@MikeL anyone trying to understand what politicians face should read Have Your Say's comments on Ed Miliband's speech. It's important to note that all political proposals from all parties get panned on Have Your Say, but look at the rationales. In the top ten most recommended, you find the following:
"Yah right! They are going to give everybody everything and who is going to pay? Usual Labour promises with no maths behind them. Every housewife can manage a budget better than they can."
"The question is simple. How are they going to pay for their promises? Sadly many folk believe the rubbish they spout - heaven help us if they get re-elected because we will ALL end up paying for the increased benefits/tax cuts/public waste."
"Miliband would promise every kid in this country a new bike for Christmas if he thought it would get him votes."
"Not as much a policy, more a Blair-style soundbite for the BBC/Guardian lovies. This, like anything else Milliband and Balls have to say, is of no consequence outside of the Westminster village. The real world has passed by these clowns."
Trust in politicians is minimal. The politicians haven't yet had the wit to realise that to get public trust, they have to trust the public.
We've just come back from seeing the new Shane Carruth film, "Upstream Color". It's visually spectacular, with a superb soundtrack and a sparse, minimalist dialogue.
Sadly it's only on limited showings, but catch it if you can, or get it on DVD when it's out. A stunning film. Just don't ask me to explain it ...
Part panto, part hymn to nationalism and part travelogue of his pallet tour of Britain, this was a sprawl of a speech, delivered once again without notes and produced like a Hollywood blockbuster. Paul Greengrass, who directed Matt Damon in the Bourne trilogy, was drafted in to advise on Ed, The Movie during its two weeks of rehearsal. The final version, combining The Ed Identity, The Ed Ultimatum and The Ed Supremacy, seemed scripted to turn the Labour leader into the political equivalent of the fearless super-spy.
the Tories have done the square root of sod all about getting new energy supplies on tap.
Lets face it, the coalition energy policy has been run by the lib dems
The tories are rattled, but the libs must be absolutely bricking it right now.
What can they promise on energy prices?
The energy firms have been taking the wee wee for far too long now and somebody has to have a crack at them. Spiralling energy bills are essentially a privatised tax. This might not, ultimately, work. But it might. We can hope it does. Ed is being brave and has destroyed in one hour the "no policies" attack. I hope this spurns other parties on to do something about the cost of living, which is in urgent need of addressing as wages are not keeping up with prices.
Fascinating speech by Ed. The Mugabe land seizure stuff was great as was the 1970s pricing policy - sent me back to the days of Barbara Castle and Sunny Jim!
The right have gone stark staring mad.
You know Jonathan I think you're spot on. Ed gave a speech which was polished in style and weak on content, this time next week everyone will have forgotten it. It simply points to us being in a phoney war phase where conferences have to be filled with sweet nothings. If the conferences have one point in common ( and next week Tory one will be the same ) it's the complete lack of ideas on what to do to get the country back on its feet. It's actually worse than that, it's ignoring the big elephant in the room saying we're deep in the brown stuff and pretending that shuffling the odd billion on voters bribes is going to make things all right again. The parties have a year to do something solid, but on current performance they'll fluff it.
Worringly, you may well be right. So much froth proposed, so much is just presentational.
On the conferences so far, without delving in too deep the Labour one seemed less intense to me, although that may just be because I've generally been warier of Labour and the LDs showing some confidence is noteworthy as a being big change, but neither has been a disaster. Cameron had best be careful - he seems the type who can mess up with an open goal in front of him (and better when his back is against the wall, if I may mix metaphors), and all he has to do is not screw up and be workman like as the others were, but he could overthink it.
Well the kippers did at least add a bit of drama to theirs, but what strikes me so far about the conferences is none of the parties appears to want to face up to the tasks ahead. That might just be becaue they are a year off manifestoes. However I've yet to see any of them say how they're going to gets the economy moving permanently, or close off our BoP, or address the weaknesses in our infrastructure or face up to an ageing population. Most of the "debate" consists of rubbishing something someone else said or tinkering with the national petty cash to favour one interest group over another.
the Tories have done the square root of sod all about getting new energy supplies on tap.
Lets face it, the coalition energy policy has been run by the lib dems
The tories are rattled, but the libs must be absolutely bricking it right now.
What can they promise on energy prices?
The energy firms have been taking the wee wee for far too long now and somebody has to have a crack at them. Spiralling energy bills are essentially a privatised tax. This might not, ultimately, work. But it might. We can hope it does. Ed is being brave and has destroyed in one hour the "no policies" attack. I hope this spurns other parties on to do something about the cost of living, which is in urgent need of addressing as wages are not keeping up with prices.
Have you looked at why prices are spiralling before saying it's the companies' fault? Might much of it be down to increasing raw material prices and government regulations?
In the meantime, wave goodbye to a lot of investment. Ed was hopeless when he was at DECC; it appears he's learnt little since.
the Tories have done the square root of sod all about getting new energy supplies on tap.
Lets face it, the coalition energy policy has been run by the lib dems
The tories are rattled, but the libs must be absolutely bricking it right now.
What can they promise on energy prices?
I hope this spurns other parties on to do something about the cost of living, which is in urgent need of addressing as wages are not keeping up with prices.
Median wage has been stagnant in the UK since 2003. You think Labour might be to blame for that?
I'd also imagine that having a deeper recession than the Great Depression might have something to do with the current difficulties - again Labour to blame for that.
If you think a 2 year energy price freeze is going to sort out tthe problems we have in this country you're sadly mistaken.
Just remember, Labour axed the 10p tax rate and increased income tax on the poorest workers. The coalition raised the personal allowance by several thousand pounds and increased the income of the poorest.
All that would happen is that everyone would sit on the land without applying for planning permission, awaiting the return of sane government. Less housebuilding, not more.
That amounts to a bet by property speculators that 1.the Conservatives not only promise to repeal it at the outset but also follow through, championing the cause of property speculators by putting it in their manifesto five years later and 2. eventually gain a majority enabling them to do so.
Quite a risky bet. And moreover to act in this way would mean ending much of the attraction to speculators of buying land, removing the prospect of financial gain through securing permission and then selling the land on. That is, it would destroy the attraction of property speculation anyway. So the likelihood I think is that speculators would cease to see much attractions in brownfield property and leave the market to those genuinely interested in developing the land, with development becoming more profitable as competition in the market for such land reduced.
Alternatively, if it does amount to a loophole of any significance, it's still a relatively simple matter to counter it: just include a statutory classification of what amounts to derelict land and impose a time limit after which point the tax kicks in whether or not permission has been secured.
Regardless of that, permission has already been given to build 400,000 homes on sites that remain undeveloped, including 170,000 in London, so there will be financial pressure on speculative landowners to proceed with development on plenty of permissions already in existence.
Rather than addressing the principle, you are reduced to objecting on questionable points of detail to a policy whose full content has yet to be revealed. The fact is that Labour has today identified a problem holding back the provision of housing and other development, promoted a high profile policy intended to tackle it, and by implication shown the political will to tackle any possible loopholes in the bud in the course of the policy's development. And all this in a way that involves no cost to the Exchequer.
By contrast, the current Government refuses to recognise the problem let alone propose any solutions. Instead it is content to stoke up short term demand through Help to Buy, at enormous cost both to the Exchequer and ultimately to homeowners themselves when the bubble burst.
Isn't that also a fantasy of much of the LD leadership, not just the big two believing most of its membership is between the other two, rather than much of it being to the left of Labour?
Well, they should know more than me, but you could well be right!
MrJones, if energy prices were solely due to carbon nonsense, as you say, would you like to explain why our electricity prices are lower than in Australia?
Comments
"Yah right! They are going to give everybody everything and who is going to pay? Usual Labour promises with no maths behind them. Every housewife can manage a budget better than they can."
"The question is simple. How are they going to pay for their promises?
Sadly many folk believe the rubbish they spout - heaven help us if they get re-elected because we will ALL end up paying for the increased benefits/tax cuts/public waste."
"Miliband would promise every kid in this country a new bike for Christmas if he thought it would get him votes."
"Not as much a policy, more a Blair-style soundbite for the BBC/Guardian lovies. This, like anything else Milliband and Balls have to say, is of no consequence outside of the Westminster village. The real world has passed by these clowns."
Trust in politicians is minimal. The politicians haven't yet had the wit to realise that to get public trust, they have to trust the public.
We've just come back from seeing the new Shane Carruth film, "Upstream Color". It's visually spectacular, with a superb soundtrack and a sparse, minimalist dialogue.
Sadly it's only on limited showings, but catch it if you can, or get it on DVD when it's out. A stunning film. Just don't ask me to explain it ...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/upstream_color/
In the meantime, wave goodbye to a lot of investment. Ed was hopeless when he was at DECC; it appears he's learnt little since.
Median wage has been stagnant in the UK since 2003. You think Labour might be to blame for that?
I'd also imagine that having a deeper recession than the Great Depression might have something to do with the current difficulties - again Labour to blame for that.
If you think a 2 year energy price freeze is going to sort out tthe problems we have in this country you're sadly mistaken.
Just remember, Labour axed the 10p tax rate and increased income tax on the poorest workers. The coalition raised the personal allowance by several thousand pounds and increased the income of the poorest.
Quite a risky bet. And moreover to act in this way would mean ending much of the attraction to speculators of buying land, removing the prospect of financial gain through securing permission and then selling the land on. That is, it would destroy the attraction of property speculation anyway. So the likelihood I think is that speculators would cease to see much attractions in brownfield property and leave the market to those genuinely interested in developing the land, with development becoming more profitable as competition in the market for such land reduced.
Alternatively, if it does amount to a loophole of any significance, it's still a relatively simple matter to counter it: just include a statutory classification of what amounts to derelict land and impose a time limit after which point the tax kicks in whether or not permission has been secured.
Regardless of that, permission has already been given to build 400,000 homes on sites that remain undeveloped, including 170,000 in London, so there will be financial pressure on speculative landowners to proceed with development on plenty of permissions already in existence.
Rather than addressing the principle, you are reduced to objecting on questionable points of detail to a policy whose full content has yet to be revealed. The fact is that Labour has today identified a problem holding back the provision of housing and other development, promoted a high profile policy intended to tackle it, and by implication shown the political will to tackle any possible loopholes in the bud in the course of the policy's development. And all this in a way that involves no cost to the Exchequer.
By contrast, the current Government refuses to recognise the problem let alone propose any solutions. Instead it is content to stoke up short term demand through Help to Buy, at enormous cost both to the Exchequer and ultimately to homeowners themselves when the bubble burst.