and judy politics? Do you think the public likes it too? I don't think either of you do, so wouldn't it suit Milliband to be straight down the line, bigger than that...tell it like it is. It's no good banging on about how wealthy Cameron is when everybody knows he is wealthy too, because when you get pulled up it you tend to look a bit stupid and dishonest....Duh!!! Then again we could always look out for another working class greengrocers daughter

And if we see that greengrocers daughter we could always chuck her in a salt mine! It'd just save no amount of heartache and cruelty in the long run!

She sure as hell held the working class in utter contempt. But the least I can do is help to keep her memory alive by wearing my Still Hate Thatcher T Shirt when she finally croaks it!

says more about your eyesight than insight……certifiable…..I thought you lot had grown up or died.

Tosh, we can always rely on you to make it personal. Never mind, let’s have a look at your recent trite postings on behalf of the Tory Party.

Socialism ignores human nature

No it doesn’t. Friedman argued that self-interest rules us, but there’s plenty of altruism out there. Human nature does involve caring about others, whether family, friends, neighbours or just accepting that less fortunate people need care and consideration.

I am not sure if you even understand what right wing is, 13 years of Labour spending double on health and education is not right wing in anyone's language.

If you think that Labour is left wing, I suggest you take a look at this site:-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

There was and is no alternative

LOL - Thatcher, 1981. There are always alternatives in a democracy to anyone who doesn’t have a fascist mentality.

Britain has maxed out its credit card.

Jeez, so corny and so misleading that even Andrew Neil groaned and silenced Caroline Spelman when she tried to trot out that tired old Tory drivel. They can find money when they want to, such as the billions wasted on reorganising and privatising the NHS.

As Johann Hari put it: “In a recession, private individuals like you and me, perfectly sensibly, cut back our spending. We go out less, we buy less, we save more. This causes a huge fall in private demand, and with it a huge fall in economic activity. If, at the very same time, the government cuts back, then overall demand collapses, and a recession becomes a depression. That’s why the government has to do something counter-intuitive. It has to borrow and spend more, to apply jump-leads to the economy. This prevents economic collapse. Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic breakdown, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth.”
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t646-keynes-friedman-and-the-paradox-of-thrift-who-is-right

The global economy will remain stagnant until at least 2017, we are not irresponsible Greeks or Spaniards, we accept the need for austerity and no one trusts Labour with money anymore.

Is austerity working in Greece and Spain? No. If our economy remains stagnant, the Tories will have even less than their current slim chance of getting re-elected, or should I say elected. The “it’s all Labour’s fault” lie has worn pretty thin and guarantees an audience reaction on ‘Question Time’ nowadays. And do you seriously think Osborne is trusted with our money? An opinion poll said that 1% of voters think he’s our best Chancellor in the last thirty years (Brown came top with 20%).

If you understand the free market you will know it regulates against monopoly and illegality.

LOL. One or two people at Barclays who specialised in rate-fixing would have a good laugh at that one.

There is no debate about the free market

Yes there is. It can be unrestrained, as Friedman wanted and Tories and US Republicans want, or regulated in social democratic systems.

How did the Labour Party get voted into power during the 20th century when the media was owned by the rich and most people were poor?

Because people fought for and won the right to vote and there have always been more poor people than rich.

The rich have got richer but the poor have not got poorer.

The poor are certainly getting poorer now. The rich aren’t, they’re having a cut in their income tax.

They will all copy the German model

Pity we don’t copy Germany, where the richest 10% of the population earn six times as much as the poorest 10%. In the UK, the richest ‘earn’ twelve times as much. London is one of the most unequal cities on earth, where the top 10% receive 273 times more than the bottom 10%.

The coalition survives because the masses prefer to tackle the deficit now rather than later, they accept austerity is essential and this includes the public sector.

The coalition (or rather Tory-dominated government) was built on lies for which nobody voted. The voters haven't been asked if they want austerity, a policy which has been shown not to work time and time again. Whoever heard of an unemployed man paying off his debts? Hari again: “Which countries have come out of this recession fastest? They are the ones like South Korea, which have had by far the biggest stimulus packages, paid for with (yes) higher debt. Which countries have fallen furthest and shattered most severely? The ones that tried to pay down their debts immediately with huge cuts.”

Keynesian assistance is a temporary measure, it cannot be the long term driving force behind the economy, especially when we are already up to our eyes in debt.

The philosophy of Keynes was largely accepted from Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until first Pinochet (1973) and then Thatcher and Reagan (1979-80) fell under the influence of Friedman.

The UK has been in debt for all but 50 of the last 300 years, and the problem is getting worse because of the crackpot policies of Cameron and Osborne.

Our memories of political cronyism are not short.

They don’t have to be, because it’s rife at the moment, with contracts being awarded to companies with links to Tory MPs and which donate to the Tory Party. As Nye Bevan once said: "Toryism is nothing more than organised spivvery."

The elderly do ok and would do better if their families helped out a little.

Pensioners did do well under Labour, with the pension increasing in real terms, various so-called ‘perks’ and a minimum income guarantee (pension credit). But it’s a very Tory thing to say that families should help out, though I’m sure some do. Many families are hard-pressed to pay enormous mortgages and feed and clothe their kids, and some people haven’t got any family.

Labour will not win the next election

All the evidence suggests otherwise, but of course you know best, and you’ve told us “you’re never wrong”. As Bertrand Russell once said: “The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”