Ed Miliband Has Wrecked The Labour Party.

[GLASGOWOODS]

I think Miliband's doing a decent job and increasingly looks like he might have the backbone to be PM, if not the charisma. It looks like he's being proved right on Syria and the changes he's proposing to party membership from Unions is certainly brave. I suspect it's all going to be for nought as the Tories have pulled too much wool over too many eyes.

 

While the recovery does now, finally, seem to be underway and the Tories are quick to take credit but really they've very little to claim credit for. Economies will nearly always exhibit a natural bounce in response to recession; shops drop their prices to attract customers, those still in work start spending, which leads to more people getting back into work and so on. The Tories' early policies - slashing public infrastructure projects, public sector jobs and freezing pay - put more people out of work than needed to be and rocked consumer confidence, which did a fine job of suppressing that natural bounce and is the real reason we were one of the last developed economies to get out of recession.

 

On the face of it, it sounds like Plan A was foolish but the Tories' plan for this term was always a game of two halves. They knew that the economy would always pick up on its own eventually, so in the meantime they set about making their own bogeymen on which to blame Britain's ills. Men of straw that could be knocked down (or would fall down of their own accord), so they could embed in the public psyche the idea that they had driven the recovery. The two biggest of these are benefits and immigration.

 

Benefit fraud makes up a tiny fraction of the overall welfare bill and the long-term, 'unwilling', unemployed are actually pretty rare, so the Tories' broad-brush and regressive reforms have made a lot of sick, disabled and legitimate worse off to try and get at the small minority who are abusing the system. The Tories set themselves a target to cut the benefits bill and they've cut it. Hooray for Conservatism! But let's think about that for a minute. For one thing, benefits spending has never actually been much of a drag on the economy. Whichever way you cut it, it represents a pretty small slice of public spending so the modest reduction we've seen was never going to be the difference between the economy growing and not growing. More importantly though, what else might cause the welfare bill to come down? That's right, a growing economy, easily the most powerful force for reducing benefit spending there is. The Tories said they would cut spending on benefits knowing it would happen even if they did sod all. But they didn't do sod all, they flogged the 'strivers and skivers' pony for all it was worth, so Barry d'Ailymail on the street would know that they were tough on benefit claimants and that's why the benefits bill has gone down and that's why the economy is getting better.

 

It's a similar story with immigration. The truth is, the large majority of migrants to this country cause a net gain to the British economy, and our economy (in particular the state pension and care for the elderly) is reliant on a growing population, so it's not really true that more people coming in is bad for the British. But that's not where the Tory straw man is standing this time, not quite. The truth is that migration from Eastern Europe has been falling since before the Tories came into power. The UK was an easy ride in the boom years but since the crash, with the property bubble deflating and credit harder to come by, it's been a much tougher gig and as a result, a lot of those East European economic migrants have decided they're better off at home. Last month, WizzAir cut 16 of their weekly flights back to Poland because of falling demand. So once again, the Tories made a promise to cut net migration knowing full well it was falling anyway. I suspect that one could come back to bite them in the next two years though, as the economy picks up and potentially we see an influx from Bulgaria and Romania. How are they going to blame Labour for that?

 

Speaking of blaming Labour, the oft-repeated mantra that Labour's spending and borrowing was the root of all evil also doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. In 1997, Labour inherited large defecit and high public debt, both of which decreased steadily until the crash started in late 2007, by which point national debt was lower than when they took office. Labour increased public sector spending substantially, but against the backdrop of a steadily growing economy and a neglected public sector which was suffering from the 14th smallest public sector spend of the 15 EU nations at the time. There's a lot of public sector demonisation about at the moment, but the truth is that in places like Sheffield, where a large industrial sector has all but disappeared, are more reliant on the public sector than most for employment. The Tories will always cut public sector spending. A cut in public sector spending is bad for Sheffield, even if you don't work in it yourself the local economy will still suffer. Voting Tory in Sheffield is like a turkey voting for Christmas.

 

As for the bleating about boundary changes, while it is true that they are slightly against the Tories at the moment, 2014 could see the mother of all boundary changes if Scotland becomes independent and their MPs all bog off back to Holyrood. That'll swing the pendulum further in the Tories' favour than the boundary commission ever will. Not that the Tories aren't already moving the goalposts in their favour with this £26k benefit cap. What do you suppose happens when people are forced to move to poorer areas? The area they leave behind becomes more blue, but the area they're moving to is probably already red!

 

This is nonsense!

 

I will let someone else on here rip this apart.

[Manlinose]

There's nothing unfair about the UK minus Scotland having a Tory government when that is what the majority of people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland want. It's nothing at all like boundary changes.

 

but that is the whole point - it isn't what the majority of people in England Wales and Northern Ireland want - it is what a minority want to dictate to everyone else - no government has been elected on more than 50% of the vote - (the current coalition's votes added together total 59% but that is after the event, not before it)

[Happ Hazzard]

What's the alternative? Proportional Representation? I wouldn't have a problem with that but I think the majority of people in this country prefer FPTP where you have clear winners and losers.

[Manlinose]

What's the alternative? Proportional Representation? I wouldn't have a problem with that but I think the majority of people in this country prefer FPTP where you have clear winners and losers.

 

you're right about the first point and you may be right about the second point, but FPTP didn't create a clear winner in the last election and has distorted the wishes of the electorate in every election

 

i also think that the performance of the current coalition may have changed some people's views about the perils of PR.

 

if the next parliament is also hung, and results in another coalition, how strong is the argument that FPTP creates clear winners then? - it only works when there is a two party state - we currently have a four party state in England

 

it may be true to say that a majority of the electorate want a majority government, they just never want the one that is elected

[RutlandFlyer]

There's nothing unfair about the UK minus Scotland having a Tory government when that is what the majority of people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland want. It's nothing at all like boundary changes.

 

How is it not like a boundary change? Scotland going independent would cost the Lib Dems 11 seats, Labour 41 and the Tories only 1. It would hand the Tories a far larger advantage than the one the boundaries currently give to Labour. Who'll be refusing to let changes happen then? Don't forget the coalition's boundary changes were voted down because the SNP, SDLP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Greens and Respect all thought they were being too greedy, not just Labour.

[beer]

you're right about the first point and you may be right about the second point, but FPTP didn't create a clear winner in the last election and has distorted the wishes of the electorate in every election

 

i also think that the performance of the current coalition may have changed some people's views about the perils of PR.

 

if the next parliament is also hung, and results in another coalition, how strong is the argument that FPTP creates clear winners then? - it only works when there is a two party state - we currently have a four party state in England

 

it may be true to say that a majority of the electorate want a majority government, they just never want the one that is elected

 

Never be confused by peoples voting intentions, their actual voting and PR.

 

 

Folk will say they intend to vote a certain way which probably reflects their desire. Many will however vote a totally different way because they would rather vote tactically to stop their last choice from getting elected.

 

This brings us on to PR. You cannot read into a PR election result anything that happened in a non PR election because of tactical votes and the fact that many can't be bothered to vote in a constituency where their vote makes no difference.

 

So who knows what would happen if we had PR. It might well be that the EDL, UKIP and other fringe parties got rather a larger share of the vote than some would find comfortable.

 

---------- Post added 20-09-2013 at 16:52 ----------

 

How is it not like a boundary change? Scotland going independent would cost the Lib Dems 11 seats, Labour 41 and the Tories only 1. It would hand the Tories a far larger advantage than the one the boundaries currently give to Labour. Who'll be refusing to let changes happen then? Don't forget the coalition's boundary changes were voted down because the SNP, SDLP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Greens and Respect all thought they were being too greedy, not just Labour.

 

Its not a boundary change as the constituencies are no longer there or the voters. So their opinion doesn't need to be considered. You should add to your list the loss of half a dozen SNP MPs who hardly support the Torys in the Westminster parliament.

[alchresearch]

This is nonsense!

 

I will let someone else on here rip this apart.

 

I stopped reading at "I think Miliband's doing a decent job and increasingly looks like he might have the backbone to be PM". Obviously a troll posting such an outrageous statement

[RutlandFlyer]

Its not a boundary change as the constituencies are no longer there or the voters. So their opinion doesn't need to be considered. You should add to your list the loss of half a dozen SNP MPs who hardly support the Torys in the Westminster parliament.

 

But that's exactly the point, Scottish independence will take away 68 seats from parliament, only one of which is Tory. The Tories would retain practically all their voting power while Labour and the Lib Dems take a big hit. Without boundary changes, it would be substantially harder for Labour to win a majority.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about the SNP? They're still opposition MPs that won't be around to vote against an undiluted Tory party, so they still win.

[Mister M]

The Tories would have won an overwhelming majority if the boundries were fair, Labour didn't have a client state of public sector workers and benefit claimants, and there was no postal voting fraud and other skullduggery in Muslim areas.

 

Sorry but Tories also engaged in postal voting fraud - so you're wrong there.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8662814.stm)

 

Lots of unemployed and 'client state' people are the most vociferous tories out there.

 

Lots of people who work in public sector also vote Tory as well.

 

So I'd rely less on stereotypes if I were you HH. Otherwise you run the risk of appearing ignorant and looking dim.

[Happ Hazzard]

Sorry but Tories also engaged in postal voting fraud - so you're wrong there.

 

Lots of unemployed and 'client state' people are the most vociferous tories out there.

 

Lots of people who work in public sector also vote Tory as well.

 

So I'd rely less on stereotypes if I were you HH. Otherwise you run the risk of appearing ignorant and looking dim.

Do you have evidence of any of this?

 

I'm sure there some unemployed and public sector people that vote Tory, but they are vastly outnumbered by their Labour voting brethren.

 

---------- Post added 20-09-2013 at 17:32 ----------

 

But that's exactly the point, Scottish independence will take away 68 seats from parliament, only one of which is Tory. The Tories would retain practically all their voting power while Labour and the Lib Dems take a big hit. Without boundary changes, it would be substantially harder for Labour to win a majority.

Labour would have to substantially change their policies to appeal to English voters.