Ed Miliband Has Wrecked The Labour Party.

[L00b]

That's a very naïve question seeing as government is about serving a multitude of mutually conflicting self-interests. Just because not everyone benefits from every policy doesn't mean the country in general doesn't benefit.

It was rethorical. As clearly denoted by the full context of the sentence which it closed.

 

How entirely unsurprising that you would pick on it so selectively to make a non-point at my expense.

 

Yours truly,

Marie Antoinette

[avidcameron]

Yep, the Tories had been in power too long, were full of affairs, sleaze, and disaster after disaster (poll tax, salmonella, BSE and John Gummer), and had leader after leader since Thatcher went.

Blair's polishing of Labour into New Labour was just the icing on the cake, or the difference of "victory" to "Landslide victory". Remember Scargill and Socialist Labour and the way it was mocked?

 

 

Just John Major-but several after 1997.

 

---------- Post added 25-09-2013 at 16:29 ----------

 

Which leaders were they then?

 

John Major,that bloke with glasses and the one who bedded Edward Curry-that at least three:rolleyes:

[Hillpig]

Can't believe I'm actually doing this ("defending the left"), but...

 

(i) renewables and alternative energy resources were, and still are, very much needed, for the elementarily-simple reason that oil and gas natural resources are finite, their exhaustion is inevitable and, so far as the UK in particular is concerned, the country's ever-increasing dependence on imports creates an ever-growing national security issue. Nowt to do with being green/climate change this-that-the other; strategic reasons alone are enough.

 

(ii) much if not all of the Labour-introduced environment-friendly/carbon-reducing policies were according to international treaties (Kyoto etc.) driven by industrialised nations, not solely Tony/Gordon or even Ed for that matter. It was a (more or less) simple case of legislative compliance. If UK signs on the dotted line to enact, UK enacts - pretty fundamental concept.

 

(iii) there have not been "huge" R&D costs, wind power turbine technology is old as the hills, just the same as solar power. Their 'development' preceded Labour by quite some decades (a particularly big effort had been expended in the mid-70s, on the back of the '73 oil crisis...then 'shelved' for the most part once oil returned to an economical pricing level). And that's if you completely abstract the scientifical leaps and bounds of Nazi Germany during the war years in respect of synthetic petrol/lubricants. They're just become flavour of the month again. Sure, there is a lot of money being splashed on renewables, but that's not R&D, it's capital expenditure.

 

Now, by all means take pot shots at Milliband, personal ones if you feel like it - I don't care one bit for the man, he's got about as much charisma as a wet lettuce, and in political terms is just a wannabe Tony Blair. But to lay 'blame' at his feet for encouraging the adoption of renewable/alternative energy is a bit much, and a fair bit off. IMHO.

 

Thanks for the history lesson, very interesting, it goes no way to address the point I made, Milliband encouraged the energy companies to invest in R&D, that comes with a cost. He should not now attack them in this vote getting dishonest way. He is a con man.

[SpikeMac]

Thanks for the history lesson, very interesting, it goes no way to address the point I made, Milliband encouraged the energy companies to invest in R&D, that comes with a cost. He should not now attack them in this vote getting dishonest way. He is a con man.

 

Notwithstanding L00b's very lucid and accurate analysis above, you have also missed another point.

 

Milliband has clearly recognised the need for politicians to take a stand against the vested interests that threaten to wreck our country. You might like to compare and contrast today's scourges such as the energy companies/ high level bankers/ BBC executives/ multinational companies with a dislike of paying tax with the Trades Unions of the 1970s. They do have quite a bit in common.

 

I think that Ed has recognised this and the energy strategy is simply a sign of things to come. If he can tackle today's vested interests effectively, he might just become electable.

 

It won't be easy for him. We've seen today how different parts of the establishment align themselves to defend against any threat. A bit like a Trade Union for the rich and powerful. I hope that he succeeds.

[Mecky]

Wasn't it wrecked in the 1970's and again in 2007 when they bankrupted the country. One thing for sure is they don't represent the ordinary person. The gap between rich and poor increased whilst labour were last in power.

 

It both increased and decreased.

[L00b]

Thanks for the history lesson, very interesting, it goes no way to address the point I made

It addresses it square on: regardless of whether it was NuLab's Milliband or, in an alternate reality, Tories' <pick a minister>, pressing the private energy industry into investing into renewables/alternative energy sources was long overdue, and becoming compulsive in view of long-in-the-making international treaties governing G8/G20 emissions. Labour was in charge at the material time, so it fell to Milliband.

 

The private energy sector got their hands on hitherto taxpayers' funded energy infrastructure for peanuts under Thatcher, and made a tidy sum on it until then, without a shadow of any investment into furthering/replacing that energy infrastructure (when that has always incumbed to them ever since the privatisation), what other choice was there than to compel them?

 

It's the scourge of UK industry/investments in many sectors, and has been for a very, very long time: invest as little as possible, essentially under short-term imperatives/projected gains, never look at the big picture. Then get overtaken by the (foreign) competition (e.g., in many specialist industrial sectors, the Germans, who do look at the big picture and the long-term) and race to the bottom.

 

I've lived it at the coal face in several traditional UK industries, one of which emblematic of Sheffield for at least a century (industrial cutting tools). And which is now less than a shadow of its former self, surviving on ultra-specialism. But the Chinese and Indians will nab that as well soon enough, now that they've got the know-how to go with their production capacity.

 

Putting aside policies steering the national economy towards services (a grave msitake, but well), that's exactly why industrial UK plc and transport UK plc are where they are: years behind the Continent, because private investors are happy raking it in, without investing to maintain/improve/renew the revenue-generating apparatus.

 

Milliband encouraged the energy companies to invest in R&D, that comes with a cost.

And? Why should the Gvt be held responsible for boardrooms investment decisions?

 

The Gvt is one stakeholder amongst very many, just-as-relevant others.

 

Moreover,

 

(i) notwithstanding the point you completely missed about "R&D" costs (do you understand what R&D means?), R&D expenditure is heavily tax-incentivised, has been for a long time. Lest you forget.

 

(ii) are you familiar with such corporate management concepts as capital expenditure, write-down periods and costs amortization?

He should not now attack them in this vote getting dishonest way.

I don't see it as an attack, but a loud/close warning shot. The ensuing squeals attest that it's been heard, and hopefully it will sharpen relevant minds.

 

I'm certainly more right than centre-right in my political outlook (but still a fair bit to the left of Attila the Hun ), and I make no bones about it. But I agree with the principle (rather than the actual policy proposed) behind Milliband's announcement. Because it's apolitical.

[Fudbeer]

Major

Hague

IDS

Howard

 

True all very forgettable leaders.

[alchresearch]

Absolutely. And Milliband will join them, along with Menzies Campbell.

 

I don't understand how Ed thinks he can dictate prices and impose regulations on the industry, conveniently ignoring petrol prices. After all, Labour haven't had much luck in the past at trying this.

[truman]

Absolutely. And Milliband will join them, along with Menzies Campbell.

 

I don't understand how Ed thinks he can dictate prices and impose regulations on the industry, conveniently ignoring petrol prices. After all, Labour haven't had much luck in the past at trying this.

 

How much did fuel duty go up when Ed's mob were in power? He didn't seem too bothered about energy prices then...

[alchresearch]

There's a nice little graph here:

 

http://www.petrolprices.com/files/2011/07/fuelgraph.jpg

 

and the coalition abolished Labour's fuel duty escalator.