Ed gets a pasting

B_Blank

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Trouble with Ed Balls, is, as a political commentator likened him the other days, he seems closer to Alistair Campbell, labour spin doctor, than he does to a real MP.

Every word he seems to utter is an attack or seriously spun. To the point recently of all out lies. Even in the face of people telling him it was complete fabrication that he could reduce VAT on the fuel element, he kept on saying it.

He'll most likely end up as labour leader though....for all the wrong reasons. Labour don't seem to be too concerned with politics, and seem more concerned with totally trashing the opposition by whatever means neccesary. So for them, Ed Balls would seem a great leader.

The day Ed Balls is PM, is the day I leave for europe. I will work there and come back when Balls has been chucked out for bankrupting the country

Niksan

B_Blank wrote: »

The day Ed Balls is PM, is the day I leave for europe. I will work there and come back when Balls has been chucked out for bankrupting the country

Two weeks in Italy should do then.

chewmylegoff

doubt ed balls will ever be the leader of the party, he was soundly trounced in the leadership election, i reckon even harperson would beat him.

Thrugelmir

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Do you prefer that rich bankers overseas receive all that additional interest rather than keeping that money in the Country?

Banks are owned by shareholders.

chewmylegoff

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Banks are owned by shareholders.

otherwise known as your pension fund

Thrugelmir

chewmylegoff wrote: »

otherwise known as your pension fund

Pension funds have been net sellers of equities for 10 years, only more recently being net purchasers.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wipe away all the froth and recognise the elephant in the room - growth. You cannot cut a deficit without growth, and by cutting as quickly as they are doing they have killed growth.

I made the point that by making the same level of cuts but spread over 4 years rather than 1 you still reduce overall spend but do so without destroying confidence and with it economi output. What would I cut? Labour have been repeating their cuts plan and noone is listening - they had 10% cuts in the Home Office in the plan as one departmental example. Thats not "no plan to make any cuts" as trolls put it. Even Oik said at the end of the pre-budget report that cuts were slightly less than Labour's cuts. So how can you say "Labour didn't plan cuts" and "Our cuts are smaller than Labour cuts" in the same argument?

Deficit is spend outstripping income. In cutting spending too quickly you cut your income, which kind of knackers your deficit cutting idea. Note how about £25bn was cut from the deficit in Q2 last year from higher tax receipts rather than cuts. the facts are clear - you can balance the two. Its just Tories who have a balance sheet with only the expenditure side on it.

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Wipe away all the froth and recognise the elephant in the room - growth. You cannot cut a deficit without growth, and by cutting as quickly as they are doing they have killed growth.

Growth does not depend on monetary intervention alone. An entrepreneur or small business owner generates growth more so from invested time. As this creates more outputand activity. The majority of the business overheads being fixed.

Within any cycle there is a period of readjustment. Ups and downs that net hopefully to a positive.

chewmylegoff

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Its just Tories who have a balance sheet with only the expenditure side on it.

balance sheets have a top and bottom, not sides. and expenditure goes in the profit and loss account, not the balance sheet.

i hope this helps

what are labour's plans for stimulating growth then. ed didn't seem to be able to articulate them very well.

JasonLVC

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Labour have been repeating their cuts plan and noone is listening - they had 10% cuts in the Home Office in the plan as one departmental example. Thats not "no plan to make any cuts" as trolls put it. Even Oik said at the end of the pre-budget report that cuts were slightly less than Labour's cuts. So how can you say "Labour didn't plan cuts" and "Our cuts are smaller than Labour cuts" in the same argument?

At last weeks protest/riot in London, Ed made the following statement :-

“There is a need for difficult choices, and some cuts. But, this
government is going too far and too fast and destroying the fabric of our communities.”

Mr Miliband went on to tell TUC rally that the Government was
"wrong to make such deep cuts in public services" (http://rc.kbg.me/miliband-addresses-anti-cuts-rally/)

But the 'some cuts' Ed refers to in his speech would appear to be bigger cuts (validated by your post highlighting the coalition cuts are smaller than Labours) and yet...... that message doesn't seem to come across at all. Ed's making out he'll cut less when that clearly is not the case.

You say no-one is listening to Labour's plan, I suggest that we're trying to listen but getting confused becuase Ed tell us Cams cuts are too far too fast but should they get into power, it appears they'll cut just as hard.....or is Ed telling fibs to get attention?