Epic fail (Today)

Really2

michaels wrote: »

But where is the fail? - Ed Ball's target audience believe every word of it and love to hear it said. You just need the majority to prefer being told what they would like to hear rather than the truth for it to be an election winning strategy.

So true, I liked the bit he was pointing at the UKs falling growth was caused by cuts.

If so it looks like we have a lot to answer for as it seems our cuts have caused the rest of the western worlds GP to fall also.

julieq

Hate to say this, but the UK government didn't cause the world crisis. Balls is quite right about that. And the measures that were taken in the immediate aftermath of the crisis were reasonable and sensible, and more importantly worked very effectively to cushion us from a very nasty shock. We never had apocalyptic job losses.

Where Labour were culpable was in overspending leading up to the crisis on the basis they'd abolished boom and bust, leaving nothing in the coffers for an emergency. And where they're disingenous now is in claiming that cuts are leading to ongoing problems where in fact most of the trouble is from the Eurozone and from residual debt and political games in the US and the cuts haven't really kicked in yet. In fact they're cuts in growth of spending more than cuts in any case.

The real legacy of New Labour is that the media have become very media savvy and are very effective at creating a one line rabble rousing message around causes. It's interesting how for example NHS reforms are presented as being about saving the NHS from private sector companies making a profit from hospitals rather than as possibly a better and more efficient way of running a large organisation from which very many private sector suppliers and contractors already make profits (for example).

Even the save BBC4 campaign has become, well, save BBC4 instead of stop BBC4 from no longer contracting a few writers and production companies to make a film for a marginal channel which only a fraction of the population bother with and show archive material instead (the BBC archive is matchless and there is some truly wonderful material unseen since the 1970s). And then there was the ridiculous "save our ancient woodlands" campaign. New Labour have realised that people basically are easy to manipulate with emotive language, and they do it shamelessly. The Tories, who like to explain their reasoning and want to be liked, are left high and dry. You can't face down a excited member of the public with logic in a debate, all the cards are stacked against you.

And so it is now: save our economy from the cuts. Not a word about where the money is supposed to come from (but as a hint, it's from tax). And there aren't enough rich people to pay enough to make a difference, that means taxing everyone. If there's any dispute, explain that the cuts are hurting the children or the least fortunate in our society.

Neat trick.

Old_Slaphead

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Having Balls around is wonderful. Whilst he is there, it makes the Labour Party unelectable. Long may he thrive!

Didn't happen with Broon in 2001 & 2006.

Some people I know used to, and maybe still do, think Brown was the best ever Chancellor. However I don't see them anymore since they've moved to Rampton.

Niksan

Where does he get the sound bites from, Fortune cookies or Christmas crackers?

TruckerT

julieq wrote: »

Hate to say this, but the UK government didn't cause the world crisis. Balls is quite right about that. And the measures that were taken in the immediate aftermath of the crisis were reasonable and sensible, and more importantly worked very effectively to cushion us from a very nasty shock. We never had apocalyptic job losses.

Where Labour were culpable was in overspending leading up to the crisis on the basis they'd abolished boom and bust, leaving nothing in the coffers for an emergency. And where they're disingenous now is in claiming that cuts are leading to ongoing problems where in fact most of the trouble is from the Eurozone and from residual debt and political games in the US and the cuts haven't really kicked in yet. In fact they're cuts in growth of spending more than cuts in any case.

The real legacy of New Labour is that the media have become very media savvy and are very effective at creating a one line rabble rousing message around causes. It's interesting how for example NHS reforms are presented as being about saving the NHS from private sector companies making a profit from hospitals rather than as possibly a better and more efficient way of running a large organisation from which very many private sector suppliers and contractors already make profits (for example).

Even the save BBC4 campaign has become, well, save BBC4 instead of stop BBC4 from no longer contracting a few writers and production companies to make a film for a marginal channel which only a fraction of the population bother with and show archive material instead (the BBC archive is matchless and there is some truly wonderful material unseen since the 1970s). And then there was the ridiculous "save our ancient woodlands" campaign. New Labour have realised that people basically are easy to manipulate with emotive language, and they do it shamelessly. The Tories, who like to explain their reasoning and want to be liked, are left high and dry. You can't face down a excited member of the public with logic in a debate, all the cards are stacked against you.

And so it is now: save our economy from the cuts. Not a word about where the money is supposed to come from (but as a hint, it's from tax). And there aren't enough rich people to pay enough to make a difference, that means taxing everyone. If there's any dispute, explain that the cuts are hurting the children or the least fortunate in our society.

Neat trick.

Paragraph one of your post made some good points. Since the crisis, neither the BBC nor the Labour Party have had much input

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey

TruckerT wrote: »

Paragraph one of your post made some good points. Since the crisis, neither the BBC nor the Labour Party have had much input

TruckerT

..meaning the other ones didn't? I think they made sense. Particularly the 'emotive language' bit.

I would put it, though, in a rather more blunt way. Educational standards have slipped far more than most people understand, and either as a result [or as part of the cause, I don't know], the media has 'dumbed down' to such an incredible level, that the mass voting public will be swayed far more by emotion, sound-bites, and 'what the media says' rather than by any form of thinking, logic, or deeper reasoning.

Proof? Follow the rioting. Thousands of convictions! Vicious sentencing. And (for now) 90% of the population are 'happy' and agreeing that we should 'shoot the lot of them'.....

Now wait. Not long. And almost the same 90% will be agreeing with sentiments such as 'build them more youth clubs, don't punish them'. Or 'pay them more benefits and they wouldn't do it'. Or 'These people are victims of society...... it's "the bankers" who caused it.... we must spend £billions to 'engage' them.....'

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

..meaning the other ones didn't? I think they made sense. Particularly the 'emotive language' bit.

I would put it, though, in a rather more blunt way. Educational standards have slipped far more than most people understand, and either as a result [or as part of the cause, I don't know], the media has 'dumbed down' to such an incredible level, that the mass voting public will be swayed far more by emotion, sound-bites, and 'what the media says' rather than by any form of thinking, logic, or deeper reasoning.

Proof? Follow the rioting. Thousands of convictions! Vicious sentencing. And (for now) 90% of the population are 'happy' and agreeing that we should 'shoot the lot of them'.....

Now wait. Not long. And almost the same 90% will be agreeing with sentiments such as 'build them more youth clubs, don't punish them'. Or 'pay them more benefits and they wouldn't do it'. Or 'These people are victims of society...... it's "the bankers" who caused it.... we must spend £billions to 'engage' them.....'

In another thread (called 'deferred gratification') I suggested that in recent times it was the 'middle-class' who exercised a moderating influence on both rich and poor

This has changed. We now have the rich, the stupidly-rich, and the wannabe-rich. We also have the never-be-rich

TruckerT

StevieJ

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Having Balls around is wonderful. Whilst he is there, it makes the Labour Party unelectable. Long may he thrive!

The Tories had Osborne it didn't stop them, wait a minute, yes it did I forgot they weren't elected into power were they.

StevieJ

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Didn't happen with Broon in 2001 & 2006.

Some people I know used to, and maybe still do, think Brown was the best ever Chancellor. However I don't see them anymore since they've moved to Rampton.

I thought Brown had done qute a lot for Old Slapheads

JonnyBravo

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Some people I know used to, and maybe still do, think Brown was the best ever Chancellor. However I don't see them anymore since they've moved to Rampton.

:rotfl:

To be fair I still think he did a good job to start.
He paid down debt and then started to invest and made a couple of sensible "rules".
He then started to run into trouble when he realised these rules were "a bit inconvenient". They seemed to stop him spending as much as he wanted.
Hmmmm he thinks.... must be something wrong with the rules. Let's fudge it all to sh1te. No-one will ever need worry about it as I have been doing such a good job for a few years that nothing could possibly go wrong EVER again.

Silly t1t.