Mr Cameron, you started your speech today saying you were a rather "uncomplicated" man. Your personal simplicity is perhaps the one part of your speech that I agreed with. Never have I been so proud of being on the left as when I was listening to you just now. Here are just a few reasons why your simplistic agenda fails to come up to scratch:
1) Life is more complicated than "Small Government Good, Big Government Bad." The world has moved on from such dogmatic ideology. As Obama said, it's not the size of the state that matters - it's what works. If you've ever met anyone who's just come out of prison, been long term unemployed or a young single mum you'll know that simply withdrawing state support doesn't work. To get people back into work, people need confidence, skills and training. These things are expensive. You can't just stop investing in people and expect them to give something back. And in a recession, the state may need to pay to create jobs for people to go in to whilst the private sector gets itself back on its feet. Shrinking government now is bad economics.
2) You say that you want society to take the place of the state, but you don't say how you are going to create this revolution. Just roll back the state and hope everyone picks up where it left off...? Compare your speech to Brown's policy packed agenda and you don't just seem like a novice - you look hollow.
3) A word about incentives. You claim there is a 96% "tax" on certain groups that go back into work. This twist of logic blows Orwell out of the water by counting past benefits as taxes. Sure, there is a work incentive problem, but there are two ways to solve that. The first is to increase working tax credits, as Labour has done, and the second is to cut benefits. Doing the second just plunges people already below the poverty line further down. "Incentive" in your dictionary, David, means pulling the plug on the poor. To dress this up as helping the vulnerable, a move which won you a standing ovation, is sickening.
4) You're a hypocrite on the size of the state. If you think a surge in Afghanistan and an increase in prison building won't build up this country's debt, you really are simple. The only difference with spending it on jails and bombs is that it doesn't reap back the benefits of reinvestment that spending on health and education would.
5) Absolute inequality did increase under Labour. That is undeniably grim. But do you know what, Labour slowed down that growth in inequality massively compared to Thatcher. Just read King's new book - A Generation of Change, a Lifetime of Difference. It's got all the facts you need.
6) You're a hypocrite on benefits. The story you told about Viv Williams, who was forced onto incapacity against his will, is a sad one. But the Tories would perpetuate state enforced dependency in other ways. Theresa May told me this week that the party had no plans to lift the employment ban on asylum seekers, even if the Home Office fails to process their claims for years. Yours talk here doesn't come from a brave commitment to genuine values; it comes from the worst kind of political pragmatism.
In short, Mr Cameron, you're over simplistic agenda is hollow, hypocritical and dangerous. Please do us all a favour, and produce some policies that work, even if - heaven forbid! - they are a bit more complicated.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
You speak of cuts - where have the planned polyclinics gone? Not enough money in the budget? Labour are cutting the NHS now.
We have been through this over and over again.
The Tories have promised to ringfence NHS spending until 2014 not two years. If you are going to debate policy which I admit is unusual for a Labour supporter; get it right.
Also, you suppose what you like, can you read Osborne's mind?
The UK spends on public and private health around 9% GDP.
The same as Sweden.
Yet, according to the WHO organisation, NHS medical outcomes do not make the world's top 15. Sweden is world class (Top 5).
Why is that? Is it want for good staff and modern facilities? No.
It's not the frontline who are widely regarded as world class; it's the organisation and the bureaucratic mess the NHS has become. Constant re-organisations, endless intiatives, perverse target chasing.
There's the huge difference, who is the NHS accountable to? The patient, doctors and nurses or Whitehall & Chief Executives.
The Swedish model, social democratic Sweden puts the locality in charge, puts hospital transparency with its patients as a priority, it lets hospitals compete, it lets patients choose.
That's the big government that has to change. The NHS cost £100bn a year, I know for a fact that money is not spent as well as it could be spending two years of my life trying to sort out the morass of its IT programme.
In terms of productivity, despite all the investment since 1997 it has declined.
You can parrot 'cuts, cuts' but are you seriously telling me that the NHS spends every penny wisely?
No it doesn't not, I know it, you know it and the electorate know it.
It's not about cuts, it's about re-jigging who decides where the money goes, re-jigging who makes the decisions and putting patients and the locality in charge.
So a much smaller army of administrators, much more empowerment to the frontline.
Don't parrot foundation hospitals at me either, they are a joke in terms of the autonomy they should have.
Who has ringfenced NHS spending? The Tories. Who is going to subject it to a 7% spending cut in 2012 - Labour.
You know that this is nonsense. First the "ring fence" is for two years only, which means that in year three Osborne will cut hard. Second, it is not a guarantee, Osborne and Lansley have both admitted that it will only depend on what Osborne sees when he gets in the Treasury. The likelihood is that on 7 May Osborne will say "oh there is less money than we thought, so we are going to cut the NHS anyway". It is tempting, isn't it? I mean the NHS is 1/6th of public spending.
Even if there is a "ring fence" the two year limit means that trusts will be cutting services during those two years to cushion the swingeing cuts in the third year. I have spoken to Finance Directors from two trusts and they have told me that they expect at least a 10% cut when the "ring fence" expires so they will cut services in the first two years to protect them when the large cuts come in.
The Conservative Party will NEVER be the party of the NHS
Charlie, I am a contributor to the LL. I don't have a blog, I have nothing to gain either financially or personally from the stuff I write other than to express an opinion and hope for some reasonable debate on issues that effect our daily lives. Admittedly I don't reply to everyone who comments, but I do at least try to enter into some form of debate (and I've failed on a monumental scale at times).
I just wish that some of the commenters would write down what they touch on in response to some of these articles and give us some gritty articles that really do connect and strike a cord. And of course I want existing contributors to revisit their articles, but when some of them are now politicians, they can't risk saying a wrong word incase it ends up on the 10 oclock news.
Is there anywhere on-line I can read about your Andy Burnham escapades, they sound fun? (o;
Alex has kindly attempted to get me a platform with Andy Burnham, but now he is in the cabinet he can't be seen to be discussing anything with me or entertaining my views on what has happened to Labour. Unfortunately for him my memory isn't so short as to remember what he was like prior to his cabinet role or his disregard to certain local issues. Thats not even going into his treatment of colleagues and ensuring that the most promising just happened to be implicated in a scandel.
Now Alan Johnson on the other hand I have always in the past had lots of respect for, but he's managed to make a complete twit of himself in the role of Home Secretary. He could have pushed hard to abolish ID cards and really forced the issue. Instead he hopped onto Party line faster than a fly finds &%*$.
Hilary Benn. Out of respect for another politician who I do think is an absolute star, I won't be able to comment on him. Well, other than "Sort the bins out Hilary" but then does he have the influence he should in his own constituency now?
The problem is Ian, yes I can pick anyone apart, but they really are not the fresh face that Labour needs. That is why the question over the future of Labour is so difficult, because the talent at the top just isn't there. I see plenty of talent here, ironically I actually think Rowenna would be a half decent politician if she listened and took onboard comments and I wouldn't mind Alex being PM for a couple of years, I'd quite enjoy Anthony Painter in charge of energy and environment (which would surprise him if he ever read this because I disagree with him so much on environmental issues) and I would love to see Hadleigh Roberts in a junior position because he has a lot he could input. These guys have something that the cabinet does not have. Passion and the willingness not to follow the Party line just for the sake of it.
We're in for an interesting future thats for sure, and the structure of the Labour Party over the next year will be one of the more interesting elements to me.
I'd add Jim Knight to that list,he got through the expenses thing unscathed and has only blotted his copybook once by fibbing over the GCSE marking fiasco last year. He has a majority as slim as can be though.
Yvette Cooper did make me laugh on QT last time, dodging calling Georgeon Osborne out for being posh, just as well with the multi-million pound property portfolio her and Blinky have got at our expense.
What the Conservative minds (and others) add is a fresh perspective, sometimes utterly pointless, but other times a good sounding board to what Labour activists can expect on the doorsteps of Britain. Some of the comments are vicious, but thats exactly what the doorstep will be in certain areas and some of the utter drivel that is put forward as a method of winning over voters needs to be challenged and highlighted as the drivel it is, otherwise activists are essentially going to be eaten alive.
I've resisted the urge to comment to Rowenna on her article here because she's proven in the past not to listen to any constructive critisism or any other sort of critisism. When she bothers to reply, she doesn't enter into debate, she just says what she thinks without taking onboard any other opinion, so ultimately its a pointless exercise. What is the point of debating with someone who will not even listen to your point of view, let alone understand it.
And thats the story with the Labour Party. No listening, no understanding and that is why it has become totally disconnected with the electorate. Are the Conservatives any better? No, but they are currently not in government. The Liberal Democrats could offer a rocket ship to every household and still no one would listen, so why should they bother to listen either?
Until article writers here realise that the articles they write are huge learning experiences and an opportunity to really understand all sides of the debate, we'll just have to be amused by our Conservative friends with their often daft, but sometimes witty retorts. You'll probably notice that any serious debate that happens between commenters is inspite of the articles most of the time rather than because of it.
apart from Mandy just who are you thinking of? Balls?
Well, you've hit upon the main danger. Most regular partisan Tory commenters here, like M Thomas or Guy M, don't seek to persuade or convince: it's an attack designed to dismay and interfere with Labour minded conversations. As I've said to Alex, this is pretty much text book trolling. Often it leads to a kind of unthinking defensiveness, I agree. But sometimes it does serve the inadvertent purpose of clarifying what we think and believe.
Pray how??
You praise the lack of drama from the Home Office. That is because its doing nothing. Zilch. Dead on the water. No plans, no ideas, no direction, no money.
You may have noticed too that ID cards is being quietly heaved over the side.....if the PM will let them but he's taking some time to make up his mind. Now there's a surprise.
Now you may be able to pick apart these names and others and provide reasons why I might be talking bull, but they provide a fresh approach to labour and from different backgrounds and abilities.
After all if we need a new leader we will be opposition so that changes the dynamics anyway.
Of course you did ,Ian. It beats having to think about issues or confront the things your former party colleagues have done to break Britain.
But be aware. Talking to yourself in this way is often a symptom of political madness. But then your Party has been doing it for years.
Pass the pills PM!
From my perspective all I can see at the moment is a government with no ideas, no leadership and very little talent, but I'm open to suggestions about who it is who could actually make a difference or if there is actually anyone I've become blinkered to who would lead the country forward.
But when people from outside have a go, I admit I get protective of us because we have improved so many things that are now hidden amongst the Tory noise of big government and debt and cuts.
So when these debates happen on a labour blog we should be debating amongst ourselves the future direction of the party and future policies and not debating with Tories because on few things will we ever agree
There are a number of voices here, like Charlie's, who are incredibly critical of Labour, and yet you cannot quite predict what they're going to say. All power to them, I say.
But you're right, the really dispiriting thing is pure Tory propaganda, and I do criticize Mike Thomas for this (don't hold your breath while he accuses me of 'playing the man'). There's nothing worse that someone who is completely partisan, and never shows a shred of concession or middle ground. On a Labour site, it's pretty boring to find Labour supporters like that. To find Tories like that dominating (at least in terms of word count and number of posts) is very very wearisome.
Some you can debate with and learn. I'm currently having a debate about Europe and national identity with Phil Mill. It started off pretty acrimoniously, but he's getting me to think things I would have otherwise left unconsidered. I don't agree with the guy at all about Europe, but he's helping me clarify why.
We're probably going to spend the next four years in opposition, and have to reinvent the Labour party now 'New Labour' has run its course. For this reason alone I think it's worth engaging with both those who are disappointed, angry - or who consider themselves lethal opponents. There's nothing to be lost (except the occasional temper and night's sleep) and everything to be gained.
How do you 'value' a nurse looking after a patient who requires 24 hour a day care ?
What are the inputs and outputs of that ?
the right think everything has a value when the reality is that a lot does not because the value can not be measured in pounds and pence for an accountant to trawl over.
I don't mind some of the Tory comments, because I am not a blinkered Labour supporter, we have major problems to solve, we have a leader that will not win an election in England but we have some very capable people to lead the country forward.
But I find it strange for supporters of the right to come on to simply start a debate, I could discuss with a Tory all day if they were prepared to admit that their way is not perfect but Tories never will, we are able to do that.
I do like the debate but when you have such obvious trolls, then some of it is difficult to read.
I didn't do it, the government did... ONS
Also, yes, value is put on things, you are naive if you think it is not.
Like £450,000 for an MoD civil servant who gets RSI of the thumb versus MoD cutting the compensation of injured soldiers.
Welcome to the shark pool!
Notice the backtracking by Mike Thomas - 'slap my wrist for using the word absolutely.'
Well, he deliberately chose to use that word and, resulting from his use of that word, what he said about the public services was simply not true. Will he admit to a fundamental mistake and to saying something that was not true? Er, no.
ian, welcome to LL, things are a bit more subtle than that, there are only a very small number of 'real' tories here (maybe 3 or 4) and they're easy to spot and occasionally say something worth thinking about but there are an awful lot of ex-labour supporters who have managed not to become tories and even some Labour supporters who don't ignore all the bad stuff and pretend its all going really well and Gordon Brown is, like, the best prime-minister evah. And a few, um, eccentrics who you are welcome to respond to, or not, as you see fit. Half the fun is working out who is who, some of LL's best contributors are very critical of the party for their own reasons in fact and some more fun can be had at the expense of the careerists who are in a hurry and getting there by sticking their fingers in their ears and singing La-La-La-I-can't-hear-you.
Its largely agreed that Alex the editor does a very difficult job well and you won't win any arguments by shouting YOU'RE A TORY (o:
How the hell can anyone measure the productivity of a Nurse looking after a cancer patient for example ?
All I know is since my child was born 8 weeks premature 3 years ago we have used the NHS an awful lot and I have nothing but praise, who cares what is measured by outputs and inputs but the true measure is has the service got better. And since 1997 the resounding answer is YES, however the party that contains Daniel Hannan wants to destroy it but let a PR master sell us a soft story, we should not allow that to happen !
I agree with you Ian, but on the other hand - if you can bear it - the only way to make this site worth revisiting is to push back against the Tory/Libertarian talking points. There are some valiant other commenters - B. Bendle, Peter Barnard, Mike Homfray (to name a few) - who step up to keep the place sane.
This is all due to LL's birth pangs, and the fight between Staines and Guido Fawkes, and Draper (formerly of this site). A lot of the regular posters here first gathered on GF's blog (check the history section) and mounted an offensive offensive because of that particular spat. Other 'libertarian' blogs such as Old Holborn's, constant reference this site and encourage their adherents to comment here.
On the positive side, commenting here in the last few months, I've learned more about right wing libertarian thought (from Hannan to Nozick) than is probably healthy for someone of moderate disposition, and the exhortation "know thine enemy" comes to mind.
Also, I don't know where else I'd get to hear what Evangelical Homophobes, covert BNP supporters, and outright loonies are thinking.
Stay and make it better. Same goes for you Roy, and Harry
I can not believe how this blog tolerates the infusion from the tory supporters.
They scream about freedom of speech but why would anyone want to go onto a blog of which they oppose the views on it, makes no sense and in the internet world they can only be a troll.
Inputs have increased more than outputs, that's a good thing? Slap wrist for me for using the word 'absolute'.
So for every £1 we put in, we get 96.8p back?
So for the 7 Trillion spent by the government since 1997; we have got back 6.8 Trillion in value.
Where's the other £200bn gone?
What you are saying is the Tories spent public money better than Labour; if the Tories had spent the 7 trillion we would have got 7 Trillion in value.
Thanks.
http://www.rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml
I see there is no collective noun for lemmings, by the way - perhaps it be a "Labour Party of..."
Do you want my name for your little notebook after you win the election?
I beg to disagree. I was responding to a new poster here, Harry Tinsley, who found a long Tory comment 'weird' on this blog.
I find the dominance of right wing comments really tedious now. I take Mike Thomas to task because he posts the longest comments on virtually every topic, with talking points straight out of central office, but Guy M is worse if less regular. Meanwhile Old Holborn and his blog acolytes like Road Hog, dominate with libertarian points of view.
Yesterday we had the delectable sight of M Thomas and Old Holborn congratulating each other on their defence of Kaminski.
I'm not the first to notice this: other Labour minded people (though critical of the Government) find it dispiriting and off putting.
My explanation to Harry Tinsley of the tone of this blog, and how the most prominent commenters operate, was actually in the spirit of encouraging him to stay. But there you go. No good act goes unpunished.
I'm off for a weeks holiday. Meanwhile OH and MT can get a break. But if you find it boring when people clash, then maybe you might revisit the moderation issue.
Mike Thomas writes : “No overall increase in productivity in the public sector since 1997 In other words, government has spent money, called it investment and that investment has shown absolutely no return.”
This is simply not true. He is confusing productivity (which has declined slightly) with output (which has increased significantly).
Mike takes as his reference ‘Total Public Services Output and Productivity, found here :
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/TotalPublicServiceFinalv5.pdf
This publication has many qualifications but the bottom line, as currently and imperfectly measured, is that ‘inputs’ increased by 38 per cent over the period 1997-2007, and ‘outputs’ increased by 33.6 per cent.
Inputs are easily measured – the actual cost of land, labour and capital, the three factors of production. ‘Outputs’ are notoriously difficult to measure, because a money value can’t be placed on many ‘outputs.’ For example : what is the ‘money value' of an A-level grade ‘A’, compared to a grade ‘B’? Neither have any 'money value' whatsoever because there is no market in which they can be traded.
But it’s his statement ‘that investment has shown absolutely no return’ which is totally wrong. As noted, ‘productivity’ has fallen – by 3.2 per cent (1 minus (133.6 divided by 138.0)). What this translates to is that if the return on investment was measured at ‘p’ per cent in 1997 (whatever 'p' was in 1997), it was measured at 0.968p per cent in 2007. In other words, the money spent is still showing a ‘return on investment, albeit slightly less.
I've been criticised for responding too much!
Go on, counter my claims, dare you.
Thing is you know I have the evidence, you don't have anything except a lousy ad-hominem attack.
As for who you think I am; I am not.
So go on then, find your contrary sources...
The problem with those rants is that, if you respond to then, Mike posts even longer replies. Then, when you fisk those sources, he becomes hysterical and angry because you dare to contradict. My guess is that he's some local councillor, using Labour List to prepare his arguments for some other political career. Either that, or he's a paid blogger for central office. Really, I've never seen him express a personal offbeat opinion, or miss a shrill partisan beat. My advice is to ignore him, unless the droning noise gets too annoying - when a quick swat with a newspaper source usually shuts him up. Careful though, he likes to sting. But if he mentions lawyers, just laugh.
WOW - quick look over there (while I sort out this magical smoke and mirror machine)
IT'S NUMBER 3.
Alan
Rowenna, if you take money from those that earned it, government has to have a good reason. Why? That is their money, it is not government's money, it is not money to spend based on a political calculation.
This government has spent money like water, the result?
No overall increase in productivity in the public sector since 1997
In other words, government has spent money, called it investment and that investment has shown absolutely no return. How is the single mum/reformed con/long term unemployed going to find work if the economic growth didn't happen to create the jobs in the first place?
That is no way to run an economy. Government doesn't create jobs, economic growth creates jobs. Since when has big government ever created economic growth?
Economic growth happens when you get a return on investment, growth happens when productivity rises.
An epic fail. Obama is the President of the US, the size of their government spending is 36.1% GDP. The UK is 47%.
Ergo, US government spending now is about the size of Thatcher's government spending in 1990.
2) You say that you want society to take the place of the state, but you don't say how you are going to create this revolution. Just roll back the state and hope everyone picks up where it left off...? Compare your speech to Brown's policy packed agenda and you don't just seem like a novice - you look hollow.
We are sick to death of Labour's nanny state, don't you get it? A country where two Policewomen can't child-mind their own kids, a country where the local council put you on surveillance for putting your bin out a few hours early. A country that puts cameras in a single mum's bedroom to check her single occupancy status on her council tax. Where our e-mails and browsing habits can be searched and our phone calls tapped by 143 government agencies.
A country that can arrest and detain you for 6 weeks without charge. A government that wants to ID Card the entire population.
The British public are not so stupid that we can run our affairs and decide what we would like to do without the State telling us.
Understand this - we don't not want a bunch of chippy, class conscious, judgemental, patronising, hypocritical, lying, axe-grinding cause warriors running our lives for us.
3) A word about incentives. You claim there is a 96% "tax" on certain groups that go back into work. This twist of logic blows Orwell out of the water by counting past benefits as taxes. Sure, there is a work incentive problem, but there are two ways to solve that. The first is to increase working tax credits, as Labour has done, and the second is to cut benefits. Doing the second just plunges people already below the poverty line further down. "Incentive" in your dictionary, David, means pulling the plug on the poor. To dress this up as helping the vulnerable, a move which won you a standing ovation, is sickening.
So Labour hasn't increased NEETs to 1,000,000? Labour hasn't worsened incomes inequalities? Labour hasn't reversed the reduction in child poverty? Labour hasn't made those on benefits worse off? Labour hasn't introduced marginal tax rate of 70, 80, 90% on those seeking to leave benefits and take up a job?
Please provide the evidence because I have plenty that says Labour has made it a lot worse than the last Tory administration.
4) You're a hypocrite on the size of the state. If you think a surge in Afghanistan and an increase in prison building won't build up this country's debt, you really are simple. The only difference with spending it on jails and bombs is that it doesn't reap back the benefits of reinvestment that spending on health and education would.
Really, the size of the State is 47% GDP, the only time the size of the State was in the mid-40s was inheriting the '79 Labour governments mess. Tory government reduce the size of the State, people can rely on themselves, people set up businesses, work, provide.
Name one cut Labour propose to reduce the deficit? Freezing the salary of a few big public earners. Wow. Three weeks ago, Labour were still saying they were going to spend 0% more on public services and it was 'Tory cuts v Labour investment.'
That's the joke, that Labour thinks the public are stupid, the public knows its bad, they know that it's going to be tough and they know the medicine is going to be unpleasant.
Who has ringfenced NHS spending? The Tories. Who is going to subject it to a 7% spending cut in 2012 - Labour.
Who spends £36bn of the education budget on anything other than the actual schools? Who has ran the MoD with more civil servants than actual soldiers?
5) Absolute inequality did increase under Labour. That is undeniably grim. But do you know what, Labour slowed down that growth in inequality massively compared to Thatcher. Just read King's new book - A Generation of Change, a Lifetime of Difference. It's got all the facts you need.
Labour have increased inequality since Major's administration. You slowed it down? What was the 10p tax cut to chip off 2p on the main income tax rate? Brown's political calculation to wrong-foot the Tories. As for the poor? Don't worry they are Labour's good little voter-fodder, Labour can always count on the votes of the poor can't they?
What arrogance, you slowed it down. What arrogance, you made it worse. What arrogance that you cut the value of benefits and then poverty trap those seeking to work and take some responsibility for their lives.
Things can only get better, eh?
6) You're a hypocrite on benefits. The story you told about Viv Williams, who was forced onto incapacity against his will, is a sad one. But the Tories would perpetuate state enforced dependency in other ways. Theresa May told me this week that the party had no plans to lift the employment ban on asylum seekers, even if the Home Office fails to process their claims for years. Yours talk here doesn't come from a brave commitment to genuine values; it comes from the worst kind of political pragmatism.
Hypocrisy? As for immigration, there is a long tradition to helping those from persecution. If the Home Office takes so long to process their claim - who has been in power for 12 years. Who made the Home Office unfit for purpose?
Consider economic migrants, too much and it drives down the wages of the unskilled jobs. The jobs that those least well off do. Who famously said that only 20,000 economic migrants will come to the UK? The result when these people complain; Labour calls them racists.
Hypocrisy? What a sad joke.
Labour have proven themselves to be the most venal, corrupt, shambolic, harmful, divisive, mean-spirited and most authoritarian post-war government. Policies that have been at times borderline fascist. They have lied to the electorate during the pretext for war. They have squandered the finest economic circumstance for 150 years and wrecked an economy was took so much hard work to rebuild.
There are two cast-iron guarantees of the Labour government.
1. Labour make unemployment worse than when they took office.
2. Labour end up leaving the economy in tatters.
Yes, it is, and the Conservatives come closest at the moment to seeming to appreciate this: hence they will keep some of the interventions introduced by this government, cut other bits, and even increase spending in some areas. Labour, by contrast, particularly as represented by writers for this blog, seem only to suggest more government spending as a solution.
2) "You say that you want society to take the place of the state, but you don't say how you are going to create this revolution." Well in education it's by letting parents set up schools. Elsewhere, you're right, Cameron doesn't stipulate how society should react. But that's rather the point.
3) "This twist of logic blows Orwell out of the water..." For every pound you earn you are only 4p better off as a result of reduced benefits and taxes. I don't think it's really such a twist.
4) "You're a hypocrite on the size of the state." But it is possible to increase spending in some areas while reducing absolute spending. As Labour would put it, it's shifting spending from lower priority areas to higher priorities areas. Interestingly, though, we actually have some idea what that means from the opposition, but not from the government.
5) You underestimate Labour's achievement, I think, which is not just to oversee an increase in inequality but simultaneously oversee a significant increase in the UK tax burden for working families. You also misrepresent Cameron, I'd argue. He wasn't just talking about inequality; the government in all its wisdom have actually managed to make the poor poorer in absolute terms: disposable income of the poorest 10% has fallen in the last eight years.
6) The Tories have no plans to lift the employment ban on asylum seekers. And neither do Labour. In your piece for Liberal Conspiracy you say: "The only reason they [the Conservatives] don’t is political cowardice and a fear of populist reaction...Failing to do so brands them as nothing less than supporters of state-imposed poverty." But who's actually in government, and why exactly don't your comments apply (and why aren't they aimed at) them?
And remind me, which government ended the employment concession for asylum seekers (allowing them to work)? Three guesses. First two don't count.
The MOD figures, for example, say it all. We have 99,000 soldiers in the land army. The MOD employs 85,000 civil servants - that's almost 1 each. I know some of them and the things they tell me about the inefficiencies are scandalous.
In the public sector a Department's accounts can be qualified the auditors on 4 different grounds relating to issues like regularity and fraud. Last year the MODs accounts were qualified in every area and uniquely they managed to have them accounts qualified on every possible ground. Can you imagine what type of organisation allows staff to go online and log in their allowances and expenses then pays them without checking? Can you imagine what sort of Department expects soldiers in the field in places like Afghanistan to manage their pay and allowances online from computer terminals in forward operating bases? Welcome to the MOD.
You talk blithely of 'investment' in areas health. We have poured billions into the NHS. A full 40% of this went to inflate salaries not improve care. Now we all want to see health staff fairly paid but look at where that money has done. Hundreds of millions on middle managers. Crippling bureaucracy. IT projects abandoned or collapsed.
Time money and effort is wasted in internal funding disputes and petty professional rivalries. In some hospitals they now cannot get consultants in some specialisms because its far more lucrative to work as a locum - you can get 30% more in some cases. The same applies in nursing. And then there was the Doctors' Training Contracts fiasco and we now see clear evidence that each year when new young doctors arrive in hospital there is a surge in the death rate.
The British State is utterly bloated and needs radical surgery. Be honest. From you contacts in Whitehall you know just how bad it is in Schools, Health, the Home Office, etc, etc, etc.
All the Departments of State are dead in the water. There is no appetite for change. Ministers have lost the will to live politically. It's a zombie government wandering pointlessly about with no focus and, above all, no ideas. To mix metaphors, the Party clings desperately to the stern rail of the Titanic as she sinks below the waves hoping fervently that something will turn up, while on the bridge Captain Gordon still cant see the iceberg and pretends it isn't happening.
So where is the real hypocrisy - in wanting to make change or in writing articles attacking the Conservatives while turning a blind eye to the dreadful state of the Government they will inherit from this failed and corrupt administration
I don't think the PLP are bothered, they can't be. Presumably they think the Labour Party can survive on fresh air or that some mysterious donor will be found who will bail the Party out of its debts.
Not to worry though, GB will have a very tidy pension if he can just hold out until next April.
I do hope you sent your letter to Dave, but it doesn't really matter because far from falling in love with Dave the electorate have fallen out of love with Labour.
That's the problem you need to address without making silly personal comments.
you are right. At the moment it is a bit like watching a frog boil. The PLP sits awaiting a fate it either doesn't understand or wishes to pretend isn't going to happen.
With GB at the helm it will be like 1983 all over again!
Socialism is a public cancer, the sooner it is halted and its upside down policies made extinct, the sooner society can go about the business of making society better, safer and more respectful. Who could not possibly want this besides out-of-touch socialists who will propose more tax be thrown at the problem, more bureaucratic meddling, more coddling, more excuse mongering and more victims?
"If you've ever met anyone who's just come out of prison, been long term unemployed or a young single mum you'll know that simply withdrawing state support doesn't work."
And how many in these socio-economic groups have you ever met, in your capacity as a "self-confessed feminist, liberal, lefty". Few, if any, I bet. Without the support of many of these people, your beloved political party is doomed. Get them dependent on state handouts, and Labour believe they can own their votes. All you can expect to accomplish is to assure that the present system will not change.
Meanwhile, the condition of the said ex-convict, unemployed and single mum continues to erode because our Labour government wants to keep it so. How sad. How totally unnecessary. You don't need a brilliant mind to realise how much real damage has been done by Labour.
I sincerely doubt that Rowena actually believes in what she says, but is instead serving the interests of the Labour Party, not those of ordinary proles.
This is a quandary at first but when you realise that a poor turnout sends a message, you can live with it. Norwich North has already sent a message to the PLP, they don’t seem to be heeding the advice though.
If there is an independent candidate that stands for my beliefs (Independent Labour?) I am happy to support that person.
I understand your anger completely. Believe me I do and have expressed my views against the PLp on a number of occasions. As for not voting I dearly hope you change your mind. There other parties and I would rather you did vote for somthing at least for the sakes of democracy.
We have already seen the incoming BNP please lets not see any more. Fell free to punish the politicians, but don't punish democracy.
It really is one of few things people can still have and call their own today...that single vote.
It depress's me so much to watch his speech and then think about how many more people will be unemployed and how much he has yet to say and do. To cut a defecit you have to increase taxes as well and we all knwo the favourite and easiest way for the tories to do this
205 income tax is it then affecting the very poor in our soceity.
the real sad bit is that through Brown and Darling we help the whole world and these jokers opposed every step. The consequences of RBS and HBOS going well would have be nothing less than catrosphic.
Yes there is a huge PBR but a lot of that was one off's to save the banks and HAD to be done, as recovery takes place it will get better. However from a party who opposed the minimal of power to the FSA I am personally very worried for the future and what will happen to hundreds and thousands of public secotr workers who actually help us all. The myth about big government is just that and front line services like in the 1980's will be descimated, don't let any spin fool you of that.
I am visited by sales people on a regular basis. Those who have little to offer will deride the competition and leave with nothing. Those who tell me what they can do for me get my time.
A good point well made. We must dump Brown.
Alan very well said. What annoys me just as much as the prospect of a Tory Government are the idiots in the Labour tribe who hold us back with tribal nonsense, sniping and silly articles hoping to rouse the faithful. Either we face realities or we die.
To prove our value to the country we have to have the right agenda and to take the high ground. We have to show that we diligentley listen to others including the opposition and argue our cause. We must understand their rhetoric better than they do, that is how we fight them because we are ahead of them.
Gabe you make me laugh, in a sort of Austin Powers Number Two way. You need to stand in front of a mirror and say we've done a good job over the last 12 years. There are 3 possibilities:
1) You are genuinely confused and believe the spin.
2) You know that you are lying to yourself but dont care because of your tribal loyalty.
3) You are not very clever and dont understand the damage done.
In any situation you do not help the people Labour claim to represent, your existence is to re elect the PLP, I see no merit in that, you might as well vote Tory (no I wont be doing that in this lifetime). They left the well being of the working classes behind a long time ago and the country have had enough.
I am very angry and refusing to vote.
Methinks you do protest too much.
And the teething problems of the New Look website have not been fixed.
In particular, it's no longer possible to respond to a specific post.
Two steps forward three back can be spun as progress I suppose.
Having read Rowenna's article I can see why.
By the way, how was Cameron's speech 'dangerous'? It's incredible you use such language, have you got so used to shouting people down that literally every alternative view is 'dangerous' now? You need to remember that we live in democracy and have freedom of speech. I know it's sometimes easy to forget after 12 years of thought control but it's important nevertheless.
Promises are so easily broken, and just because Cameron SAYS he won't make promises he can't keep, doesn't mean he'll keep his word.
He can hardly go on about dishonesty and transparency while Gove and Wiggins stays in post and look credible. And to circumvent an obvious reply, I believe and have said on many occassions Baroness Scotland should either have resigned or been sacked, and I would like to see not only Wiggins but Eliot Morely and david Chaytor in the dock charged with fraud for their "phantom mortgages". And don't even get me started on Tony McNulty.
The "New Conservatives" are just as bad as "New Labour" and anyone who believes the election of Cameron will result in political purity must be living in cloud cuckoo land
Lets frame it in a different way.
Let's imagine that this week was the Labour conference. Brown has just given that speech. Imagine your enthusiasm. Imagine how invigorated the core would be, determined to drive the message home on the doorstep. Imagine how nice it would feel to finish a conference on a high note like that, knowing that the party was firmly behind you, well funded, well organised and with fire in the belly.
Now imagine yourself writing the article above.
You simply wouldn't.
Never mind eh? You're young enough to see another Labour government in about 20 years time. By which time you will likely be a home counties tory.
It then became entirely uninspiring, as it dawned on me what a fundamental lack of vision he has. At about the 35-minute mark, he just fell back on the tired old troped of 'cutting bureaucracy', 'political correctness gone mad', 'red tape', 'absurd government'. He did the Daily-Mail trick of taking an absurd anecdote and then stomping and fuming about the evil "regulations" which made it so - and then (of course) offered no way to solve the problem.
Someone needs to find out about this Viv Williams. I sense the next 'Samuel Joseph "Joe-The-Plumber" Wurzelbacher' coming on.
Yes, treating your mistress to lunch (which I don't condone) on the company credit card for which your boss fired you for is,
Much worse than being the Attorney General and breaking the law once, by employing an over stayer without a work visa, twice by paying cash in hand and not paying taxes and thirdly by claiming taxpayer's money of £170K that she is NOT entitled to.
Who has Gordon Brown fired, he gives Baroness Scotland his full support, Boris Johnson didn't give his deputy his full support, he sacked him and reported him to the police.
Oh and please don't go on about Eton, most of the Labour cabinet went to exclusive schools/education.
I don't trust Gordon. He had the opportunity to change things when he came to power, and things have only got worse. GORDON has lost my vote. And unless Labour get rid of him, I'm voting Tory. Because quite frankly, that's the only other way to get rid of Gordon.
Well, it worked for Blair.
I felt massively angry watching Cameron's speech - he really puts the 'con' back into Conservative. I think he's underestimating the intelligence of the voting British public.
It's frustrating to know, without any doubt, that his brand of Conservatism is a political Trojan horse - he's trying to dazzle his way in to Downing Street with the hard sell, grossly oversimplified rhetoric, and policy-lite generalities about ideology.
It's not just that he didn't even attach a single policy to any of his rhetoric and rewrote history about a series if hugely important things - it's also that he didn't bother to even speak in generalities about things like immigration policy, or Europe, which has been the issue of the week.
But I think to try and spin and politicise the Fiona Pilkington case like that, in what I perceived as being an attempt to get political capital and blame Labour at any cost, was truly unforgivable.
then there is this, of course:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23754197-tory-arrested-at-conference-for-taking-champagne.do
Vacuous, empty and arrogant - the whole boiling of them.
Where's Cromwell when you really need him?
(No, Nick Griffiths I am not thinking about you or the numpty that leads UKIP but a real public spirited politician with the guts to say what needs to be said - Westminster is now officially a joke Parliament. Being lead to its final collapse by a bunch of air heads who could not find their backsides with a map and both hands.)