Ed Miliband

[steakbake]

Not much of a relaunch today. He was late, he had a bizarre choice of entrance music and by all accounts his speech was not particularly stirring. In fact, Guardian puts it as the 20 year old lad who was on before him was more uplifting and coherent.

I feel for the guy because I think he's so far out of his depth it's uncomfortable to watch. Think he'll prove to be Labour's William Hague type leader. He was the unions' choice though and that says where the power is in the party.

Anyone think he'll last till the summer? Who else is there?

[magpie1892]

Not much of a relaunch today. He was late, he had a bizarre choice of entrance music and by all accounts his speech was not particularly stirring. In fact, Guardian puts it as the 20 year old lad who was on before him was more uplifting and coherent.

I feel for the guy because I think he's so far out of his depth it's uncomfortable to watch. Think he'll prove to be Labour's William Hague type leader. He was the unions' choice though and that says where the power is in the party.

Anyone think he'll last till the summer? Who else is there?

I'm no fan of 99.9% of politicians - this percentage of them need a very hard slap - so I'm not driven by party allegiance when I say that EM's speech was bloody awful. It was just a load of whiny babble. No meat, no policies, no real meaning. Just recycled crap from his New Year's address and the usual 'too fast, too far' criticisms of Coalition cuts (which, er, haven't actually taken place). No seriously costed alternatives as he knows all too well there's no money to spend (you'd imagine he'd have noticed while Brown was flushing it all down the crapper).

I didn't actually think he'd be as bad as he's proving to be but, you're right, he's way out of his depth and, right again, it's getting uncomfortable to watch. Today, he had the look of a man who knows the jig is up. He's way, way worse than Hague.

Ladbrokes did have him at 4/1 (may - should! - have come in) to be gone by end 2012 and I think that's pretty generous. I think he's finished already and I'd give it until the autumn at best.

In answer to your last question, Labour don't seem to understand that they're not going to be trusted on the big issues - foremost among them the economy - when we see most of the main players from the previous administration behind the Labour wheel. Principally, Ed Balls as shadow Chancellor; they really don't get it (neither does Balls, who harbours ludicrous ambitions to lead the party and become Prime Minister) and until people see a Labour Party cleansed of the soiled remnants of the Brown premiership then they will not be able to attract sufficient votes outside it's core support and the client state it so lovingly nurtured to form a government.

It's not just Miliband. The salesman is poor, that's becoming increasingly obvious, but there's no real product to sell. I have no idea what the Labour Party stands for, and it would seem that the Labour Party has no idea what it stands for, either.

Miliband is an Oxbridge PPE freak who has never had a job, no experience of anything in life, no experience of wealth creation or even a proper day's work. His lack of charisma is inversely proportional to his arrogance that he feels he should lead the country, but he's symptomatic of the modern 'career' politician whose interest lies in the grasping and retention of power, and nothing else.

Until this changes we will get an assembly line of empty vessels like EM, and we'll deserve it.

[Big Ed]

Miliband is an Oxbridge PPE freak who has never had a job, no experience of anything in life, no experience of wealth creation or even a proper day's work. His lack of charisma is inversely proportional to his arrogance that he feels he should lead the country, but he's symptomatic of the modern 'career' politician whose interest lies in the grasping and retention of power, and nothing else.

Until this changes we will get an assembly line of empty vessels like EM, and we'll deserve it.

I find it depressing that the quality of modern day politicians has come to this: in a way, we deserve it.
Now more than ever, we accept style over substance. Dominic Mohan, the editor of the Sun, said on Monday: “I think the Sun is good at capturing the zeitgeist of the country” and I think that he is probably right.
He also piped up with this topper: “the Sun gave its eight million readers an easy-to-read account of issues that were often highly complex” which I take to mean that the Sun think that their readers are all **** wits and are free to patronise them at will.
This kind of politics-by-numbers, accompanied by 20 second soundbites, delivered by on-message Party robots, selected from successful law firms, accountancies etc. and placed in urban Lancashire or rural Cambridgeshire, depending on the colour of their rosette, on the 6 O’clock News, is the standard political diet for millions of British adults: they don’t really want any more.
Meanwhile, at a time when you couldn’t get a fag paper between the policies of the main three parties; we are still served up the tribal war dance of he said: she said, prior to the ultimate beauty contest of the next General Election.
That will also be the point when several retiring, prominent, MPs will cash in their chips and accept their reward, for acquiescence, of a directorship in the City.

[sKipper]

Not much of a relaunch today. He was late, he had a bizarre choice of entrance music and by all accounts his speech was not particularly stirring. In fact, Guardian puts it as the 20 year old lad who was on before him was more uplifting and coherent.

I feel for the guy because I think he's so far out of his depth it's uncomfortable to watch. Think he'll prove to be Labour's William Hague type leader. He was the unions' choice though and that says where the power is in the party.

Anyone think he'll last till the summer? Who else is there?

Labour seems to be a talent free zone these days.

Ed Miliband at Westminster and Johann Lamont at Holyrood. Can't see either of these two ever being elected Prime Minister and First Minister.

I think Miliband to Labour is Iain Duncan Smith to the Tories. Reckon he was even worse than Hague.

[HiBremian]

I find it depressing that the quality of modern day politicians has come to this: in a way, we deserve it.
Now more than ever, we accept style over substance. Dominic Mohan, the editor of the Sun, said on Monday: “I think the Sun is good at capturing the zeitgeist of the country” and I think that he is probably right.
He also piped up with this topper: “the Sun gave its eight million readers an easy-to-read account of issues that were often highly complex” which I take to mean that the Sun think that their readers are all **** wits and are free to patronise them at will.
This kind of politics-by-numbers, accompanied by 20 second soundbites, delivered by on-message Party robots, selected from successful law firms, accountancies etc. and placed in urban Lancashire or rural Cambridgeshire, depending on the colour of their rosette, on the 6 O’clock News, is the standard political diet for millions of British adults: they don’t really want any more.
Meanwhile, at a time when you couldn’t get a fag paper between the policies of the main three parties; we are still served up the tribal war dance of he said: she said, prior to the ultimate beauty contest of the next General Election.
That will also be the point when several retiring, prominent, MPs will cash in their chips and accept their reward, for acquiescence, of a directorship in the City.

Sums up my take on politics in the UK too, Big Ed. Too many voters wooed by style. Just take a look at recent political history. Which prime minister introduced some of the most lasting, effective and loved policies like the NHS? Clement Attlee. Kind of says it all.

[steakbake]

I find it depressing that the quality of modern day politicians has come to this: in a way, we deserve it.
Now more than ever, we accept style over substance. Dominic Mohan, the editor of the Sun, said on Monday: “I think the Sun is good at capturing the zeitgeist of the country” and I think that he is probably right.
He also piped up with this topper: “the Sun gave its eight million readers an easy-to-read account of issues that were often highly complex” which I take to mean that the Sun think that their readers are all **** wits and are free to patronise them at will.
This kind of politics-by-numbers, accompanied by 20 second soundbites, delivered by on-message Party robots, selected from successful law firms, accountancies etc. and placed in urban Lancashire or rural Cambridgeshire, depending on the colour of their rosette, on the 6 O’clock News, is the standard political diet for millions of British adults: they don’t really want any more.
Meanwhile, at a time when you couldn’t get a fag paper between the policies of the main three parties; we are still served up the tribal war dance of he said: she said, prior to the ultimate beauty contest of the next General Election.
That will also be the point when several retiring, prominent, MPs will cash in their chips and accept their reward, for acquiescence, of a directorship in the City.

Nail on the head, there. It's nothing but a sorry pantomime.

[Jonnyboy]

They don't call him Millibland for nothing :wink:

[Future17]

My age/length of interest in politics is a barrier here, but having done some basic research, I can't find any examples in relatively recent UK history of a politician having been elected leader of the Opposition and winning back control of Parliament at the first opportunity when it had been lost in the election immediately prior to his/her assuming their position.

I got the feeling with the Tories under Blair that they were just cycling through candidates until the time came when Labour would be weak enough to challenge effectively. I get the same feeling about Labour now - while the Coalition is weak, the Conservatives are not.

[Pete]

I'm no fan of 99.9% of politicians - this percentage of them need a very hard slap - so I'm not driven by party allegiance when I say that EM's speech was bloody awful. It was just a load of whiny babble. No meat, no policies, no real meaning. Just recycled crap from his New Year's address and the usual 'too fast, too far' criticisms of Coalition cuts (which, er, haven't actually taken place). No seriously costed alternatives as he knows all too well there's no money to spend (you'd imagine he'd have noticed while Brown was flushing it all down the crapper).

I didn't actually think he'd be as bad as he's proving to be but, you're right, he's way out of his depth and, right again, it's getting uncomfortable to watch. Today, he had the look of a man who knows the jig is up. He's way, way worse than Hague.

Ladbrokes did have him at 4/1 (may - should! - have come in) to be gone by end 2012 and I think that's pretty generous. I think he's finished already and I'd give it until the autumn at best.

In answer to your last question, Labour don't seem to understand that they're not going to be trusted on the big issues - foremost among them the economy - when we see most of the main players from the previous administration behind the Labour wheel. Principally, Ed Balls as shadow Chancellor; they really don't get it (neither does Balls, who harbours ludicrous ambitions to lead the party and become Prime Minister) and until people see a Labour Party cleansed of the soiled remnants of the Brown premiership then they will not be able to attract sufficient votes outside it's core support and the client state it so lovingly nurtured to form a government.

It's not just Miliband. The salesman is poor, that's becoming increasingly obvious, but there's no real product to sell. I have no idea what the Labour Party stands for, and it would seem that the Labour Party has no idea what it stands for, either.

Miliband is an Oxbridge PPE freak who has never had a job, no experience of anything in life, no experience of wealth creation or even a proper day's work. His lack of charisma is inversely proportional to his arrogance that he feels he should lead the country, but he's symptomatic of the modern 'career' politician whose interest lies in the grasping and retention of power, and nothing else.

Until this changes we will get an assembly line of empty vessels like EM, and we'll deserve it.

I'd like to put that myth to bed.

In fact anyone with very young children could.

We've had children in 2007 and 2011 and I can specifically point out the cuts and differences in benefits.

[Hibrandenburg]

My age/length of interest in politics is a barrier here, but having done some basic research, I can't find any examples in relatively recent UK history of a politician having been elected leader of the Opposition and winning back control of Parliament at the first opportunity when it had been lost in the election immediately prior to his/her assuming their position.

I got the feeling with the Tories under Blair that they were just cycling through candidates until the time came when Labour would be weak enough to challenge effectively. I get the same feeling about Labour now - while the Coalition is weak, the Conservatives are not.

That's how it felt to me too. Like they're trying to lull the ruling party into a false sense of security before presenting the REAL leader.

Ed Milliband comes over as the type of person at school who got bullied, his brother David on the other hand seems like the type who would have paid the big boys to do it.

[Hibrandenburg]

My age/length of interest in politics is a barrier here, but having done some basic research, I can't find any examples in relatively recent UK history of a politician having been elected leader of the Opposition and winning back control of Parliament at the first opportunity when it had been lost in the election immediately prior to his/her assuming their position.

I got the feeling with the Tories under Blair that they were just cycling through candidates until the time came when Labour would be weak enough to challenge effectively. I get the same feeling about Labour now - while the Coalition is weak, the Conservatives are not.

That's how it felt to me too. Like they're trying to lull the ruling party into a false sense of security before presenting the REAL leader.

Ed Milliband comes over as the type of person at school who got bullied, his brother David on the other hand seems like the type who would have paid the big boys to do it.

[Beefster]

I love Miliband. He's the bomb.

[magpie1892]

I'd like to put that myth to bed.

In fact anyone with very young children could.

We've had children in 2007 and 2011 and I can specifically point out the cuts and differences in benefits.

Public spending is still rising.

[Big Ed]

Public spending is still rising.

Just because the amount of Public Spending is rising; doesn’t mean that the cuts aren’t already happening.
Tax revenue has been diminishing since around the time of the banking crisis and increasing unemployment etc. means that there is less money coming in. Therefore, despite the savings being made through austerity: the lack of tax revenue means the debt cannot be paid down.

[magpie1892]

Just because the amount of Public Spending is rising; doesn’t mean that the cuts aren’t already happening.
Tax revenue has been diminishing since around the time of the banking crisis and increasing unemployment etc. means that there is less money coming in. Therefore, despite the savings being made through austerity: the lack of tax revenue means the debt cannot be paid down.

The amount at which public spending was increasing is being cut, but there is no cut to the amount of money set aside for public spending. When something is increasing in value, in no rational universe is this a cut.

[greenlex]

Quite possibly. No definately the worse Labour leader in my lifetime.

[Dashing Bob S]

He's garbage, he should be tearing it up with that crowd of jokers in power, but he hasn't got a clue. He's no less than Labour deserve for giving us Blair and Brown for all those years.

A nothing party.

[Big Ed]

The amount at which public spending was increasing is being cut, but there is no cut to the amount of money set aside for public spending. When something is increasing in value, in no rational universe is this a cut.

Let’s say that a Public Service Agency decided that it would need to get by with 25% less staff and chose to offer them redundancy terms: that is a cut.
If 10% of the original workforce find employment; then that is still 15% who can claim Unemployment Benefit at a cost to the Government.
The amount of money saved by this austerity is countered by the amount that will need to be paid in benefits, the amount of the redundancy packages, and the loss of tax revenue that used to be paid.
Tax revenue is important because if the debt is to be reduced, this is the principle vehicle for doing it. The lack of it means that the debt cannot be paid back as soon as the Government would like, so interest payments that would be wiped out by prompt payment, are still accruing.
George Osborne claimed that job losses in the Public Sector would be offset by increasing demand in the Private Sector: he is not saying that any more, and because that prophecy has not come to fruition; he was forced to concede, in his Autumn Statement, that the deficit will not be reduced until after the next election in 2015.
So: the defecit continues to increase, but so do the cuts.

[RyeSloan]

Milband just makes me laugh. His relaunch speach actually had me laughing out loud....just how anyone is meant to take that guy seriously is beyond me.

If Labour go into an election with him in charge they will get murdered.....they won't though as everyone knows he's little better than useless and as an earlier poster said is just a filler until they get their head round being out of power (and being out of ideas).

[Newry Hibs]

I remember when he got elected. The candidates came out of the the room after they found out, but we did. David was all smiles and Ed looked like he'd been mugged.

I can't help think that David stitched up his brother by 'pretending' to want to be leader and his much less well known brother just wanted to beat him at something (maybe they had terrible sibling rivalry growing up) with out realising what the 'prize' was.

Just this week Nicky Campbell referred to him as David Miliband - a slip that keeps being repeated and he can't shake him off. Wouldn't be surprised if David was next leader (is he still an MP?). He comes over as much more electable in these syle conscious days.

[steakbake]

I remember when he got elected. The candidates came out of the the room after they found out, but we did. David was all smiles and Ed looked like he'd been mugged.

I can't help think that David stitched up his brother by 'pretending' to want to be leader and his much less well known brother just wanted to beat him at something (maybe they had terrible sibling rivalry growing up) with out realising what the 'prize' was.

Just this week Nicky Campbell referred to him as David Miliband - a slip that keeps being repeated and he can't shake him off. Wouldn't be surprised if David was next leader (is he still an MP?). He comes over as much more electable in these syle conscious days.

I reckon its the job no-one wants... Can't see DM going for it if EM gets the Spanish Archer's.

He'll only want it when it looks like Labour are in a winning position for an election. The Polls are close just now, but I am sure, certain that if it came to a vote, a pantomime personality competition between Dave and Ed, Dave would win hands down.

Sadly, it's not about substance and all about "structured reality".

[magpie1892]

Let’s say that a Public Service Agency decided that it would need to get by with 25% less staff and chose to offer them redundancy terms: that is a cut.
If 10% of the original workforce find employment; then that is still 15% who can claim Unemployment Benefit at a cost to the Government.
The amount of money saved by this austerity is countered by the amount that will need to be paid in benefits, the amount of the redundancy packages, and the loss of tax revenue that used to be paid.
Tax revenue is important because if the debt is to be reduced, this is the principle vehicle for doing it. The lack of it means that the debt cannot be paid back as soon as the Government would like, so interest payments that would be wiped out by prompt payment, are still accruing.
George Osborne claimed that job losses in the Public Sector would be offset by increasing demand in the Private Sector: he is not saying that any more, and because that prophecy has not come to fruition; he was forced to concede, in his Autumn Statement, that the deficit will not be reduced until after the next election in 2015.
So: the defecit continues to increase, but so do the cuts.

Yes, like I said, public spending is still increasing, not being cut. Feel free to try and dress it up at the micro level if you wish...

Anyway, we're off topic. Open another thread?

[Big Ed]

Yes, like I said, public spending is still increasing, not being cut. Feel free to try and dress it up at the micro level if you wish...

Anyway, we're off topic. Open another thread?

You are right: we are off topic.
I feel I have made my point, but if you feel the urge to open a new thread: I’ll be there (as the Jackson 5 once said). :greengrin

[heretoday]

I honestly think Harriet Harman would have a better chance of winning the next election than any of the others.

Pathetic isn't it?

[--------]

Speaking personally, I can't think of three politicians I'd rather have leading the major parties in Westminster than Smarmy Dave, Nick the Appendage, and Ed Who?

Fine upstanding trio doing a grand job. Long may they continue. :aok:

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Ed Milliband will never be Prime Minister. Fact.

However, I think his appointment as leader will be for the long term good of the party. Labour need as clean a break as possible from the Blair/Brown/Iraq war era and Ed Milliband was the best, and probably the only, leadership candidate to give them this. EM will step down when Labour lose the next election, someone else will take over (Yvette Cooper probably), and then they will have a realistic chance of winning the one after.

David Milliband was the most natural candidate to take over but he was too involved with Blair/Brown Labour to become PM. The mistakes made by the last Labour government were so bad that all they can hope to achieve in this term is to disassociate themselves with the past as quickly and thoroughly as possible. The next election was always a write-off.

I saw someone mention hague and IDS earlier and I think there are a lot of similarities. Even if either of them had the charisma of Cameron they would stil never have become PM because it was too soon after Thatcher.

[Beefster]

Ed Milliband will never be Prime Minister. Fact.

However, I think his appointment as leader will be for the long term good of the party. Labour need as clean a break as possible from the Blair/Brown/Iraq war era and Ed Milliband was the best, and probably the only, leadership candidate to give them this. EM will step down when Labour lose the next election, someone else will take over (Yvette Cooper probably), and then they will have a realistic chance of winning the one after.

David Milliband was the most natural candidate to take over but he was too involved with Blair/Brown Labour to become PM. The mistakes made by the last Labour government were so bad that all they can hope to achieve in this term is to disassociate themselves with the past as quickly and thoroughly as possible. The next election was always a write-off.

I saw someone mention hague and IDS earlier and I think there are a lot of similarities. Even if either of them had the charisma of Cameron they would stil never have become PM because it was too soon after Thatcher.

I disagree. I think David Miliband would have had Labour miles ahead in the polls by now.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

I disagree. I think David Miliband would have had Labour miles ahead in the polls by now.

Miles ahead? Even if David did do a much better job than Ed is doing, I dont think Cameron has done enough wrong to turn people back to Labour. IMO there is still a lot of ill feeling towards Labour and it'll take more time before people forgive them, regardless of who is leader.

[magpie1892]

Ed Milliband will never be Prime Minister. Fact.

No ****, Sherlock. I've got a better crack at No.10 than EM has.


However, I think his appointment as leader will be for the long term good of the party. Labour need as clean a break as possible from the Blair/Brown/Iraq war era and Ed Milliband was the best, and probably the only, leadership candidate to give them this. EM will step down when Labour lose the next election, someone else will take over (Yvette Cooper probably), and then they will have a realistic chance of winning the one after.

The long-term good of the party? Call me when the Shuttle lands, FFS. Labour has no idea what it is and where it's going and you know why? Because it was hijacked by the neo-con spiv Blair and his odious wife for massive personal enrichment.


David Milliband was the most natural candidate to take over but he was too involved with Blair/Brown Labour to become PM.

EM is equally tainted by being party to Brown's hallucinogenic Premiership. And the rest of the miscreants? They're all still there. Balls' desperate volte face to support the nasty, baby-eating 'Tory cuts' is borne of desperation and realisation that trust (or lack of therein) in Labour's economic competence (such as it is) is the mighty barrier to a Labour government being returned ever - and I mean ever - again.


The mistakes made by the last Labour government were so bad that all they can hope to achieve in this term is to disassociate themselves with the past as quickly and thoroughly as possible. The next election was always a write-off.

If Labour want to regain even a modicum of trust from the productive part of the electorate then they need to flush out the people whose hands were on the tiller 1997-2010. Straw and Darling might survive, the former a racially-confused incompetent, the latter with some credibility, and great eyebrows, but both probable 'touchstones' to a changing of the guard. There is no way a Labour party with Ed Balls, Miliband (take your pick), Cooper and Byrne ('there is no money left' Nurse! My sides!) in the shadow cabinet will ever be returned as a majority.

The Labour Party has ceased to exist as a force for good and emancipation. A long time now. If it is to be reborn it needs to shed anyone party to the treasonable incompetence and kleptocracy of 97-2010 from its ranks and also cleanse disgusting racists like Diane Abbott from the scene... and then develop some policies that people find agreeable.

Personally, I think that Labour's client state aside, it's all over. You can't get a fag paper between the three main parties anyhow, so what's the ****ing point?

[hibsbollah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/16/ed-miliband-leading-labour-destruction

The left bites back. Well, more of a nibble. Especially in relation to the cosy three party consensus (that neo-liberalism is the only game in town) being a threat to democracy and leaving millions of voters disenfranchised, its hard to disagree with him. Clarification please Mr. Balls, are you still a Keynesian?

[ballengeich]

Clarification please Mr. Balls, are you still a Keynesian?

I query your use of the word still. A Keynesian government would not have run a structural deficit in the good years before the last election. The banking crisis would still have occurred, but maintenance of government expenditure in spite of a cyclical revenue deficit would have then been easy to support and would probably have lessened the extent of the economic downturn.

[Big Ed]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/16/ed-miliband-leading-labour-destruction

The left bites back. Well, more of a nibble. Especially in relation to the cosy three party consensus (that neo-liberalism is the only game in town) being a threat to democracy and leaving millions of voters disenfranchised, its hard to disagree with him. Clarification please Mr. Balls, are you still a Keynesian?

I cannot imagine that after 13 years of New Labour in Government; anyone would think that Keynes was their economist of choice.

[IWasThere2016]

Labour seems to be a talent free zone these days.

Ed Miliband at Westminster and Johann Lamont at Holyrood. Can't see either of these two ever being elected Prime Minister and First Minister.

I think Miliband to Labour is Iain Duncan Smith to the Tories. Reckon he was even worse than Hague.

The dream team :faf:

[hibsbollah]

I query your use of the word still. A Keynesian government would not have run a structural deficit in the good years before the last election. The banking crisis would still have occurred, but maintenance of government expenditure in spite of a cyclical revenue deficit would have then been easy to support and would probably have lessened the extent of the economic downturn.


Regardless of what the last Government did or didnt do, Balls has a long history of espousing Keynesian economics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/nov/30/edballs-georgeosborne

I'm not sure why you think a 'Keynesian Govt (define?) would not have run a structural deficit' in the years before the downturn. Governments do whatever they need to do when confronted by events.

Balls has an excellent chance to carve out an alternative policy to growthless austerity. I'd welcome some clarity as to what the new Labour economic policy actually is.

[Eyrie]

I'm not sure why you think a 'Keynesian Govt (define?) would not have run a structural deficit' in the years before the downturn. Governments do whatever they need to do when confronted by events.
A Keynsian approach would raise taxes during good years to repay debt rather than expand public spending or cut taxes. This then allows it to borrow for its funding requirements during a recession and even to cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

Labour were eager to expand public spending for ideological reasons (just as the Tories now wish to reduce it for ideological reasons) so they did not follow Keynes.

[ballengeich]

I'm not sure why you think a 'Keynesian Govt (define?) would not have run a structural deficit' in the years before the downturn. Governments do whatever they need to do when confronted by events.

Balls has an excellent chance to carve out an alternative policy to growthless austerity. I'd welcome some clarity as to what the new Labour economic policy actually is.

Eyrie has set out the Keynesian approach to government deficit. The last Labour government did not need to run a structural deficit. It chose to rather than restrict government spending or raise tax rates. The consequence is that taxpayers are paying tens of billions of pounds each year to financial institutions just on interest on debt, and will be doing so for generations. This seems to me to be a very effective way of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich - not what I expect from a left of centre party.

Like you I would like to see a fresh Labour economic policy. It needs to include a realisation that in the long term government spending and tax have to be roughly in line. I have no confidence in the ability or willingness of Ed Balls or any of the other members of the last government to admit to their mistakes and come up with proposals which set out the tax rates needed to maintain recent spending levels. A repetetive bleat of too deep too fast falls far short of serious economic analysis.

[Dashing Bob S]

It's a trivial thing to say but Milliband seems to me the embodiment of the term '****er.' See also; Blair, Cameron.