Ed Milliband says they've won a clear victory? What!? Options

[GMR]

Ed milliband said that their victory (Oldham by election) had sent out a clear message to the coalition... WHAT!?

Labour won with 14,718 votes. The combined coalition votes was 16,081, a majority of 1,363. I think the coalition have sent out a message to Ed Milliband and that the people support the coalition and not his labour party (who got us into this mess in the first place).

[Iommi]

Ed milliband said that their victory (Oldham by election) had sent out a clear message to the coalition... WHAT!?

Labour won with 14,718 votes. The combined coalition votes was 16,081, a majority of 1,363. I think the coalition have sent out a message to Ed Milliband and that the people support the coalition and not his labour party (who got us into this mess in the first place).

They didn't 'fight' as a coalition, so that isn't really a fair comparison. I'm not sure it is fair to blame Labour for our current predicament either, although it did happen on their watch. If the Millibands had had the guts to oust Brown, I'm not sure the last election would have finished as it did.

[GMR]

They didn't 'fight' as a coalition, so that isn't really a fair comparison. I'm not sure it is fair to blame Labour for our current predicament either, although it did happen on their watch. If the Millibands had had the guts to oust Brown, I'm not sure the last election would have finished as it did.

The point was they still got more votes than the labour party, whether they were a pack or not. I think it is a good comparison as jointly they outnumbered labour.

And yes they must take the blame for this country being in a mess. If you read Blair's and Mandelson's autobiographies they both blame Brown.

[Iommi]

The point was they still got more votes than the labour party, whether they were a pack or not. I think it is a good comparison as jointly they outnumbered labour.

I'm not sure that means anything; no-one voted for a coalition. I do agree with you though that it wasn't a clear message.

And yes they must take the blame for this country being in a mess. If you read Blair's and Mandelson's autobiographies they both blame Brown.

If you want to believe vain works of delusion.

The way I see it is: would it have been any different if the Tories had been in power. I'm not at all sure it would.

[GMR]

I'm not sure that means anything; no-one voted for a coalition. I do agree with you though that it wasn't a clear message.

I disagree and it contradicts what Miliband said; that they were sending a message to the coalition. If they were sending a message then they would have wiped out both parties, where in fact they got less than both parties.

There is also another point to be made; Oldham is a labour strong hold and if they had pinned a rosette on a donkey it would have won.

If you want to believe vain works of delusion.

It is not a case of believing anything other than quoting what was said. In fact I haven't read anything that disagrees with that conclusion.

The way I see it is: would it have been any different if the Tories had been in power. I'm not at all sure it would.

Definitely; it would have been different. Tories would have been more cautious.

[Iommi]

I disagree and it contradicts what Miliband said; that they were sending a message to the coalition. If they were sending a message then they would have wiped out both parties, where in fact they got less than both parties.

Which is why I wrote I agree that it doesn't send a clear message, but never mind. I also feel it is too early to properly assess the support for the coalition. The 'pain' is yet to come. I wonder if the election would have a different result if it were held this time next year.

Labour haven't done themselves any favours either with electing Ed Milliband; I'm getting fed-up with his voice already.

It is not a case of believing anything other than quoting what was said. In fact I haven't read anything that disagrees with that conclusion.

You used two people of 'questionable' integrity. Had you used more astute references, I might have responded differently.

Definitely; it would have been different. Tories would have been more cautious.

What like the last recession they let get way out of control? I wouldn't believe the hype. The Tories said nothing while this crisis was developing that suggested they saw it coming. Before Lehman Bros went bent, the economy was manageable.

[GMR]

Which is why I wrote I agree that it doesn't send a clear message, but never mind. I also feel it is too early to properly assess the support for the coalition. The 'pain' is yet to come. I wonder if the election would have a different result if it were held this time next year.

We shall see.

Labour haven't done themselves any favours either with electing Ed Milliband; I'm getting fed-up with his voice already.

Agreed.

You used two people of 'questionable' integrity. Had you used more astute references, I might have responded differently.

The books that are available and magazines like the Economist share that view, however, if you've got any contradictory views from more 'astute references' then fair enough.

What like the last recession they let get way out of control? I wouldn't believe the hype. The Tories said nothing while this crisis was developing that suggested they saw it coming. Before Lehman Bros went bent, the economy was manageable.

But that wasn't your question.

The last recession, it could have been argued, could have been a lot of worse if labour had been in power. And some economist have actually stated that.

[Iommi]

The books that are available and magazines like the Economist share that view.

And that proves anything? However, if you could give me an example of an article, then I'd be happy.

The last recession, it could have been argued, could have been a lot of worse if labour had been in power. And some economist have actually stated that.

Like who?

[GMR]

Show me?

To ask that question you are not very well read up on the current economic situation. Try reading the magazines like the Economist and other such publications.

Who?

See above.

[Iommi]

To ask that question you are not very well read up on the current economic situation. Try reading the magazines like the Economist and other such publications.
See above.

In other words you are making it up. BTW I have changed the text, but it means the same anyway.

[GMR]

In other words you are making it up. BTW I have changed the text, but it means the same anyway.

Not at all. You can always check yourself if you had read the Economist and other economic publications.

[Iommi]

Not at all. You can always check yourself if you had read the Economist and other economic publications.

Perhaps you could suggest which issue?

[GMR]

Perhaps you could suggest which issue?

I don't have to, just read the last years worth.

[Iommi]

I don't have to, just read the last years worth.

I see; baloney then.

This morning, Ed Milliband stated on TV that up to the Lehman Bros crash, the national deficit and national debt was lower than it was when Labour got into office '97.

Here's a better measure (correct to 2008): Net debt in proportion to GDP.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm

[GMR]

I see; baloney then.

Why is it baloney? I don't keep records of everything I read. But it is easy to check. You are obviously saying you don't read such magazines... which is fine, but you shouldn't criticise people who do.

This morning, Ed Milliband stated on TV that up to the Lehman Bros crash, the national deficit and national debt was lower than it was when Labour got into office '97.

Yes, but don't forget it was going down under labour. Brown and Blair kept it going until 2001 until they went on their spending spree. Both Blair and Mandelson say so in their book, and they should know.

Here's a better measure (correct to 2008): Net debt in proportion to GDP.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm

In 91 it started going up because of Black Wednesday. But the Tories got it under control - as stated by Brown and Blair -but as you also see it started to rise in 2001. When they let spending get out of control.

[Iommi]

Why is it baloney? I don't keep records of everything I read. But it is easy to check. You are obviously saying you don't read such magazines... which is fine, but you shouldn't criticise people who do.

No. I'm saying that I try to verify what I say, and qualify anything else with 'I understand'. You are renowned for shooting from the hip.

Yes, but don't forget it was going down under labour. Brown and Blair kept it going until 2001 until they went on their spending spree. Both Blair and Mandelson say so in their book, and they should know.

If they said it was raining out side, I'd check myself. However, yes, spending was going up, but before the crash, spending was half that which they inherited.

In 91 it started going up because of Black Wednesday. But the Tories got it under control - as stated by Brown and Blair -but as you also see it started to rise in 2001. When they let spending get out of control.

This is getting away from the point you made. You claimed Tory prudence, I think I have demonstrated that they couldn't be considered any more 'cautious' as you claim.