Someone tell her that there’s a reason the government has been “left with no cash”, and it ain’t Conservative economic policies.

1.Yes it is.

Tory economic policy is intrinsically linked to the financial crisis.

[2] Much as I hate to say it the current melt down long predates, and is much bigger than the tories.

“The centre Left did little to encourage participation or leadership by people from outside its middle class demographic, while the hard Left was fearful of non-believers who might not share its doctrines”

I think there are 2 seperate issues here; (1) do people outside the “middle class” demographic” share the beliefs of either the centre left or hard left, and are just prevented from participation – if so what can be done to address this? or is it (2) people outside this demographic don’t share the beliefs of either the centre left or the hard left, and thus act rationally and don’t bother participating.

@1 Indeed, it’s from bailing the banks out the shit following the world wide credit crisis. Course I’m not entirely sure the public purse would be in better shape had they all been allowed to fail.

3. Ah but the Tories embraced the kind of fanatical free market thinking which led inexorably to the financial crash.

Labour followed like sheep, but the Tories are the real torch bearers for this bombed out economics.

That’s why we are purported to not “have any money left” (although we do, but are making life worse through idiotic cutting through a crisis).

So the Tories are as wrapped up in this crisis as anyone else. For their fans to think otherwise is barmy.

A & E @ 3

The issue is that the meltdown has been caused by Labour following Tory policies. We allowed the banking sector a completely free run and when the wheels came of the bus, we were forced to prop up the economy. What we are seeing now, is a direct result of a shift from manufacturing to banking economies.

I haven’t a clue about where the centre-left stops and the hard left begins.

Does this mean I urgently need to seek counselling?

IMO those labels and slogans of the “creeping socialism” sort aren’t of much use.

@6 – BenM

The following is LABOUR policy and nothing to do with the Tories. With a massive majority in 1997 Labour were too gutless to do anything any different….

Since the last LABOUR government rewarded the bankers, city slickers and spivs like no government in history why are you in denial – all it does is help the government and we all remember how Brown removed the 10p tax to hurt the poorest in society and rewarded th following:

Knighthoods – James Crosby, George Matthewson, Keith Whitson, Peter Burt, Mervyn Pedelty, Philip Hampton, Fred Goodwin and John Bond.

Life Peers – Lord Turner Shiriti Valdera, Lord Leitch, Lord Mynors, Lord Acton, Baroness Cohen and Lord Mervyn Davies

OBE – John White, Lindsay Tomlinson, Dennis Licence and Michael Ellis

CBE – Helen Weir, Adrian Montague, Chris Lenchin, Susan Rice, Michael Morris and Philip Williamson

MBE – Andrew Robinson, John Brown, Paulette West and Gary Lumby

What on earth did the rewards for this bunch of creeps have to do with the Tories man?

For goodness sake get a grip BenM before it’s too late….

” Take cuts such as the forestry sell-off and library closures. These do not only affect middle class people, but there is a more middle class constituency here than with, say, housing benefit. ”

I think more to the point is that Tory voters like libraries and forests, but they don’t like people claiming benefits. This means that people the government actually care about were/are annoyed.

@9 And you’re saying the Tories wouldn’t have done exactly the same?

But “gutless labour” is correct.

“how the Left has handled the public funding cuts in 2011, especially in two of the worst-affected areas – benefits and adult care.”

Given that cuts in these areas have been more than compensated for my increases in other areas – the overall spend by the government has actually gone up not down – it seems to me that the generalised attacks on ‘government cuts’ has failed to get the message across. the scattergun attacks have failed.

Unless Milliband and his shadow chancellor actually get some hard and credibile policies in place, and cut ouot the inane waffle, this line will continue to fail.

@12 – God are you clowns still at it?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100006701/please-read-this-before-trying-to-claim-the-government-is-not-cutting-spending/

“It is grossly misleading to look at spending solely in cash terms over the course of a few years, because the scale of that spending is relevant to the size of the broader economy. If the UK economy is generating more cash each year it can afford to spend a few more pounds on public spending.”

Excuse me for disagreeing, but you seem not to have noticed that the economy is not growing, it is in fact shrinking. Given that it is not growing, it follows on from your own reference (above) that we cannot afford more pounds on public spending. So there should be an absolute freeze in real terms on public spending. We could start with the hidden subsidy to the party, through the ‘pilgrims’.

Budgetting starts with how much will we have and how will we spend it, not with how much do we want to spend and how will we extort it from the taxpayers.

Jim @ 7:

“The issue is that the meltdown has been caused by Labour following Tory policies.”

The system for regulating the banks was set up by Gordon Brown, not the Tories.

@11 – gastro george

I agree the Tories would have done exactly the same. Problem is they didn’t and Labour did.

I expect that type of thing from Tories not from the so called “working class” party.

In 1997 that walking on air feeling went on for weeks and why Labour didn’t go for it then I do not know – the goodwill was there – people would have bought anything.

One thing I would say though is that if Labour continue to adopt these Tory policies it doesn’t leave any opposition effectively or certainly no choice for the public so as bad as I think Miliband is even Matthew Paris in The Times says he deserves a hearing on his good and bad capitalism stuff and on that I do agree…

“Across the Left, many people – especially in leadership positions – are middle class. ”

Which class is the author of this article from, I wonder?

@9. Anon E Mouse

“Since the last LABOUR government rewarded the bankers, city slickers and spivs like no government in history why are you in denial – all it does is help the government and we all remember how Brown removed the 10p tax to hurt the poorest in society”

This I agree. Tony Blair is well know to have regretted wasting hios first term, and Cameron decided that even though he was incapable of getting a ladslide he had the Lib Dems held captive which gave him a majority that was more solid than a landslide so he wouldn’t make Blair’s mistake

“and rewarded th following:”

Tosh. knighthoods, OBEs, CBEs, MBEs all you get is a medal in the name of an empire that no longer exists. Who gives a toss?

The life peers do become part of the legislature, but the Lords is hardly a place of real power (except for the possibility of becoming a minister). More concerning is the way that New Labour have parachuted in right wingers into safe seats; and the Lords they created specifically to give them ministerial roles. On that last note, even if the Lords were elected (a disaster IMO) New Labour would still have got their favourite right wingers into the Commons and hence make them ministers: force an MP in a safe seat to resign and then parachuting the chosen one in.

@1

*him*

And there was this minor issue called the GLOBAL BANKING COLLAPSE and the Tories have done bugger all to prevent another one affecting us. Indeed, Cameron’s veto has probably got us one step nearer one.

@18 – There is NO requirement for ministers to sit in either the commons or the lords. It’s traditional to give a life peerage to people who are appointed to the cabinet, but not constitutionally necessary.

Moreover, don’t agree with that toxic **** on anything. The Tories have stripped hundreds of times more from the average person that the VERY small amount of damage, in practice, which abolishing the 10p tax mistake did.

(They forget who introduced it, conveniently, too)

@17 – Solidly middle class. I’m not in a leadership position. What’s your point?

@4 – It’s a fair question, but outside of the Left you’ll get a variety of viewpoints. The key point I’ve made in the OP is that those who are being hit most directly by the cuts have not had much in the way of support from the Left in resisting them or campaigning against them. This is why I’ve emphasised user-led campaigns.

The question of how to engage and persuade those hit by austerity economics rather than cuts per se is a whole other question, of course.

Many on the Left made themselves look completly out of touch with working class people with their reaction to the riots. Particularly the far-left SWP who glorified the riots without even acknowledging the harm is caused ordinary working class people who’s homes and livelihoods were destroyed!

@20 – Leon Wolfson

Whilst I agree that it was Labour who introduced the 10p tax so what?

They also removed it in their quest to punish the poor like no government in history.

Party of the working class? I don’t think so…..

@ 22

“The key point I’ve made in the OP is that those who are being hit most directly by the cuts have not had much in the way of support from the Left in resisting them or campaigning against them.”

What about the protests against benefits cuts and student fees increases?

@25 – I’ve referred to how disability campaigners got riled at their exclusion via the structures of 38 Degrees. They were also refused support from OccupyLSX for reasons I’m not sure of. They haven’t had much practical support from outside their own ranks, though this is now changing.

Student protests were 2010, but pedantry aside they were an exception rather than the rule. And they were plenty sold out by their execrable erstwhile ‘leader’ Aaron Porter