One thing is clear: the forthcoming election will be entirely negative and based upon each major party attacking the other, rather than putting forward positive policies of their own. The Tories at least have the advantage of not being led by somebody who appears to be widely hated by those who have worked most closely with him.
I thought this poster was funny at first. But it is actually more interesting than that. Because if the poster were to be used, it would reinforce one of the key Tory messages: namely, that there is a divide between the public and private sectors and the public sector has it easy. The poster would be interpreted as confirmation that the “you” it refers to is public sector workers: and they are all that Labour cares about. In other words, it creates a divide between “us” and “them”, with the Tories siding with the majority of hard working private sector workers, whereas Labour is obsessed with keeping the minority of public sector workers in cushy, non-jobs.
I would be very interested to see an official Labour response to this poster: I suspect they would hate it for exactly those reasons.
Only a very, very perverted form of thinking could come up with that logic
Or someone from Jersey, of course
It’s also known by all but a) The Daily mail and b) bigots that the so called divide between state and private workers is a myth. Do you know many families include both and many swap from one to the other without apparent problem?
All are people trying to do a good job
And 98% do not give a damn who owns their organisation - so long as it is a good employer and meets need as effectively as possible
The NHS could not be privatised and do that - as any reasonable person knows
Keep your hair on - I didn’t say that was what I believed, just that that was how I think it could and would be interpreted. As you know, I have worked in both the public and private sectors and I think the individual employer is much more relevant than the arbitary divide between the two: so I’m with you on the 98% bit.
One can have a thought and articulate it without necessarily subscribing to it. From a labour perspective I think if it replaced the “throwing millions like you onto the dole queue” with “turning a downturn into a catastrophe/a recession into a depression” it would be more effective. A phrase like “millions like you” immediately provokes the question “am I one of the people this is talking to” and given that the tories are perceived as planning to cut 500,000 public sector jobs, the answer for many people will be “no, this is about public sector jobs, it doesn’t affect me”. Which would be the wrong response. Which is why it should not be a labour poster (unless you are a tory, in which case you would like this poster).
Yet millions of private sector jobs do ultimately rely on government spending: Outsourced public services, suppliers of equipment, suppliers of consumer goods and services to the ex-civil servants. The ripples of the cuts would spread out through the national economy in exactly the same way as a Keynesian boost.
Ed Balls and Martin Wolf: why the Government’s economic policy is wrong | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC2010/09/04 Ed Balls made a speech to Bloomberg last week, and Martin Wolf commended his argument in the Financial Times today. Both are worth reading in full, but for the time-challenged, here’s a summary. Government policy rests on four pillars: Labour is to blame for the UK’s economic problems; the Government needs to cut expenditure massively because the markets are nervous of continued borrowing; lower government expenditure will lead to increased private sector spending which will create growth; and people who disagree with the Government are ‘deficit deniers’ who would wreck the recovery. All four are (at least probably) wrong.
Carbon diary: UnGovernment unwinding green energy | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC2010/09/04 The TUC was among the “coalition” of 22 green groups, green manufacturers and countryside bodies warning Chris Huhne against cutting subsidies for green electricity and heating as part of the government’s spending review. Their letter said a new air of uncertainty over government support, prompted by remarks from his Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, will jeopardise job creation, energy security and CO2 targets.
Officials are investigating at least 1,133 cases in jurisdictions such as Jersey, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the Cayman Islands where trusts may have been used to keep funds out of the Revenue’s sight.
Many of these funds were designed to create the impression that the non-resident trustees or entities are the owners of the funds, concealing the identities of the Irish beneficiaries.
The Revenue has already collected around €20 million in voluntary disclosures and settlements from 100 cases, or an average of €200,000 per individual, since last October.
It is now focusing its attention on funds across hundreds of trusts where individuals have not made voluntary settlements.
Tax Justice Network: Columbia's Fred Mishkin exposed for promoting Iceland's "prudential regulation"2010/08/28 We have previously blogged on Iceland's precipitous financial collapse, and linked through to American organisations pushing their toxic anarcho-capitalist agenda in that country. Now check out this link which explores the contribution of Columbia University's Fred Mishkin. Embarrassingly for him, just before the financial crisis washed over Iceland, Mishkin penned a rather ill-conceived report on financial liberalisation in that country claiming that "prudential regulation and supervision is generally quite strong" on the basis of absolutely no research or in-depth analysis, and failing to register that the report was funded by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce - whoops, not the first time we find senior academics and / or business schools failing to declare potential conflicts of interest. Do watch the video link here and watch Mishkin fail to answer the questions about his professional conduct.
We can no longer base our politics on the New Labour approach of trying the patience of Labour members on a daily basis. There is only so long that you can defy gravity and ask people to be relaxed about inequalities that made them Labour in the first place. Now, of all times, we must have the courage of our Labour convictions and set out a credible and principled alternative to the destructive path of the coalition.
Nick Clegg responds to the IFS: another new definition of fairness | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC2010/08/27 The cuts that the Government plan to intoduce in the CSR will have a disproportionate impact on the poorest, who will lose public services worth around 20 per cent of their household incomes. Whatever additional spending is targed to the worst off families, it will be impossible to protect them from cuts of this scale. International evidence shows us that spending cuts are made, those who have the least feel the most pain.
This is great. It should be the Labour poster campaign for the 2010 election.
Than
ks, Richard. I’ve posted it on my Facebook account. I know at least one friend who will hate it.
One thing is clear: the forthcoming election will be entirely negative and based upon each major party attacking the other, rather than putting forward positive policies of their own. The Tories at least have the advantage of not being led by somebody who appears to be widely hated by those who have worked most closely with him.
Give it time….
Which admittedly Labour have not got
I thought this poster was funny at first. But it is actually more interesting than that. Because if the poster were to be used, it would reinforce one of the key Tory messages: namely, that there is a divide between the public and private sectors and the public sector has it easy. The poster would be interpreted as confirmation that the “you” it refers to is public sector workers: and they are all that Labour cares about. In other words, it creates a divide between “us” and “them”, with the Tories siding with the majority of hard working private sector workers, whereas Labour is obsessed with keeping the minority of public sector workers in cushy, non-jobs.
I would be very interested to see an official Labour response to this poster: I suspect they would hate it for exactly those reasons.
@mad foetus
Only a very, very perverted form of thinking could come up with that logic
Or someone from Jersey, of course
It’s also known by all but a) The Daily mail and b) bigots that the so called divide between state and private workers is a myth. Do you know many families include both and many swap from one to the other without apparent problem?
All are people trying to do a good job
And 98% do not give a damn who owns their organisation - so long as it is a good employer and meets need as effectively as possible
The NHS could not be privatised and do that - as any reasonable person knows
Richard,
Keep your hair on - I didn’t say that was what I believed, just that that was how I think it could and would be interpreted. As you know, I have worked in both the public and private sectors and I think the individual employer is much more relevant than the arbitary divide between the two: so I’m with you on the 98% bit.
One can have a thought and articulate it without necessarily subscribing to it. From a labour perspective I think if it replaced the “throwing millions like you onto the dole queue” with “turning a downturn into a catastrophe/a recession into a depression” it would be more effective. A phrase like “millions like you” immediately provokes the question “am I one of the people this is talking to” and given that the tories are perceived as planning to cut 500,000 public sector jobs, the answer for many people will be “no, this is about public sector jobs, it doesn’t affect me”. Which would be the wrong response. Which is why it should not be a labour poster (unless you are a tory, in which case you would like this poster).
Any clearer?
Yes
@mad foetus
I think you’re in the “puzzled by economics” group.
Both the private, and public sectors are dependant on government spending.
Yet millions of private sector jobs do ultimately rely on government spending: Outsourced public services, suppliers of equipment, suppliers of consumer goods and services to the ex-civil servants. The ripples of the cuts would spread out through the national economy in exactly the same way as a Keynesian boost.