Reality Control - Ed Miliband would have you believe the Labour Party were victorious in the 2012 Local Elections…

Ed Miliband claims that Labour are winning back the trust of voters and some are even hailing the results of the recent Local Elections as some sort of validation of his Leadership. And of course the results have been taken as a validation of Labour in general, as a potential Government; the result returning Labour to power if played out in a general election.

    Ed Miliband amongst his followers

    For some reason Ed thinks he's popular...

As always it is b*lls**t, obviously perpetrated by the Labour propaganda machine, but also by a media that has little else to do, other than attempt to devise powerful headlines and sound-bites.

In these very hard times under a particularly unpopular coalition government, Labour could have wiped the floor with the Tories, as some opinion polls had been suggesting. But they got around 38-39% of the vote (Tories 31%) on a turnout of 32%...

12.5% of those able could be bothered to vote for Labour. Barely 1/8^th of the electorate backed Labour and because of this the Labour party have both power in many crucial areas and also momentum. That’s a particularly small minority having a major say over what happens in British politics and society, if it was played out across the country in a general election it would be a travesty.

    A future Cabinet...?

    A travesty, right now...

While the apathy has of course been noted, no-one could fail to address it; they still trumpeted Labour’s ‘success’, alongside the Tory losses.

But it was only 12.5% of the electorate in these circumstances and you also have to look at the areas of the country involved.

Though granted Labour did well in places like Chipping Norton and Southampton, taken from the Tories, the rest was the North, Scotland and Wales; Labour strongholds

The SNP probably would have liked to stretch away from Labour in Scotland and it remains a fundamental area for Labour support, and in Wales the result is verging on meaningless, this is nothing new and I have mentioned it before. They’ll vote for Labour almost whatever happens; Labour could put a pig…

Still they spin results like those in Wales. Alastair Campbell thought Twitter users would be interested in his thoughts on Labour's success in Wales. The Labour propaganda machine never stops spinning...

    Alastair Campbell taking time out from the Ministry of Truth

    Still doing some freelance spinning…

Current cutbacks aside, around 1/5^th of the working population is employed in the public sector, there are regional variations and where are the higher proportions…?

    Public sector map of the UK

In many of the areas that voted in the local elections.

Labour winning back voters’ trust…? It could just as easily have been their highly motivated supporters in the public sector. The Unions, students, the Left; those who’ve loudly stated their opposition to this Government, these groups could easily make up 12.5% in those areas, without any trouble. But no-one mentions that.

What the results really showed was simply apathy towards politics and perhaps a general disdain for politicians.

Labour are winning by default, Miliband certainly is.

Who in their right mind would want this man as Prime Minister??!

    Ed Miliband, taking it all in...

    We can't believe it either Ed, it's unreal...

The Unions?

    TUC Chairman Brendan Barber ready with prompts

    'Stick to the script you Muppet...' 

Just think if they’d picked David instead…

    Ed and David Miliband, brotherly love...?

    David probably wanting to say what we all think...

Boris Johnson didn't suffer from any backlash in London, although that election did take on a life of its own with personalities apparently overtaking everything else; the turnout was higher than the national average (38%) and they turned out to vote for a Tory.

    Boris Johnson - Very much a Tory…

    'What the f**k is he on about now...?!' 

There was a turnout of 41% in the local elections last year, though the referendum would have had some effect. The Tories and LibDems did worse this year but on a much lower turnout. The increasing ‘anger’ wasn't evident, though the Left would like to present it that way.

That’s not to say people aren’t unhappy with the Government, it’s just that they don’t see Labour as a credible alternative.

    Ed Miliband talks about his 'Alternative'

    Preaching to the choir...?

Although the whole country didn't go to the polls, as I suggested in the last post the recent opinions polls weren't played out across the nation. On Sunday (6th May) YouGov put Labour on a 12 point lead.

UKIP did better in terms of share (13%) and so did the LibDems (16%); not nearly as bad for them as polls had suggested and their more traditional heartlands in the South didn't vote. They did lose councillors, but it should have been much worse.

    Nick Clegg has a lot on his mind

    Trying to think of worse scenarios...?

Many commentators seemed to ignore this, for instance pointing to the drop from the 2010 election, but that result was less than polling at the time.

Commentators, like the Labour Party, want to pretend they know what ‘the people’ are thinking all of the time.

But look at that 2010 result; how much has changed if we compare to these recent results? The Tories currently on 31%, they only got 36% in 2010 and Labour have picked up around 10% since the general election, when they were supposed to be at rock bottom…! UKIP seem to have made the same sort of gains as Labour, looking at the 2010 figures, obviously a large proportion coming from the Tories.

The fact is Labour’s strong core support has remained and it is quite obvious why I have been writing about it since the general election, and there were many around the fringes of that core that quickly went back to them when they saw the alternative.

    Anti-cuts protesters in 2011

    Flooding back to the Labour Party...?

    Ed Miliband addresses the protesters

    Hanging on Ed's every word...?

With the Socialist leader Francois Hollande winning the French Presidency there does seem to be the beginning of a seachange in European politics as many hail this as the first major rejection of austerity. We’re living in hard times and few like cuts in spending, least of all the French. The Greeks too are not happy and there was a backlash in their recent elections, but then their economy is ruined and it’s going to take a lot of work to sort it out, it'll be no picnic, publicly funded or otherwise…

But there seems to be a need to state the blindingly obvious; Britain is not France, Miliband is not Hollande, so to their parties.

I don’t pretend to know a great deal about the current state of French politics; but the Left in Britain cheering Hollande’s win as if it is some sort of endorsement of the Labour Party and their policies are quite simply having a laugh, whichever way you look at it.

    Francois Hollande and Ed Miliband

    'What is ze joke?'

    Ed Miliband is still amused...

    'Whatever ze joke was, it is over now...' 

A low turnout is no good, the results are manipulated for propaganda and power is given away too cheaply, to the often undeserving. People need to vote for something else, to go out and vote, but choose something different (certain extremists excluded…).

Clearly there is a dislike of the main parties and this has to be seen in the next election. Maybe then some real reform can happen.

Miliband and the like say they want to engage and reach out to the disaffected but the fact is if people don’t vote, it won’t matter to them. Labour haven’t changed and they won’t need to unless voters go out and force change in politics.

12.5% of the electorate holding sway over the rest of the population? Is that fair for all...??

    The cover of Labour's 2010 Manifesto

    The public servants controlled all they could see...

Do people really want to let the Labour Party control the future…?

    Gordon Brown...

    Is always watching…

It's a huge s*** sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite...

I was going to write about the issues of the week, from Laws to Campbell, but throughout the last week or so, on the internet and on the TV, this question continues to be posed almost relentlessly:

"Why should Civil Servants pay for the mistakes of bankers?"

And it will continue to be asked over the next few months/years as the cuts are planned and take effect.

So I just wanted to return to this issue, briefly...

I have seen comments on social media that say public sector workers get 'paid less' than private sector works and this is one of the common misconceptions that are generated from the public sector, unions and the left wing media.

I'm sure civil servants are sick of seeing all these contract cleaners, warehouse staff, factory workers, call centre workers, admin staff, bar/hotel staff, waiters, care workers, etc, etc, etc, driving around in Porsches or the like, mocking their impending plight..!

The misconceptions and propaganda seem to confuse the whole of the private sector with the financial services. As if all the workers listed above are on massive wages and bonuses. A common quote I've heard over the years from public sector representatives when confronted with the issue of their pensions and benefits, was that they wished they could have the 'bonuses of the private sector'. (Well apparently some government agencies do hand out bonuses, just to perfectly contradict this oft-repeated mantra. One fine post-crash example was the FSA)

It may be true that some industries, particularly the financial services, have a bonus culture, but it is far from all and certainly few at the lower levels.

It has been the low paid private sector that is currently being criminally over looked during the election and now as the issue of cuts takes centre stage. Unemployment has been an issue, but not the conditions in the private sector as belts have tightened for two years. Gordon Brown even tried to take credit for keeping unemployment low even though it is in the private sector that changing working conditions (e.g. going part time, reducing hours, etc) meant many clung onto their jobs.

Times have been very hard for nearly two years, but apparently it is civil servants paying for the downturn? That doesn't really ring true in many circumstances.

Those rejecting the need for cuts seem to use the word 'victims' quite regularly, again as if they alone are feeling the brunt of the crash, just two years after it happened. That's a painfully slow shockwave...

The simple fact is we should all have to deal with it. It is actually quite insulting to those who have suffered, the unemployed and the low paid.

It has also been harder in non-unionised industries, obviously recent examples of Network Rail and BA have shown that changes in conditions are not forced on to them without a fight. While my opinions of unions have altered over the years and I do believe in collective action in principle, these actions are unlikely to ultimately help. Workers in many any other industries have simply have to put up with changing conditions, or leave, if they so wish.

Public sector unions will mobilise over the cuts, of course attempting to defend the interests of their own members, but I think ultimately that is the problem of modern British employment. The solidarity throughout the working population, formerly found in industrial labour, no longer exists and the influence is much more limited. Unions will be looking after narrow interests that wouldn't necessarily benefit the larger population, those who have already suffered, no matter how well intended any action is.

There is huge scope for cuts in the public sector and while the private sector has largely been squeezed it within an inch of its life, little has changed for public servants and surely it is only right and fair that the situation changes.

It is now close to two years that this downturn has effected the world economy and as it transpired the two main culprits have come away largely scot-free.

It was the banking sector and Government, through action and inaction respectively, that caused the crisis. However, with the banks having been propped up by Government and the cuts in public spending having largely been postponed until now, in many ways these two sectors have not felt the full effects of the downturn, or at least no as perhaps they could have, should have...

Yes there have been job losses in the banking sector and the Labour Government was thrown out at the election (though only just, Brown was clinging onto the door of No. 10 with his fingertips...), but the banks were saved from extinction and they have in some ways returned to business as usual. Perhaps they are trying to balance the books a little better, so have tightened their belts (much to the dismay of some would be borrowers), but bonuses are back. While in terms of Government as I have stated clearly for nearly two years the public sector has been largely saved from cuts.

The debt has gone from the debt of banks to sovereign debt, the debt of the nation. So who will take the greatest relative proportion of that debt? Not the rich, the rich will not suffer in the downturn and that was clear and identified long before the crash actually happened. In the global economy the super rich will prosper over the long term as the Times rich list has already illustrated quite clearly this year.

And in terms of my two protagonists, the Labour party don't seem too disheartened by opposition, since they weren't completely annihilated. I mean Big Al Campbell is having a right laugh on Twitter, on Question Time and while getting publicity for his trashy book.

Alastair Campbell

A man utterly convinced of his own importance

The fact is the level of economic growth was unsustainable therefore the level of investment in the public sector was also unsustainable. Cuts have to be made.

The idea of sustainable growth reminds me of the huge of amount of rubbish stated about Brown's economic record. The absolute best was early on in the crisis when on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 show John Prescott claimed that Brown had delivered 10 years of "sustainable" economic growth. It so completely nonsensical it doesn't require analysis.

I don't think Vine picked him up on it properly. It astounds me that the likes of Prescott and Campbell get away with such nonsense so easily, or are allowed to by professional presenters and journalists.

John Prescott

F***ing clueless

Stick to what you know best John

Spot on


Maybe in a few years' time the higher level of investment could return, if significant growth returns. But probably not if the Tories have anything to do with and greater efficiency does need to be brought to the sector. This is a main aspect in the disparity between the public and private sector and I do intend to look more closely at Labour's legacy in the public sector and employment in Britain.

The issue of debt reduction and cuts is complex, but many of those fundamentally opposed to spending cuts are suggesting that the debt should be paid by increasing taxes.

This blog article is along those lines

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/28/camerons-claim-on-8020-tory-cuts-doesnt-stack-up/

So effectively the private sector pays, even if some public sector workers suffer de facto pay cuts, the basis of the debt would be paid from wealth generated in the private sector.

Taxes will have to be increased of course, but the idea of just taxing the rich, or the banks, or whoever; will not work without the corresponding cuts. The rich should pay their fair share and banks need to be levied (something Labour was waivering on), but tax increases have to be combined with spending cuts.

To put it simply, the rich will avoid the taxes as best they can and the conditions at the wrong end of the private sector will continue to deteriorate as the burden of the tax is shifted. Even if the low paid are not directly taxed, companies will cut further in attempts to maintain profits.

I have to admit that this scenario adds some credence to the Tory and business leaders claims about the NIC rise, the 'tax on jobs'.

Job cuts, pay freezes, etc, etc. The low paid in the private sector shouldering an even greater level of the burden to maintain the conditions in the public created during an
unsustainable boom.

It's just the way the system is now. Labour and their supporters may not like it, but then they had 13 years to at least try to do something about it.


I don't know if I'm hammering the point home... I would hope the point is clear enough, there is more than just the disparity between the rich and the poor in this society Tory and Labour alike have mangled over the last 30 years.

A bit bogged down by debt and cuts. I will move on this weekend...