Miliboy proves Mencken right

Ed Miliband has revealed he is willing to go further than his planned freeze on energy bills and intervene in other markets to help bring down living costs.

The Labour leader said he is prepared to unveil more interventionist policies in the interests of the consumer, despite being branded “Red Ed” in the right-wing press over his proposals to shake up the energy industry.

Speaking to BBC Radio 5, Miliband said he would do whatever it takes to mend the link between growth and living standards, after winning popular support for his plan to freeze energy prices for 20 months.

Asked whether this could include intervening in other markets, he said: “Yes, we will be doing more to show the difference a Labour government would make … we will tackle the cost of living crisis and one of the ways we’ll do it is by making markets work in the public interest.”

It’s undoubtably popular and democracy is indeed that the people should get what they want. Good and hard.

Which is what everyone will have to spend the subsequent decade clearing up of course.

46 comments on “Miliboy proves Mencken right

  1. oh man, this isn’t making my life as a left winger any easier.

    IF YOU WANT THEM TO AFFORD TO BUY MORE THINGS ENACT POLICIES THAT RAISE THE INCOMES OF POOR PEOPLE

  2. IF YOU WANT TO WRITE IN CAPITALS TRY TO FORMULATE MORE ELEGANT SENTENCES

    that was a clunker. Take the end, put it at the beginning.

  3. But if poor people have more money, they won’t vote for Labour any more. That fear has driven Labour policy for decades.

  4. Luis Enrique

    You are now in the same quandry as all my left-wing/social democrat friends. You know he is so wrong as to be risible.

    It’s going to be hard for you from here to the elections.

    It is bullshit economics purely for electoral purposes. And I thought Cameron was bad!

  5. DBC Reed
    “The markets are working so well at the moment. Why tamper with perfection”

    The system we have now is corporate socialism (or fascism–a variant of socialism). If a lot of shit is happening it is happening because of the leftist tripe fools like you have been peddling for decades.

    We could always switch to the North Korean model–that works so well and shows socialism at its best.

  6. “It’s going to be hard for you from here to the elections.”

    I don’t know about that, I just have to vote for the least bad. I’m not sure how far Milliband would have to travel towards Chavez before I’d Cameron Osbourne, but I think he has a large margin.

    besides, we know what he’ll actually do will small beer .

  7. ‘Vote for the least bad’.

    It’s like saying one’s marriage is tolerable.

    Ghastly (but true in case of politics).

  8. There are two ways that an activist government of the people can make the cost of living more affordable.

    1) Cut the taxes and regulations forcing prices up, particularly the solar windmill bollocks.

    2) Stop inflating. Particularly, stop giving money to banks who will then inflate housing prices even more.

  9. > Miliband said he would do whatever it takes to mend the link between growth and living standards

    Whatever it takes, eh? What if someone were to demonstrate evidence that strict immigration limits would raise wages?

  10. Miliband’s analysis is so obviously born of empirically verified facts here. And he needs to go further, he needs to intervene to sort out the failing toilet roll market, just like Hugo Chavez did. Yes, that’s what this country needs.

    DBC Reed

    Yes mate, markets are working, it’s gov’t intereference that buggers things up. Example: feed-in tariffs to “green” our energy production. If you need evidence, go and try to buy any basic foodstuff you fancy in Caracas.

  11. Not quite democracy if Labour get a majority on 35% of the vote.

    But since the Tories like that corrupt voting system I suppose anybody who votes for them rather than UKIP will have no legitimate complaint.

  12. But the mathematical reality is a vote for UKIP, particularly in a marginal, is more likely to result in a Labour MP than any other outcome.
    I’ll repeat myself: the maths means that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour.

  13. Ironman, I can live with that if the alternative is more slowly arriving at identical ruin under the Tories and, what’s worse, having the value of those ideas which might save us trashed by association with the Tories.

    Even when the Tories aren’t precisely Trojan horses for the self-avowed socialists, which they mostly are, they’re still mainly statist, collectivist thugs.

  14. why are you all so obsessed with citing a policy that may or may not be sensible but which adds about 10 per cent to energy bills as an example of government interference ruining the economy?

  15. But if poor people have more money, they won’t vote for Labour any more. That fear has driven Labour policy for decades.

    which is why labour policy has been hitherto to take away all their money and then give them some back for anything deemed socially acceptable.

  16. Luis Enrique

    Milliband is responsible for the, hopefully soon to be recognised by all as, most expensive piece of stupid legislation ever voted in. I know there has been competition but he wins hands down.

    His latest plan would not add 10 percent to bills, it would lead to massive underinvestment in reliable energy production, brown then blackouts and I’ll bet a pint of any beer you care to name an increase far in excess of 10%, almost certainly before the next election if it looks like he is going to get in.

    I think you are more than aware of the industrial importance of reliable, secure and cheap energy for renewed tax generating economic activity and of course don’t forget the ‘poor public’ too. I prefer cheap reliable energy, my dad needs it.

  17. I wonder about popularity and ‘mandate’ when, in the past ten general elections, no single party has won more than a third of the electorate’s support.

  18. Ironman,

    I’ll repeat myself: the maths means that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour.

    You assume that those of us voting for UKIP don’t understand that.

    The only way that you get your voice heard in an FPTP system is by voting based on the election to follow, rather than this election. So, you vote UKIP, Labour win. Bad outcome. But it also means that Cameron will resign as leader, the ludicrous “de-toxification” will be buried, and perhaps someone from the classic liberal wing will get control, and start really dismantling the state.

    Fact is, I really doubt that Miliband is going to be that much worse than Cameron. He hasn’t cut shit, only slowing the rate of growth of the state. He has supported boondoggles like HS2 and the Olympics. And he has continued to support the Corn Law attitude to house building that is making housing more and more expensive.

  19. Tim Almond

    My real fear is in fact that all are very aware of it and have convinced yourselves that a Miliband Labour gov’t is exactly the same the Tories because…because what exactly? Do you really think a hard left market-interfering idiot who owes his prominence to the patronage of the unions every bit as much as Richard Murphy – that this would be exactly the same as now? Are we reallygoing to indulge our whimsies that much?

  20. Ironman, it’s people like you who keep the Tories in business. Political parties have no value unless they serve a sincere constituency, rather than a tribe. And if they don’t serve a sincere constituency, they should be allowed to die.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to vote with your conscience?

  21. @ ukliberty
    Weasel words. Those who are dead cannot vote so including them in the denominator is bullshit. Margaret Thatcher never got less than42% of the vote.

  22. @ Edward Lud
    I do vote with my conscience, and always have done (including one one occassion voting for a Labour candidate for the local council because I thought that, in the unlikely event that he succeeded, he would do a good job.

  23. Edward Lud

    What a stupid, stupid comment. You know nothing about me, nothing about my background, let alone any tribal allegiances, nothing about my ethical or religious views, absolutely nothing about any economic or business training I have had. Yet you take my view that a vote for UKIP will amount to a vote for Labour – based upon my reading of the maths – and yet you dare to refer to ‘people like you’ and make a reference to my ‘conscience’.

    Have you got anything reasoned or remotely adult to say?

  24. john77

    @ ukliberty
    Weasel words. Those who are dead cannot vote so including them in the denominator is bullshit. Margaret Thatcher never got less than42% of the vote.

    Eh? Who mentioned the dead? What a weird comment.

  25. Calm down, Ironman. For a start, although I’ve forgotten most of it, I’ve read enough of your comments to know more than nothing about you. Aren’t you one of the in-house papists, for instance? (Which might explain your volcanic eruption at a comment that impliedly accuses you of voting without conscience). No matter. You’re a lesser of two evils-er. I know that from your comments on this thread alone.

    Ps. Your final sentence doesn’t make sense. But like I say, calm down. As much as go alone to get along Tories attract my ire, my previous comment was expressed with rather more difference than justifies your outburst.

  26. Ironman,

    My real fear is in fact that all are very aware of it and have convinced yourselves that a Miliband Labour gov’t is exactly the same the Tories because…because what exactly?

    Tell you what: give me your prediction of Tax Freedom Day under both men as prime ministers, if you think they’re so different.

  27. Edward Lud

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear. So you know I’m a Catholic (sorry, Papist) and were well aware of it when you referred to me as ‘people like you’. That is really ugly.

    You know, the really sad thing is I’m on record here as saying UKIP is not a party for fruitcakes and closet racists; it’s a party founded by people like Tim. And yet it has…well, it has people like you doesn’t it.

    Tim Almond

    Not a bad point, the last few years have indeed not been about tax-cutting. They’ve been about reducing the deficit though haven’t they, reducing it in such a way so as not to trigger the sort of vicious deflationary forces being experienced across Europe. Yet what was the alternative? Seriously, what was the other way out?

    I do know that the Conservative Party I started supporting was the party of Margaret Thatcher, it did believe in a nation for all and didn’t believe in punative taxation based upon economic tribalism (hence one of, if not the most important reason for my disgust at Edward Lud’s bigotry). It is now the party that WILL offer an in/out referendum on The EU – Labour won’t. It won’t seek to blame whoever suits it today (bankers, energy companies, Vodafone, Amazon) and conduct witch-hunts dressed up as ‘windfall taxes’, it won’t try to regulate our successful sectors out of existence, it won’t make public enemies out of parents trying to do the best for their kids, it won’t try to muzzle the free press because it writes disobliging articles about it (oh all right, there are some Tory in name only twats who would do so).

    So all-in-all quite bit of difference really.

  28. Ironman,

    They’ve been about reducing the deficit though haven’t they, reducing it in such a way so as not to trigger the sort of vicious deflationary forces being experienced across Europe. Yet what was the alternative? Seriously, what was the other way out?

    1) Yes. We are now falling deeper into the hole of debt, but fractionally slower when Brown was in power.

    2) What’s the problem with deflation? The price of goods and services fall? How is that a bad thing?

    It is now the party that WILL offer an in/out referendum on The EU – Labour won’t. It won’t seek to blame whoever suits it today (bankers, energy companies, Vodafone, Amazon) and conduct witch-hunts dressed up as ‘windfall taxes’, it won’t try to regulate our successful sectors out of existence, it won’t make public enemies out of parents trying to do the best for their kids, it won’t try to muzzle the free press because it writes disobliging articles about it (oh all right, there are some Tory in name only twats who would do so).

    3. Cameron doesn’t want to have this EU referendum, nor does that he want the outcome of leaving the EU, and I’m not smart enough to work out what his get out is if that happens. And I don’t trust him. Put a man in charge that I trust, who is either an anti- or on the fence with regards to the EU and I’ll believe they’ll hold a fair referendum.
    4. You missed the bit where Michael Gove blamed high energy prices on the electric companies? You missed the government reducing the number of tarrifs? You missed Cameron saying that companies that avoid taxes in the UK like Amazon and Starbucks lack moral scruples?
    5. Not sure what you mean by “make public enemies out of parents trying to do the best for their kids”
    6. “it won’t try to muzzle the free press because it writes disobliging articles about it (oh all right, there are some Tory in name only twats who would do so).”. But they want to censor the internet.

    I’m not saying Labour aren’t worse. But voting Cameron isn’t even swinging things back. You’re voting for a higher spending government than under Blair, led by someone who is really not philosophically very far from Ed Milliband. Cameron isn’t like Thatcher. He’s from the one-nation conservatism viewpoint that believed in big, establishment, patrician government, not the liberal viewpoint of Thatcher.

  29. Ironman, yes it does.

    There you go, you see? It’s easy to draw conclusions about people based on the things they write.

    I’ll leave it others to decide whether the things I’ve written reveal me as a racist and a fruitcake.

    I’m still trying to work out why you’re being so hysterical. Was it the conscience thing?

  30. Oh, wait. I think I’ve got it.

    You think that I referred to ‘people like you’ who keep the Tories in power, when all along I really meant ‘papist cabal’.

    Oh dear, you’ve really been got at haven’t you? I mean, I also happen to know you like one off the wrist while thinking of Angelina Jolie. People who fancy her do. Presumably that makes me bigoted against wankers.

    And, yes, I am now using

  31. Deflation is a bad thing because people hoard cash and their debts rise in real value, as opposed to being inflated away, is the main argument.

    The Tories and Labour are two sides of a very similar coin. UKIP are the only party that is remotely interested in cutting our spending and reducing the size of the deadweight bureaucracy. Unfortunately, they are at least a third full of weirdos (though I guess which party isn’t) and unelectable.

    The fact is, democracy doesn’t work and is stacked against us. I had hoped the financial crisis would sweep away a lot of the bollocks, but then they propped up the banks and printed money, and both sides wanted that.

    It’s almost like they have some sort of vested interest in rigged markets, a massive state, a client electorate and the status quo.

  32. Whats the alternitive to propping up the banks? A run on the bank then eventually, some weeks or months later you get access to your money. Oh, and as your employer uses the same banking system is your employer able to access money to pay wages or buy stuff with the bank shut down?
    People dislike banks being propped up, they’d dislike banks going under a lot more.

  33. The alternative is to let the bad ones go to the wall, have a relatively brief period of chaos, with troops on the streets if necessary, and food drops, and the utilities being forced to stay running, while we get things going again.

    It would be horrible, terrible, people would probably die. But you can’t buck reality.

    We are living through the alternative, and reality will eventually intrude.

  34. I think if everyone put their thinking caps on, a transition to a free-er market banking system could be achieved via a less apocalyptic route.

  35. Yes, but 1) we were talking about what happened in 2008, not what should have happened in the preceding 50 years and 2) where are these thinking caps, because I see no sign of them anywhere near government.

    There’s no way of doing what needs to be done in a crisis without some level of chaos and pain.

    We have unfortunately (in this scenario) become accustomed to pain-free lives.

  36. Interested, how to get to work when no money for fuel? How to get prescription and non prescription meds?
    No access to money for a period of weeks is not good for people. No access to money for companies is no great thing either.

  37. Firstly, not all of the banks were trashed.

    Secondly, yes, as I said, it would have been “horrible, terrible, people would probably die” and lots of chaos and pain etc. including no petrol.

    But the boil will have to be lanced eventually.

  38. There are ways for banks to go under without all the apocalyptic results that are used to scare people and get them to accept bail outs.

    Debt for equity would be a good start, but there are cleverer people than me who have thought about it.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>