[new puritan]

What annoys me is that Labour's own fifth columnists, bitter about their own waning influence, are only too happy to help the Murdoch press in its efforts to undermine the party. However much Miliband tries to keep the Blairites on side, they'll never trust him. Time to take a much closer look at the Progress gang, I think.

[The Weeping Angel]

So what's your solution purge progress?

[Kreuzberger]

Up thread. Agreed, Canus. The "spend. spend, spend" jibe can be countered with "protect, reassure and stop letting their mates salt away billions in untaxed wealth because there is more than enough cash if it is used decently and equitably."

The C1 and C2 voters who, from the 80's to the 00's, became used to the idea of their social and economic mobility will be waking up to the very real fact that that mobility can cut two ways. All around them, they will be seeing colleagues, family-members and neighbours. A rising-C2 who had every reason to believe that "jam tomorrow" was a realistic possibility would be plain daft to even assume that the bread itself will be there in the morning.

Perhaps, one of the coalition's greatest mistakes was to tie itself to a fixed five-year term because as every day passes, more and more of the individuals and family groups that come together to make real-life voting decisions will be staring at yet another example of incompetence or fraternal redistribution that proves that the Tories are simply neither willing nor capable of delivering.

Bollocks to the feral Tory press. NewLab tried to felate them during Blair's first term and we saw what good that did. But the press of now and the press of a decade ago is a very different and emasculated beast; as we have seen over the last few days, they are preaching to a shrinking core constituency. They have been reduced to playground tribalism. Trots, lefties? Really lads, is that the best you can do? Well yes, actually it is and that's because they simply don't have the fire-power to counter all the disenting voices.

Clippetty-clop, here comes my favourite hobby-horse. C1's and C2's generally (and virtually all 16-24's) will not listen to those they perceive to be on-message politicians. They will listen to their mates and take soundings from those they consider to be in their broad interest groups. So, the key battleground has to be social-media.

[new puritan]

So what's your solution purge progress?

I don't know whether I'd go so far as to purge them (Miliband won't do that anyway) but they certainly need to be subjected to closer scrutiny. Whenever stories like this emerge, they always seem to come from the Blairite hard right of the party - which obviously centres around Progress. You don't get this stuff from the Fabians, or even from the so-called awkward squad of the LRC. What the Blairites lack in grassroots support, they make up for in terms of access to the media. The leadership has to take a firmer line, because the closer we get to the next election, the more of a liability this is likely to become.

[The Weeping Angel]

I think it is important to distinguish between your run of the mill Blairites and the Blairite ultras (who usually tend to be behind these stories)

[Timbo]

Ed Miliband has a rare chance to rein in the blue wing of his party at the moment. They are currently headless; David having f*cked off to the States.

[new puritan]

Full Independent article is here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 79179.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Nothing in it. Really restates the present position, reduce the deficit over a longer period with less-damaging austerity. Someone using an upcoming Fabian paper to fly a kite, and the Indy has gone along with it. Their editorial judgement is looking a bit strange at the moment...

[canus insanus]

Up thread. Agreed, Canus. The "spend. spend, spend" jibe can be countered with "protect, reassure and stop letting their mates salt away billions in untaxed wealth because there is more than enough cash if it is used decently and equitably."

The C1 and C2 voters who, from the 80's to the 00's, became used to the idea of their social and economic mobility will be waking up to the very real fact that that mobility can cut two ways. All around them, they will be seeing colleagues, family-members and neighbours. A rising-C2 who had every reason to believe that "jam tomorrow" was a realistic possibility would be plain daft to even assume that the bread itself will be there in the morning.

Perhaps, one of the coalition's greatest mistakes was to tie itself to a fixed five-year term because as every day passes, more and more of the individuals and family groups that come together to make real-life voting decisions will be staring at yet another example of incompetence or fraternal redistribution that proves that the Tories are simply neither willing nor capable of delivering.

Bollocks to the feral Tory press. NewLab tried to felate them during Blair's first term and we saw what good that did. But the press of now and the press of a decade ago is a very different and emasculated beast; as we have seen over the last few days, they are preaching to a shrinking core constituency. They have been reduced to playground tribalism. Trots, lefties? Really lads, is that the best you can do? Well yes, actually it is and that's because they simply don't have the fire-power to counter all the disenting voices.

Clippetty-clop, here comes my favourite hobby-horse. C1's and C2's generally (and virtually all 16-24's) will not listen to those they perceive to be on-message politicians. They will listen to their mates and take soundings from those they consider to be in their broad interest groups. So, the key battleground has to be social-media.

Succinctly put, Kreuz, the defining point is Social Media. Thankfully the clowns at TrueBlue HQ haven't got a clue how to get themselves across well on the net, and as the myriad of blogs shows, the 'Lefties and Trots' have got it well stashed. We on the Left have an annoying habit of talking ourselves out of the game when quite frankly we should be capitalising (!) on the downward tumble these b'stards are on. My fear is the fringe - like you said, the C1s and 2s are the types who are swayed by electronic media, the Facebook generation if you will, who will read the latest scaremongering bullshit from Fartage and co, and still read shit like Murdoch's arsewipe.

And I still wouldn't write off the LumpyDims.

Yet.

[Abernathy]

Malcolm is broadly speaking, correct. We do offer a more attractive and credible alternative to Osborne's disastrous failed and failing austerity programme, and there is more flesh being put on those bones week by week and month by month. It would be bonkers to pledge to match Tory spending for 2 years (or even less) as Blair/Brown did, and it's arguably not necessary.

However, the point was made that it's usually the Blairite/Progress wing that float these boats, and never, say, the Fabian Society. In this instance, however, the Fabians are being quoted favourably :

Strong support for this approach will come in a study to be published next week by the Labour-affiliated Fabian Society. Sticking to George Osborne’s plans, it found, would mean that “non-protected” areas of spending such as police, justice and local government face cuts of about 35 per cent between 2011 and 2017.

Arguing the cuts may be unnecessary, the study says that, if the economy is growing by about 2 per cent annually, public spending could rise by 1 per cent a year and Labour could achieve Mr Osborne’s target of seeing debt falling by 2016-17 two years later – or sooner than 2018-19 if taxes were increased.

And yes, Kreuz and Casus are right about social media. Did Obama all the good in the world.

[new puritan]

However, the point was made that it's usually the Blairite/Progress wing that float these boats, and never, say, the Fabian Society. In this instance, however, the Fabians are being quoted favourably :

Strong support for this approach will come in a study to be published next week by the Labour-affiliated Fabian Society. Sticking to George Osborne’s plans, it found, would mean that “non-protected” areas of spending such as police, justice and local government face cuts of about 35 per cent between 2011 and 2017.

The difference here is that Andrew Harrop and the Fabians are out in the open - and appear to be in line with the broad direction of travel so far outlined by the leadership, rather than sneaking around to the right-wing press under cover of anonymity in an attempt to undermine it. Ditto Compass, although that isn't strictly a Labour grouping anymore. Progress itself doesn't really seem to have much by way of a policy platform, actually. There was the Purple Book, but I don't know how much that had to do with Progress as an organisation.

[The Weeping Angel]

A Labour source has called out the indie for talking bollocks


http://www.newstatesman.com/the-staggers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[new puritan]

Good piece from Duncan Weldon.

In effect many are now arguing that policymakers should buy themselves 'fiscal credibility’ by signing up to a fiscal framework which is failing to reduce the deficit. This seems to me an odd state of affairs.

The Government originally said it would have reduced borrowing to £37bn by 2014/15, the latest estimate is for annual borrowing of £108bn in that year. Cumulatively the Government is set to borrow around £250bn more than it intended. The current framework is not working, even on its own terms.

Partially this is because many seem to assume that reducing the deficit is simply a result of taking 'tough choices’ and making spending cuts. But when the economy is weak then the multiplier on government spending is higher and making cuts now simply reduces growth, pushes up unemployment and makes 'dealing with our debts’ harder, not easier. The story of UK fiscal policy from 2010 to 2013 is not 'tough choices now but good times later’, it is 'tough choices now and then even more tough choices later’. Austerity keeps being extended and yet some people continue to argue that setting unrealistic targets and then missing them is the best way to ensure that you are seen as credible.

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/04/fi ... ding-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is absolutely right. Osbornomics is failing on its own terms - those who argue that sticking to Osborne's spending plans would give Labour greater credibility are talking bollocks.

[new puritan]

Andrew Harrop has a piece over at LabourList.

The flexibility to adopt to changing circumstances is one of the main reasons to reject Osborne’s plans. Flexibility is one of the most important weapons in a chancellor’s armoury and should not be cast away lightly. It’s far too early to say what the economy will look like in 2015 and Labour must keep its options open.

But even given what we know (or rather suspect) about the likely economic circumstances post 2015, Osborne’s figures don’t make sense and no Labour chancellor should contemplate adopting them.

Under the coalition’s plans apart from the ‘protected’ areas of schools, the NHS and international development, public service current spending would fall by almost one fifth in the two years after 2015, amounting to a total cut of 35% since 2011/12. The idea of cuts on this scale is frankly unbelievable.

http://labourlist.org/2013/04/no-labour ... c-figures/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't disagree with that at all tbh.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yep.

And there's a need to campaign on the international stage for flexibility. Brown would have done that well. Even Schauble would have respected him. With Hollande in France, they'd have been quite formidable.