Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
slowdive

Ed Miliband

1,127 posts in this topic

Unless I've misread recent posts, both you and NS are basically saying the same thing.

Shhh! If word of that gets out I'm finished round here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing being that there have been no dramatic reversals of policy since this revelation. As ever the media have over-hyped the significance of this particular study. If the entire intellectual justification for austerity really rested on this one study, you'd have thought that the error would have been picked up before now.

This is sort of true, but there has been a general softening of the stance by a number of notable groups. I don't think this is related to the problems with this paper exactly, but more related to the lack of obvious results from policies that have been enacted.

Also, policy as implemented by governments is driven by politics and not economics. The government's economic policy is critical to them. By over egging the threats facing the economy a few years ago for purely political reasons they have now left themselves little wiggle room to change course.

Even if the economics was nailed on one way or the other, politics will always trump it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I've misread recent posts, both you and NS are basically saying the same thing.

Yet, like all great political debates, taking different positions to what those words mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sort of true, but there has been a general softening of the stance by a number of notable groups. I don't think this is related to the problems with this paper exactly, but more related to the lack of obvious results from policies that have been enacted.

This has been going on for sometime. 

 

There has been an undercurrent of doubts about austerity for some time and they've been gaining momentum.

 

As I see it:-

 

1) We don't really have austerity anyway; as often happens in recessions government spending has gone up (benefits rise due to increased unemployment)  but the tax take has fallen (fewer people in work)

2) Despite the obvious cuts, people are asking why debt is still rising (the reason being see point 1)

3) There has been little or no growth and it's hard to see how Europe can recover without outside intervention from the USA or China (not likely to happen); some think Keynesian policies are worth a try

4) Keynes argued that governments should save in good times to create a rainy day fund (oops we forgot about that); any fiscal stimulus would involve borrowing money and creating even more debts

5) It's debatable whether it would work anyway. Keynesianism was largely abandoned after it proved unsuccessful in dealing with the oil price shocks and their aftermath. Trade unions had learned from previous times that Keynesian stimulus was a good time to ask for a pay rise for their members because inflation would surely follow. This ate up any benefits that the increase in government spending would have caused and led to inflation.

6) Point 5 probably no longer applies. We live in an era of weak trade unions and low inflation imported from overseas. However, with globalisation our economy is much more open than before. Would any increase in government spending simply go on Chinese imports anyway and prove ineffective in increasing in UK or European GDP.

7) Thus sitting tight and hoping that a boom in the USA or East Asia or South America will somehow rescue the European economy becomes the default position with opposition centering around Keynesianism.

Edited by Northern Sol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy Hattersley was on Radio Leeds today.

 

He said that at the start of his career his views were regarded as being on the the right wing of the Labour Party policies, now they are  regarded to be on the left of the Party policies.

 

He says his basic views have remained the same all along.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Met him once in the GAY HUSSAR restaurant in Greek Street he used to hang out there with Michael Foot and a few others from old labour.

Very good place for cold wild cherry soup:)

Oh for the days of old labour a decent opposition with values as opposed to champagne Ed and his mates )))

CM

 

 

There is absolutely no way Michael Foot can be described as leading a decent opposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Foot was a traitor! He preached appeasment of Hitler until his pay masters in the Soviet Union were invaded in 1941! Coward and Traitor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Foot was a traitor! He preached appeasment of Hitler until his pay masters in the Soviet Union were invaded in 1941! Coward and Traitor!

 That would be why he co-authored this book in 1940, would it?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilty_Men

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did? It was not in 1940! I have SEEN old film of him preaching appeasment and surrender! He was a coward and traitor in the pay of the KGB. Just like his mate Jack Jones and Millibands shithouse of a father!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did? It was not in 1940! I have SEEN old film of him preaching appeasment and surrender! He was a coward and traitor in the pay of the KGB. Just like his mate Jack Jones and Millibands shithouse of a father!

What a lot of revisionist nonsense. Jack Jones fought and nearly died in Spain, recognising the danger of fascism whilst much of the establishment were drinking cocktails with Moseley. Ralph Miliband was a child in Belgium during appeasement, only coming to the UK in 1940. And as has been highlighted above Foot was one third of Cato.

You'll be denying the holocaust next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did? It was not in 1940! I have SEEN old film of him preaching appeasment and surrender! He was a coward and traitor in the pay of the KGB. Just like his mate Jack Jones and Millibands shithouse of a father!

 

Would that be the same Jack Jones who fought facism in Spain while the Tory  PM Chamberlain was preaching appeasment?

There were literally thouands of influential people in this country who wanted the government to do a deal with Hitler and get him to attack Russia. When Chamberlain stood down in May 1940, it was thanks to Attlee that we got Churchill as PM instead of the pro appeasment Halifax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to feed an obvious troll but I will further defend Michael Foot, a decent, kindly and honourable man: he should never have been leader of the Labour Party, but that's another story. I never had the honour of meeting Mr. Foot, but I have met people who knew him, including the Conservative candidate who stood against him in Plymouth twice, and all are unanimous in their assessment of him. (I did see him once, on a tube train, but didn't have the bottle to speak to him).

 

So far from cowardice, Foot volunteered for active service in 1939, but was rejected due to chronic asthma: it has been suggested he was recruited by Peter Fleming as part of secret stay-behind units in the event of invasion, but there is no actual evidence for this.

 

And as for the ludicrous notion that Foot was in the pay of the KGB, he was never a member or supporter of the Communist party, and resigned from Tribune after its editor was fired for refusing to follow Communist policy. Foot then went to work for that well-known Stalinist Max Beaverbrook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to feed an obvious troll but I will further defend Michael Foot, a decent, kindly and honourable man: he should never have been leader of the Labour Party, but that's another story. I never had the honour of meeting Mr. Foot, but I have met people who knew him, including the Conservative candidate who stood against him in Plymouth twice, and all are unanimous in their assessment of him. (I did see him once, on a tube train, but didn't have the bottle to speak to him).

 

So far from cowardice, Foot volunteered for active service in 1939, but was rejected due to chronic asthma: it has been suggested he was recruited by Peter Fleming as part of secret stay-behind units in the event of invasion, but there is no actual evidence for this.

 

And as for the ludicrous notion that Foot was in the pay of the KGB, he was never a member or supporter of the Communist party, and resigned from Tribune after its editor was fired for refusing to follow Communist policy. Foot then went to work for that well-known Stalinist Max Beaverbrook.

 

TBF a lot of British Socialists thought of the USSR as the "workers' paradise" because that's what Stalin's propaganda said it was. No one knew any different. It was the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, that changed their minds. Denis Healy was one of these.  He did fight in WWII attaining the rank of major. He was one of the first ashore at Anzio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBF a lot of British Socialists thought of the USSR as the "workers' paradise" because that's what Stalin's propaganda said it was. No one knew any different. It was the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, that changed their minds. Denis Healy was one of these.  He did fight in WWII attaining the rank of major. He was one of the first ashore at Anzio. 

True, although finding out the truth about Stalin's USSR wasn't quite as hard as all that; several people (including Malcolm Muggeridge) brought back reports rather more adjacent to reality. It was a less cynical age, and people generally were more inclined to take official statements more seriously. Nowadays it's hard to conceive of anybody who doesn't have to buying the propaganda of any wannabe dictator. Hands up those who think Putin's Russia is a democracy.

 

As an aside, the trust placed in official news extended even to governments: when Hitler claimed to have achieved air parity with the RAF most people in our government believed it, despite it being a wild exaggeration at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, although finding out the truth about Stalin's USSR wasn't quite as hard as all that; several people (including Malcolm Muggeridge) brought back reports rather more adjacent to reality. It was a less cynical age, and people generally were more inclined to take official statements more seriously. Nowadays it's hard to conceive of anybody who doesn't have to buying the propaganda of any wannabe dictator. Hands up those who think Putin's Russia is a democracy.

 

As an aside, the trust placed in official news extended even to governments: when Hitler claimed to have achieved air parity with the RAF most people in our government believed it, despite it being a wild exaggeration at the time.

 

 

It was a very different age. There was no internet, TV was in its infancy, the BBC was very limited as to what it could broadcast as news due to the influence of Harmsworth and Beaverbrook. You only have to look at the abdication crisis.  Everyone and his uncle knew about Edward and Mrs Simpson in the US but nobody in the UK apart from the insiders knew a thing until the crisis broke about a week before the actual abdication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a very different age. There was no internet, TV was in its infancy, the BBC was very limited as to what it could broadcast as news due to the influence of Harmsworth and Beaverbrook. You only have to look at the abdication crisis.  Everyone and his uncle knew about Edward and Mrs Simpson in the US but nobody in the UK apart from the insiders knew a thing until the crisis broke about a week before the actual abdication.

 

I know this is off topic but, with regard to the secrets of the Royal Family, this media blackout pertains. No one thinks the full truth about Princess Diana's death has been revealed, Princess Margaret's excesses weren't fully revealed until after she died and there's probably some facts about Prince Philip that will come out after he passes away.

 

NB: I don't think this is a wholly bad thing, so long as it's just confined to the Head of State and his/her immediate family.

 

The press feeds us sport, entertainment, cod sociology and whatever genuine news that the establishment allows. Following Leveson and the expenses scandal, the control of information-release will get even tighter.

 

I don't see Ed Miliband as being any champion of open information ... not after he refused  to reveal to Martha Kearney how much his proposed new policies would cost. Does anyone ever watch an interview with him and come away thinking "well there's a straight-talking trustworthy bloke" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever watch an interview with him and come away thinking "well there's a straight-talking trustworthy bloke" ?

Yep, I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is off topic but, with regard to the secrets of the Royal Family, this media blackout pertains. No one thinks the full truth about Princess Diana's death has been revealed, Princess Margaret's excesses weren't fully revealed until after she died and there's probably some facts about Prince Philip that will come out after he passes away.

 

NB: I don't think this is a wholly bad thing, so long as it's just confined to the Head of State and his/her immediate family.

 

The press feeds us sport, entertainment, cod sociology and whatever genuine news that the establishment allows. Following Leveson and the expenses scandal, the control of information-release will get even tighter.

 

I don't see Ed Miliband as being any champion of open information ... not after he refused  to reveal to Martha Kearney how much his proposed new policies would cost. Does anyone ever watch an interview with him and come away thinking "well there's a straight-talking trustworthy bloke" ?

 

As I posted earlier in the thread, Kearney gave Ed a really hard time. She asked him a question he didn't really want to answer because of the spin that would be put on it by the media. Which TBF is what she's there to do. It's just a shame that she didn't ask Cameron (I didn't hear the Clegg interview) a similarly awkward question e.g.  "how come your policies have turned 2% growth into a double (nearly triple) dip recession, and the rating agencies have downgraded Britain, and the IMF advises a change of course because they're making the situation worse not better" Perhaps that would have given Dave pause for thought. But she didn't ask the awkward question, she did as she usually does with the Tories on WATO, allowed them a virtual PPB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted earlier in the thread, Kearney gave Ed a really hard time. She asked him a question he didn't really want to answer because of the spin that would be put on it by the media.

 

Yes but it at times when the required response deviates from the prepared political spiel that an interviewee's true character can be revealed. He came across to me as a glib shifty lightweight. Mind you, that's what I would have expected beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but it at times when the required response deviates from the prepared political spiel that an interviewee's true character can be revealed. He came across to me as a glib shifty lightweight. Mind you, that's what I would have expected beforehand.

 

The point is that we already know that Cameron is a glib, shfty lightweight (and a serial liar into the bargain) but Kearney didn't take the trouble to press him.  This is not an islolated incident. During the 1992 election, Major was given an easy ride by Dimbleby whereas Kinnock was grilled mercilessly.  Had Major been pressed as he should have been, perhaps the fact that their whole campaign against Labour was based on lies (lies dreamt up by Cameron as it happens) would have come out.  Major won the election, "Black Wednesday" occurred shortly afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and congratulations to Yvette Cooper who must have managed to suck five lemons dry before her interview on the Marr Show this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that we already know that Cameron is a glib, shfty lightweight (and a serial liar into the bargain) but Kearney didn't take the trouble to press him.  This is not an islolated incident. During the 1992 election, Major was given an easy ride by Dimbleby whereas Kinnock was grilled mercilessly.  Had Major been pressed as he should have been, perhaps the fact that their whole campaign against Labour was based on lies (lies dreamt up by Cameron as it happens) would have come out.  Major won the election, "Black Wednesday" occurred shortly afterwards.

 

I don't think Martha Kearney has obvious right wing bias, whereas Dimbleby has always given me that impression. This article perhaps gives a glimpse of his true nature: -

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/apr/10/newsquest.pressandpublishing

 

Dimbleby and Miliband strike me as having a common aspect ... whatever they are saying is couched in smugness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and congratulations to Yvette Cooper who must have managed to suck five lemons dry before her interview on the Marr Show this morning.

 

Was it any worse than the supercilious smirk constantly worn by Gove? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get out of this, Miliband. One of his old colleagues has revealed what everybody knew but Labour wouldn't admit. That's another 100,000 votes for UKIP.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-to-come--hard-Britons-work-says-Mandelson.html

 

It's in the Daily Mail, it must be true :rolleyes:

 

Attracting migrant workers to this country is not a new or necessarily bad thing, especially if there is a skills shortage or demand for labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017