Anti-business, anti-aspiration, anti-Britain: Ed Miliband's your man

The opening weeks of the election campaign have confirmed one thing. Ed Miliband hates success.

If you want to be successful, don't try to do it in Britain.

The Labour party has announced in the last few months that they would introduce:

• the 50% upper band for anyone earning over £150,000 per annum
• a 'mansion' tax on any properties worth over £2 million
• reduction of tax allowances on pension pots
• 'abolition' of non-dom status for people non resident in the UK
• an increase of 1% in corporation tax

At each point, when the policies have been argued, the Labour party representative has argues that they wouldn't expect it to change any behaviour and so not have a detrimental effect on our economy. But taken together the above policies represent a comprehensive attack on any kind of aspiration, business or successful person. 

We know that tax changes behaviour. Otherwise why put tax on alcohol, cigarettes and fuel? The Labour party policies will deter many people from investing in Britain, living here or setting up successful businesses. The message is clear: Ed Miliband prefers the politics of student bar envy to a entrepreneurial economy creating jobs, employing thousands, paying wages and creating a wider tax base. He would prefer to take money from the well off rather than increase the tax take.

Ed Miliband laughs in the face of Arthur Laffer and his curve!

My worry is that people will fall for it. It all sounds so nice to put the 'burden on those with the widest shoulders'. In 2006 the top 1% paid 24% of the UK income tax take, last year that had increased to 27%. I want to know at what point have the rich paid their fair share? 30%, 35%, 40%? 

How much longer can we continue to soak the rich before they take their pots of money away and the burden then falls on the poor? How much longer will the golden goose lay its eggs? Not much longer if the leader of the Labour party has its way. 

Let's hope that the people of Britain see sense.

Squiffy.

P.S. on another note - I hear Ed Miliband is as decisive as Gordon Brown. Oh God, don't take me back to 2007-2009!

Ed Miliband Conference Speech: Verdict

What a long, turgid, affair. Oh dear me. By far his worst conference speech.

It was long on anecdotes with Gareth, Elizabeth and all, but it didn't add up to much. For policies, we had some extra money for the NHS, voting for 16 and 17 year olds, a mansion tax and extra taxes on tobacco companies.

You can tell when Labour are operating the core vote strategy, they focus on the NHS. I remember a tweet from Dan Hodges, commentator, and son of Glenda Jackson MP, who said when they start banging on about NHS you know that they know they'll lose. I'm not so sure but I'm not plugged into the party like Dan was. They'll reverse the NHS changes made by the coalition. Does that ring a bell? Yes, when Labour came into power in 1997 they reversed the previous Tory hospital organisation and then 5 years later started to bring it back. Will they ever learn?

The mansion 4 bedroom semi tax has been spent twice now, to bring the deficit down and fund the NHS. A new tax. There's also a new tax on tobacco companies, as if they don't pay a lot anyway with duties. There will no doubt be more bank taxes too.

Whatever the problem, the answer is always the same. A new or increased tax to provide increased Government spending. If not, use borrowing for increased spending.

What was striking was that there was no mention of the deficit. We now know that he meant to mention it, but forgot. It's so easy to forget the most pressing issue affecting the country today. Immigrations was forgotten too. Another doorstep high priority.

Talking of a current issue which Labour has no answer to, the impact of devolution and English votes for English laws, Mr Miliband said David Cameron was trying to divide the nation.

Since the referendum I have felt more and more incensed by repeated claims that we shouldn't rush the answer, and have some constitutional convention. Who rushed into lots of devolution as soon as they were elected last time? Labour. They created this monster of an issue and did not bother to seek out answers to the unbalanced state they created in 13 years of power. It's because it suited them to brush it under the carpet. It's extremely rich for them now to accuse the Tories of trying to solve this problem to their advantage!

Anyway, back to the speech. Oh must I? If this man is Prime Minister next May I may have to go on Prozac. He's the least impressive leader since Iain Duncan-Smith.

Squiffy.


By the way, funny that Rachel Reeves, shadow pension secretary didn't know what the standard state pension was - she thought it was just below £100. I fact it's £113. You'd think she'd know. Yesterday she seemed to not quite know the difference between capital and current spending. This lady is supposed to be in the next group to be leader. Give me strength.

Ed Miliband: The Economic Big Speech! Err, where was it?

At the beginning of this week we were told that little Ed Miliband was going to be making a big speech on the economy on Friday. Ooh, excitement! Was it going to be embracing the coalition spending plans? Was it going to be a change to business rates? Was it going to be a new prices and incomes policy? Was he going to go for a flat tax system? Was he going to go all out for reflation? Nope. Nothing like it.

Banker bashing. Again. I've lost count of the number of times that he's had a speech on banking. Monthly he seems to change where the tax on bankers bonus is going to focus, I can't remember this month whether it is for new homes, 'creating' jobs, or a new sheepdog for every second house. Never mind that in the next breath he wants to reduce bankers bonuses - which obviously means he'd get less for his latest pet project spending! But don't let economics get in the way of his economics speech!

This time, he wants to create new challenger banks. He thinks the banks are too big. Remind me, who was it who allowed the banks to get bigger? His gang. Who was it who forced the solvent Lloyds to ruin itself bailing out HBOS? His gang. Who was it who allowed Santander to buy up loads of banks such as Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley ? His gang.

A bit late to start saying the banks are too big now! Never mind bloody hypocritical! Mind you, should we be surprised. Anyway, why does Miliband think its up to the Government to create some new banks. We've already got one big one that we're desperately trying to get rid of. Andrew Neil made the valid point, too, that these banks won't have much capital and so are unlikely to provide large amounts of funding for SME's as required by Mr Miliband. So a load of rubbish really.

Going back to the charge of hypocrisy, earlier this week Mr Miliband found his old note about the squeezed middle down the back of the sofa and decided to read it out again. Everyone knows that if Labour get back in rather than spending cuts there will be tax rises. To get the most bang for your tax increase, it's the middle that gets hit. Labour's usual instrument of torture is via National Insurance. So be very wary of Red Ed's middle-speak, he's no Tony Blair.

So, move along. Nothing to see here.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband's Myth about a Myth

This morning I read in The Times that Ed Miliband is angry that the coalition is perpetuating the 'myth' that the deficit is the fault of the previous Labour Government, whereas, he says, it was the fault of the recession.

It's pure and simple really.

The effects of the previous Government's spending is what can be seen in the structural deficit (this is the amount that the Governments spend minus its income if there were not a recession). Normally the structural deficit would not be entirely down to the Government, but the last Government had a good spell early on and actually ran a surplus for some years, it then went on a spending splurge and the deficit got wider and wider, even during a period of growth.

There is of course an amount of the deficit because of the recession, this is the non-structural part, but this can be reduced when the country returns to growth due to the 'automatic stabilisers'. In recession, tax receipts are down and unemployment benefits go up, in growth these trends reverse.

So, to judge Ed Miliband's 'myth' let's look at the total numbers. The total budget deficit for this year was due to be £155 Bn, the structural deficit is predicted (by the IFS) to be around £90 Bn of that, i.e. 58%. I believe that the structural deficit reduction plan is nearer £100 Bn or 65%.

Either way, the majority of the deficit is structural and therefore a fault of the previous Government. So, Ed Miliband's 'myth' is a myth itself.

He also said, in the article, that he is not opposing every cut. Which cuts does he support then? No answer.

He opposes the VAT rise, which brings in £13 Bn per year, but what is his alternative? The employer NI rise, that the new Government stopped, only brings in £3 Bn, and there's some loose talk about bank bonuses but nothing tangible. Also, given that Labour want to put the deficit reduction burden further onto taxes (from 80:20 cuts to taxes to 60:40) where are all the extra taxes coming from? There came no answer.

Verdict. Ed Miliband must do better.

Squiffy.

REd takes them back to the 70s

It appears that Ed Miliband has learnt nothing from history.

I was wondering when he said he backed the student protesters whether he was making the same mistake that Neil Kinnock made when he refused to condemn the violence of the Miners in 1984 and 85. He also said that he was a confirmed socialist - ok fair enough.

Then I read in the Independent that he plans to give more policy making powers to the Labour party members and that the 'profound' change to the Labour party that he promised would not overhaul the relationship with the unions.

Apparently the Unions can have more clout if they are more 'responsible'. This is the exact same relationship that Labour and the Unions had in the seventies. They had more clout, but didn't act responsibly, and there's no reason to believe they will now. Remember 'In place of strife', Barbara Castle's plan to make the Unions 'responsible' - it was dropped after cabinet disagreements. We then had the Winter of Discontent.

Some Unions act responsibly, many don't. We have another tube strike on Monday - and for what reason? It passed me by.

Ed Miliband needs to have a bigger think about his speech this weekend before he embraces this plan. A return, even only a partial return, to the failed policies of the seventies will ruin his leadership and keep Labour out of power for the next decade.

Back to the history books for REd me thinks.

Squiffy.

The Missing Leader

Ed Miliband has been missing from the political scene due to paternity leave. Although that is obviously his right it couldn't have come at a worse time for him.

When you become the leader of a party you only have a certain amount of time to make an imprint on the party. Perceptions can be made incredibly quickly. Unfortunately for Mr Miliband, there are now the beginnings of rumblings about his leadership. His absence has obviously been understandable, but he needed to set the direction of travel before he went away.

Is he going to follow a Blairite path, and try to entice back the middle classes? Or is he going for a core vote strategy and say screw the middle classes. We don't know yet! Are they going to be more realistic about the deficit or try to ignore the problem?

Ed Miliband needs to make a splash on his return this week. I understand that he is going to announce some internal party reforms. Maybe this will be a pointer to the direction. I think he needs to be bold.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband: First PMQs Verdict

Today was Ed Miliband's first PMQs. I thought that he would be underwhelming, and at the start his low key pitch made me feel I would be right.

In the end though, he got the better of David Cameron. I suppose for someone confidant it may be easier for the opposition leader to go on the attack, and the PM will have to tread carefully to find out how to treat the new opposition.

Ed Miliband did do very well though. He made his points well and pointed out when DC was not answering the questions. I think it is too easy for the PM of the day to deal in generalisations rather than specifics, and I was hoping that David Cameron would be able to tackle the questions directly. This may be difficult when the PM has to master all areas when he doesn't know what the question will be.

So my marks: EM 7, DC 5

Ed Milibore: The Verdict

Yesterday was the day when Ed Miliband had to give us his vision for a future Britain under his leadership. It is the starting point for the next four and a half years.

Unfortunately, I found the speech boring and largely forgettable. It didn't inspire me at all, and although I'm not a party supporter, I know that a good speech delivered by Tony Blair would have me gripped.

It was delivered with the gusto of a dead parrot. There was no overiding theme. In a sense it was stiched together like one of Gordon Brown's, but with the content of a detached Nick Clegg (pre-Coalition era).

The one moment that sticks in the mind is his distance from the 'mistake of Iraq' but even that was overshadowed by the stony face of his brother asking Harriet Harman why she was clapping when she had voted for it.

A good speech must inspire, it must use the language that we understand but get away from clichés. As Jim Hacker once said, 'You can talk in clichés, till the cows come home'. There must be an overiding theme and a rhythm which catches you on its hook. Some people have it; Winston Churchill, Barack Obama, Tony Blair and to a large extent David Cameron. Ed Miliband didn't have it yesterday.

The message seemed to be directed at the Labour party and not the country and, while I think the party needs to have a deep think about what it stands for, yesterday was not the time to do it!

Squiffy.