Levitra Sale Online Order Zyban Online Many Benadryl Pills Can Take Cialis Professional Canada Pharmacy J Buy Actos 30mg

A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think


9:10 am - October 10th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

There are two commonly held assumptions within our political & media establishment about the recession. Both are wrong.

The first, that it will soon be over and we can get back to normality and boom times. This is partly why Mervyn King is out there, once again, trying to emphasise the severity of this recession.

The second that it won’t affect many people other than poorer families. This was certainly the case in previous decades, and talk of ‘tough times’ in the national media then didn’t last long.

But a big report tomorrow week by a major think-tank (I’m sworn to secrecy, sorry) will say that this recession is different because it will also deeply hit middle classes families. Worse, it will predict that incomes will broadly stagnate for the next decade.

People have not yet digested the economic and political implications of such a deep, broad and sustained era of stagnation. The Japanese experience doesn’t bode well.

It is the terrain that will define the next decade, and our establishment has yet to wake up to the threat. The Tea Party and OccupyWallStreet upheavals in the US are just the start. The student riots in London last year and massive demonstrations / strikes of this year are also just a start.

The loss of trust across the Western world in institutions and political leaders is falling off a cliff and no one quite knows how to deal with this challenge.

The Labour leader
This is why I think Ed Miliband’s direction of travel is more radical than people give him credit for.

There are two themes to his speeches: first, the way the economy works needs to change, fundamentally. His speech was attacked as being too far left, but sooner or later the Tories will have to accept the difference between producers & predators is real.

Our economy is much more geared towards people who shift around vast amounts of money in speculation, than actually inventing and producing new products. Even the US commentators are coming to the same conclusion.

It isn’t just that our finance sector got too big, but that the rest of British industry stopped being dynamic enough. Why did that happen? What needs to change? This isn’t necessarily about just an active industrial policy and more mutuals, but could mean a fundamentally different vision of how the economy works.

In that sense, Ed Miliband’s speech wasn’t that different from what the #OccupyWallStreet people are saying: only the rich are benefitting, that our capitalism is broken; and corporate vested interests are working against people.

And this was second theme: that “vested interests” are working against people.

The Labour leader is slowly sharpening an analysis that taps into a growing feeling of alienation from the system by successive generations; a growing distrust of traditional institutions.

His language may not yet be sharp enough yet – but this is the territory that will define the next generation.

Of course, you may just dismiss this because I supported Ed Miliband as leader. But even I’m surprised by how far he’s willing to go to ask the questions that need to be asked of our economy.

The challenge for the left is to articulate what big changes are required for the economy to make it work for the 99%, and not just the top 1%, and how these could be implemented.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Britain is over – the sooner we get an absolute idiot such as Ed Miliband as a leader the better. The city would be destroyed within 6 months, the open door for the EU- elf and safety + the enviro-mentalists will lay to rest all other economic life in no time then we can finally see the look on the faces of those self entitled little brit-bangers who have for so long been disconnected from reality.

You can run a country on printed money and a sense of entitlement – BRING it.

As usual Ed M manages some fairly progressive analysis but this doesn’t translate into new or radical policy ideas. I understand the need to hold the line but talking about things people care about like the NHS would help, instead of just police numbers and lack of growth.

C’mon – I was hoping for a better class of troll than ‘pinkypoopoo’ and the anarchist nutjob in the tweets.

4. ManonClaphamOmnibus

I think Pinkypoo is right. Britain is over,but not for the reasons he supposes. The decline isnt to do with politics. Obviously he hasnt been awake for the last few years to realise that the decline has been due to world economic changes and ecsaserbated dubious but nontheless financial practices which Keynes warned about years ago.
The current debacle has been the result of unrestricted greed together with dubiuos financial instruments which in my opinion should be outlawed. However politicians on the world stage and of all hues are largely uninfluencial other than in their capacity to withdraw from the social nexus. Britain has a singularly difficult task in rebuilding its economy. Its decline in industrial terms began arguably before 1900. Its empire allowed it to diversify out of the country thus leading to a further lowering of investment. Following the war its centality to offshore trading (swindling some might call it) has further humbled us (and everybody else for that matter) . To turn this around we need to reinvent ourselves. Lots of money,lots of education and lots of investment. Unfortunately that means lots of Government spending. A permanent fiscal crisis I’d say.

If you were going to re-cast New Labour as the friend of the struggling entrepreneur or the SME an awful lot of work would have to be done . I entirely agree that the damage New Labour was far more profound than people have yet realised and chiefly to the supply side.
We live in a country were over half of top graduates want to go into the pubic sector and the rewards for a reasonably successful business with all its attendant risks are less than you get for doing an appalling job of teaching without any security pension of ..ho ho …holidays.This vast over reward for quizzling clerical jobs has eroded the business culture with the result that injecting demand can only keep a sick patient on life support
The reasonably profitable service industries are not ideal true. The public sector taking over 50% of GDP and flushing most of its down the drain productively speaking is the real problem . Do you seriously think that the Public Sector Unions are a help and that is Len Mcluskey were running the country we would be better off ?
Where you are right is that in the hard times to follow the political paradigm may well change . Ed`s vision of a protectionist left wing top down ordering of the economy might well succeed in the desperate times to come just as the Nazis and Communists did in recession Europe. This is bad thing and the yipping of fellow travelling hyenas seeking to loot a career out of the disaster is the last thing anyone needs to listen to.

Yeah, Ed’s a *real* radical. He’s happy to kick the sick and disabled while they’re down while he’s making this oh so outre point about the economy. He’s only interested in the middle classes, because those are his mates, the people he and Justine have to face in the playground. Same as Sam and David only care about the ultra rich because that’s who they see daily.

He’s very fond of the phrase ‘deserving’ and he’s decided that the people who deserve nice things in his mind are those middle classes who ran up their credit cards, lived beyond their means, bought 7x salray mortgages, gorged on BTL and made the banking crisis possible. But the people who live on nothing still deserve a good hard kick to keep them gutterbound.

If he was radical, he’d be speaking out against the worse Thatcherite style excesses of New Labour like PFI, Work Capability Assessments and putting forward firm policies about the NHS, the economy, the lack of a living wage, stuff that directly affect people. But he’s just waffling while the Tories rage.

7. Chaise Guevara

Sunny, I’m not fully convinced by the logic of your “this is what most people think, I know of a single source that claims otherwise, therefore what most people think is wrong”.

Simple solution to create a new style of economy. Scrap welfare and income tax.Introduce a basic income guarantee and fund it with a tax on spending. Job done.

http://thefunrevolution.com/content/basic-income-guarantee

Sunny, perhaps a graceful retirement and a handover to helen @6?
Just because you and a (as yet secret) thinktank believe something, doesn’t make it true or correct.
A short chat with a punter at your local betting shop will prove this
Presumably this was the same think tank that throughout the 2000s continously warned of the dangers of an unregulated financial sector, unsustainable borrowing and the bubble in the housing maket?
Brian; a fat bloke at my regular bustop predicted our current situation about five or six years ago but then he only worked in a chip shop.

P.S.
Keir Hardie is spinning like a gyroscope.

I don’t think anyone who knows anything about economics subscribes to either of the two assumptions about the future that you say are commonly held.

In fact I would say there was an overwhelming consensus (from right to left) that the next five, possibly ten, years are going to be very difficult.

Both right and left agree that the status quo from the “boom” Brown years when housing, consumer debt and finance drove the economy and provided buoyant tax revenues will not, and should not, return.

The debate then moves on to how to rebalance the UK economy and support genuine growth for the future. But a general consensus that “better” education, more apprenticeships, more science investment and more infrastructure are good things.

The only real debate is how to pay for it all.

The trouble with Ed M’s predator/producer idea is not that it is radical (it isn’t) but that it is totally impractical as currently defined. Everyone agrees that Southern Cross was a bad company. Most would agree that Rolls Royce is a good company. But how to judge the 2 million companies between these two extremes ?

Instead of attacking or rewarding companies for behaviour government’s should legislate to get the economic framework right. If you don’t want companies to use Channel Island tax havens then abolish tax havens, don’t attack companies for exploiting perfectly legal arrangements.

You are the troll Sunny, constantly blogging your bullshit opinions on the latest hit political leader, which are always idiots with neither the experience or qualifications to lead a decent size company from the day they walk through the door, never mind Britain.

“Britain is over,but not for the reasons he supposes. The decline isnt to do with politics”

The decline isent to do with politics or a sinking national debt? Come on baby bond markets, the time is near:)

@ Paul Newman

If you were going to re-cast New Labour as the friend of the struggling entrepreneur or the SME an awful lot of work would have to be done .

That’s true, but it could be done if they adopted the right policies.

For example really dis-empowering the “vested interests”, the cartels, the corporate gangsters, the public sector barons and empowering instead local communities, small businesses and mutual start ups. This by reducing central taxation and interference.

However such a shift in policy is highly unlikely and frankly it does not matter what EM says or does, people will never vote for him.

Because, most unfortunately, he comes across as a dork.

The challenge for the left is to articulate what big changes are required for the economy to make it work for the 99%,

Let me fix that for you:

“The challenge for everyone is to work out what big changes are required for the economy to make it work for the 99%,”

Umm, housing is too expensive. The major cost of housing is the value of he planning permission. Thus, issue mreo planning permission and reduce the price of housing.

Umm, As today;s Nobel Laureate has pointed out, high firing costs lead to higher long term unemployment and higher rates of unemployment. Thus we should reduce the costs of firing people.

Umm…..well, I could give you 50 items, almost all of which would involve less regulation of he economy, lighter restrictions on how people may conduct voluntary exchange.

So we can go from a Tory party to a smaller Tory party, one hell of a choice.

By many accounts, Britain already had one of the most flexible labour markets in Europe prior to the financial crisis of 2008. In 2007, general government expenditure as a percentage of national GDP was almost the same as for Germany and less than that of Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, France etc.

Besides, we have this assessment from Sam Brittan in the FT in July:

“The relative decline of the British economy in the century up to the late 1970s has been reversed. Since then, the UK has caught up with and even overtaken its principal trading partners. The previous two sentences are neither a typing mistake nor a daydream. They are the sober conclusions of the country’s leading quantitative historian, Prof Nicholas Crafts”
http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text399_p.html

Because of the cuts in public spending, aggregate demand for goods and services will fall unless there are compensating increases in consumer spending, net exports and business investment – and that isn’t happening, which is why the economy is flagging.

16. Paul Newman

mutual start ups……

This mutual thing is a fiction . Partnerships have always started but no-one does anything entrepreneurial so as to share it with assorted other people who are actually employees and provided neither capital ,ideas, risk taking good will or indeed anything other than labour.
The whole mutual myth is very old attempt reconcile profit with collectivism and it has no place in real life.

Chaise: Sunny, I’m not fully convinced by the logic of

Well, most Westminster hacks don’t know economics very well, where the report out tomorrow by the IFS is going to be pretty stark and backed by lots of economic analysis and data. I think I know which side I’d pick.

Tim W: almost all of which would involve less regulation of he economy, lighter restrictions on how people may conduct voluntary exchange.

Yeah, and right-wingers have been saying the same for the past 30 years, during which time things have gotten worse. Think it’s time to accept your brand of neo-liberalism is on its way out.

ShinSei: Most would agree that Rolls Royce is a good company. But how to judge the 2 million companies between these two extremes ?

Good question, and that remains the challenge.

18. Margin4error

How radical a realignment do we really need?

While we have seen government take simplist views of making the UK “competitive” – we have become lesw and less competitive.

The obvious example of that is tax and infrastructure. Our tax regime is very competitive – but our infrastructure is terrible.

That obviously leads to an unbalanced economy.

Companies with little need of infrastructure for their output (banks, financial services, legal services, retail) and who only need generic space to operate in, and for the lights to stay on and their computers to work – can prosper but and grow.

Industries with big infrastructure needs for their output (automotive, wind turbine manufacture, robotics, etc) need space in the right places, water connections, big electricity connections, access to ports, etc can be perfectly profitable but with little or no potential to grow as a sector within the economy, and with more competitive locations abroad.

by simply halting the constant cuts to corporation tax, and investing that money in ports with amassed land around them for manufacturing, and fast rail services to free up conventional rail for freight, and so on – the UK could rebalance its economy and generate good returns for long term investment.

And that would lessen the collapses we have suffered in this recession and the one at the start of the 90s.

“high firing costs lead to higher long term unemployment and higher rates of unemployment. Thus we should reduce the costs of firing people.”

” I am not sure the empirical literature has established that point,” Dani Rodrik – http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2010/09/more-on-firing-costs-and-unemployment-during-the-crisis.html

Isn’t it remarkable how Tim once again takes a proposal that emerges from one particular perspective of how the labour market operates, and presents it in a way that makes it seem as if the entire economics profession agrees. One is tempted to point out another way of increasing employment is not to make it easier for firms to fire people, but by increasing aggregate demand.

20. Margin4error

Also

is this analysis of a long term stagnation likely to cause the Tories to give up on the short-termism of balancing the books in a single term of office?

The problem was always obviously so big that such electorally simple and so appealing nonsense was never realistic – but after a year and a bit in government, can they finally suggest something more rational and intelligent like getting the deficit down to 6% by 2015 with a view to balancing the term of office after that?

21. Chaise Guevara

@ 16 Sunny

“Well, most Westminster hacks don’t know economics very well, where the report out tomorrow by the IFS is going to be pretty stark and backed by lots of economic analysis and data. I think I know which side I’d pick.”

We’ll see when it comes out. As it’s embargoed people who haven’t seen it need to hedge their bets for now.

“Isn’t it remarkable how Tim once again takes a proposal that emerges from one particular perspective of how the labour market operates, and presents it in a way that makes it seem as if the entire economics profession agrees.”

Well, it has come from today’s Nobel Laureate. So of course we should agree with it, in the way that everyone’s been saying for two years that Krugman must be right on stimulus because he’s a Laureate: despite Krugman’s expertise being in international trade and economies of scale, not even macroeconomics.

“Yeah, and right-wingers have been saying the same for the past 30 years, during which time things have gotten worse.”

So, everything’s worse than it was in 1981 then, is it? For example, we’re back to 1981 standards of living? I mean I know we’ve had the economy shrink on us but we’re back to about 2005, 2006, not 1981, levels.

So “everything’s got worse in the last 30 years” simply ain’t true, is it?

“Think it’s time to accept your brand of neo-liberalism is on its way out.”

My brand has hardly been tried. My brand would include an LVT, a cbi, the abolition of corporation and capital taxation, a progressive consumption tax, unilateral free trade and abolition of all restrictions on fire at will employment contracts (among a number of other things).

Let me know when you’re ready for the experiment.

“in the way that everyone’s been saying for two years that Krugman must be right on stimulus because he’s a Laureate”

Its actually more the case that people have been pointing out that economics does not have the academic consensus behind the deficit reduction plans accross europe that the conservative press claim it does. And Krugman is one of the most high profile opponents of cutting spending so he gets citied more often. But I doubt any opponent of deficit reducation would claim that the entire subject of economics opposed it. We’d largely accept it is a debate with differing perspectives with one’s view based on what one regards the most pressing problems (so if you regard unemployment as the issue you’d probably oppose taking measures that will reduce aggregate demand. If you regard getting spending under control so you can finance a tax bribe for the rich before the next election, you’d probably favour viewpoints that regard debt as the issue.).

Its this ‘debate’ thing you have a problem with – you think because you have a degree in economics you’re view is correct and ‘scientific’ – despite the fact if your economics course was worth anything you’d have read differing perspectives within the profesion, and would at least be familiar with the fact people far more qualified than yourself take a different view.

On the evidence of this, one of Britain’s major structural problems is relativity low productivity per worker per hour worked as compared with peer-group countries – most likely due to skill deficiencies in Britain’s labour force and relatively low amounts of capital per worker because of under investment by business:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_232305.pdf

margin4error

“can they finally suggest something more rational and intelligent like getting the deficit down to 6% by 2015 with a view to balancing the term of office after that?”

Regardless of the issue that a reversal of the current deficit strategy might trigger a significant rise in interest rates and bankrupt thousands of businesses and mortgage holders.

What do you think the debt to GDP ratio would be by 2020 (or whenever) when the budget were balanced ? 100% of GDP ? 120% ? 140% ?

You are aware that every year a deficit is run the national debt gets bigger and needs to be funded in perpetuity ? Tax payers money that isn’t available for more socially useful things like education or health.

Even Gordon Brown famously claimed that running 40% debt to GDP was optimal for a mature economy like the UK.

Sure, debt rises after a serious recession, but your blithe assertion that we should happily see debt/GDP go from c 40% (2007 levels) to well over 100% following “only” a 7% reduction in GDP during the crash just seems the economics of the madhouse.

“What do you think the debt to GDP ratio would be by 2020 (or whenever) when the budget were balanced ? 100% of GDP ? 120% ? 140% ”

It would depend on growth. Just as osbourne’s plans depend on growth, and why we’re fucked regardless of the planned spending cuts if the economy stagnates.

@ Paul Newman

This mutual thing is a fiction .

Having just been involved in setting up a Community Trust to take over loss making assets from our local council and run them at a surplus, I can categorically state that mutualism is not a fiction.

@ Tim W.

My brand would include an LVT, a cbi, the abolition of corporation and capital taxation, a progressive consumption tax, unilateral free trade and abolition of all restrictions on fire at will employment contracts (among a number of other things).

That would do it. Unfortunately, it’s not what Sunny wants to hear.

28. Margin4error

shinsei69

I think you may have missed my point somewhat.

As an imperfect analogy, I’m suggesting that rather than lose two stone in a week – I might succeed better at weight loss with a realistic dietary plan and exercise regime that should help me lose two stone in six months.

Pretending the first option is real makes it no less unachievable, and can mean failing to take the long term measures that will help me achieve my weight loss in six months time.

My suggestion (in deficit terms) is tus that the tories should stop pretending short term slashing will achieve what they say it will – and instead set in place a long term growth and efficiency plan that might actually halt the deficit by 2020.

after all – if they keep going as they are – we won’t be out of deficit by 2020 and then you’re numbers get even scarier.

29. Paul Newman

setting up a Community Trust to take over loss making assets from our local council and run them at a surplus.

Lots of things are run by communities, rugby clubs, churches, public events and so on. This is fine, but it is not a useful model for normal entrepreneurial activity, requiring capital, risk, good will ( ie customers ) expertise and so on.Funnily enough I am starting up a little venture in January( not a very exciting one ). Lets say it goes well and I need to employ help, not impossible. If the suggestion is that at this point I cannot o so, without sharing any profits then clearly this is a disincentive to expansion employment and starting up in the first place. Ordinary partnerships, yes of course, community odds and ends, why not ; the imposition of collectivism on ordinary business ? Fantasy.

margin4error:

“As an imperfect analogy, I’m suggesting that rather than lose two stone in a week – I might succeed better at weight loss with a realistic dietary plan and exercise regime that should help me lose two stone in six months.”

If that’s how you believe tackling a deficit works then I don’t think you actually know what a deficit is.

To take your analogy literally the person’s weight is the national debt and his diet is the deficit.

We aren’t discussing this person losing any weight, just slowing down the amount of excess food he eats. He is still getting fatter.

The Tory deficit reduction scheme is not a crash diet. It is taking a five stone overweight man to a ten stone overweight man and stopping his weight gain at that stage.

And being ten stone overweight is a much more dangerous place to be from your health point of view than five stone overweight.

31. Margin4error

shinsei

you are somewhat stretching an analogy I expressedly acknoweledged was imperfect – seemingly to avoid the grave reality of our economic situation and how the deficit reduction plan is failing miserably.

Government is still promising to end deficit in 2015 – which is clearly a fatuous promise.

Hence my suggestion that maybe they should not stick to what was always an utterly unrealistic target, and replace it with one that might be achieveable with sensible longer term policy efforts.

But you still seem to rather naively think that the deficit reduction plan is working – which is rather bizzare.

Margin4error

The Tories deficit reduction program is designed to eliminate the structural deficit (note, not the entire deficit) by 2015, to ensure interest rates stay low and to achieve this without significant increase in unemployment.

Interest rates (both short and long term) are at all time lows so that is working well. AAA rating seems well entrenched.

Unemployment has risen slowly but far less than many feared. Private sector employment has increased much faster than any forecast. So that’s working ok.

Unlikely that structural deficit will be eliminated by 2015 but I expect 75% of it will be gone.

Overall. 7/10.

I very much doubt the economy would be in a stronger state in 2015 under a Darling or Balls approach. The added stimulus from a cut in VAT and more spending on EMA or whatever would make little difference to the economy but risk sending interest rates up and weakening sterling (thus raising inflation and making everyone poorer).

So although kids with an EMA might feel happier their parents who can’t afford their mortgage when interest rates rise or the company where they work goes bankrupt might not feel quite the same.

The Bank of England’s announcement of additional QE of £75bn amounts to confirmation that there is indeed a problem with insufficient aggregate monetary demand in the economy.

The trouble with that is that there are good reasons for being sceptical about how effective more QE will be at boosting demand. The worry is that the extra QE could be largely hoarded within the financial sector – and possibly become a threat to stability if it used later to finance loans when the economy does experience an upturn, at which point monetary authorities will need to engage in open market sales of securities to reduce the liquidity in the financial sector – or oblige the banks to increase their reserves.

It’s all very well claiming that a slower pay down of the budget deficit MIGHT lead to an increase in the costs of government borrowing but the real economic costs of not slowing down the pay down of the budget deficit could be continuing stagnation of the economy – which cuts the growth of tax revenues and hence the rate of paying down the budget deficit. I’ll bet that there is a lot of econometric modelling work going on to look at the trade-offs.

But extra QE is a clear signal that the government doesn’t have an effective policy for promoting growth.

@ Paul Newman

Ordinary partnerships, yes of course, community odds and ends, why not ; the imposition of collectivism on ordinary business ? Fantasy.

As a libertarian, I am not talking about imposing collectivism or anything else.

But neither should you think that the usual capitalist company model is somehow innately superior to any other.

Fortunately, nobody told John Lewis that………

There are many flavours and varieties of capitalism ranging from free market capitalism through to bandit or mafia capitalism, which is what under-regulated free market capitalism is apt to become.

In Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perception Index (2010), the high tax country of Denmark comes at the top as being among the least corrupt:

Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore are tied at the top of the list with a score of 9.3, followed closely by Finland and Sweden at 9.2. At the bottom is Somalia with a score of 1.1, slightly trailing Myanmar and Afghanistan at 1.4 and Iraq at 1.5.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results

@15. Paul Newman: “Partnerships have always started but no-one does anything entrepreneurial so as to share it with assorted other people who are actually employees and provided neither capital ,ideas, risk taking good will or indeed anything other than labour.”

If you don’t have a lot of startup money, one of the options is to persuade a useful employee that you have a good idea and that they can have a share of it if s/he works without wages for six months. That assumption requires that the worker is willing to take a risk and has funds to live on.

There’s another way to tackle it, of course. Partner A can hold down a regular job and give some of the income to Partner B who works full time on the project.

I acknowledge that those suggestions assume that the business idea is big enough that the initiator can afford to give away a share.

37. anna-rose phipps

My word Sunny! This article hits the head on the nail. Ouch.
I admit i’ve not been terribly impressed by Ed Milliband so far. I couldn’t understand why Polly Toynbee for instance, whose views i generally respect, also sung his praises to the skies, urging us to just wait and see how Milliband would surprise us yet, in a positive way.

I’m grateful to read a non-mainstream media article, that manages to tie in the #OccupyWallStreet movement as an expression of global discontent, together with Ed Milliband’s vision of a different economic model.

A different vision of how the economy works? He’d better get cracking and come up with an articulate alternative, radical yet sound, ASAP,is all i can say.

I hope you, and Polly Toynbee are right, is all i can say.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think http://t.co/QItUBuV4

  2. paulstpancras

    A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think http://t.co/QItUBuV4

  3. RENEWAL

    A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think http://t.co/QItUBuV4

  4. sunny hundal

    The coming decade of economic stagnantion: why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  5. M D

    "why Ed M is more radical than you think" http://j.mp/op8yct Dire.

  6. Louis Waters

    Ed M is closer to public than people give him credit for yet lacks 'primal' leadership qualities. #OccupyWallStreet http://t.co/baA2z2bw

  7. Joe Sarling

    The coming decade of economic stagnantion: why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  8. Alex Braithwaite

    A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/K0MnLsH8 via @libcon

  9. Leon Paternoster

    Some doom laden, thought provoking stuff from @sunny_hundal (and interesting on @Ed_Miliband): http://t.co/WZEertal

  10. Zoe

    Dispatches from La-la-land: Ed Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/rLTkBNcS #lol

  11. Car Park Crow

    Dispatches from La-la-land: Ed Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/rLTkBNcS #lol

  12. Neil Walshaw

    “@libcon: A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think http://t.co/g2Wds5LT” < THIS!!

  13. Jed

    Sunny Hundal is a joke without a punchline, and needs to be shouted down at every opportunity for shit like this: http://t.co/BxPEVIaL

  14. James Moffatt

    Sunny Hundal is a joke without a punchline, and needs to be shouted down at every opportunity for shit like this: http://t.co/BxPEVIaL

  15. Tom.

    Dispatches from La-la-land: Ed Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/rLTkBNcS #lol

  16. StarSparkle

    The coming decade of economic stagnantion: why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  17. Tom.

    Sunny Hundal is a joke without a punchline, and needs to be shouted down at every opportunity for shit like this: http://t.co/BxPEVIaL

  18. Jane Howie

    The coming decade of economic stagnantion: why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  19. sunny hundal

    We're facing decade of stagnation: this is why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  20. Josh Hall

    Further evidence that LibCon is actually an elaborate trolling exercise http://t.co/v4EP9i6G

  21. John Slinger

    We're facing decade of stagnation: this is why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  22. steve alsop

    We're facing decade of stagnation: this is why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  23. Oliver Conner

    An ominous warning from @sunny_hundal for the middle classes and the decade to come http://t.co/dKSs3d6k

  24. Fran

    We're facing decade of stagnation: this is why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  25. Michael Moore

    A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think http://t.co/QItUBuV4

  26. Molly

    RT @sunny_hundal: We're facing decade of stagnation: why @Ed_Miliband is more radical than you think http://t.co/Pcu0OycH <interesting

  27. sunny hundal

    The report I mentioned in my article this morning… http://t.co/RDvGDdRf is out tomorrow (midnight), by the IFS. Contains v bad news

  28. Phil Randal

    The report I mentioned in my article this morning… http://t.co/RDvGDdRf is out tomorrow (midnight), by the IFS. Contains v bad news

  29. Chris Goulden

    A generation of stagnation: why Ed M is more radical than you think | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CnkKoN0N via @libcon

  30. This is a serious jobs crisis and a even ‘Plan B’ doesn’t go far enough | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] doesn’t go far enough by Sunny Hundal     October 13, 2011 at 8:50 am I said on Monday that the IFS report was going to be brutal, and it […]

  31. James Leppard

    Ed M is more radical than you think – this is the territory that will define the next generation http://t.co/gz9bImQ2

  32. sunny hundal

    @anthonypainter two quick points… Ed Miliband is heading in the same direction… 2) problem is about to get worse http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  33. The two challenges that could make or break #occupyLondon | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] The 99% narrative narrative cuts across the political spectrum. And it will only become more prominent with the impending Eurozone crash and a decade of economic stagnation. Even Ed Miliband recognises this. […]

  34. sunny hundal

    @mrharrycole mine, obviously http://t.co/RDvGDdRf

  35. sunny hundal

    @mjrobbins oh actually I did write this http://t.co/RDvGDdRf





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.