Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Page 24 of 25 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

Do Labour go hunting for the electorate who voted Blair into power 3 times and risk the wrath of the Unions, or side with the core Labour party supporters and the Unions at a risk of being unable to get back the voters who deserted them in the last election?
 
The scale of the rift between Labour and the unions over Ed Miliband's decision to embrace austerity measures has been made clear as a senior leader warned of long-term implications over the "most serious mistake" the party could have made.
Unions affiliated to Labour have been fuming since shadow chancellor Ed Balls told a conference at the weekend that he would not reverse the Government's planned 1% public sector pay cap, which affects millions of workers.
Unite leader Len McCluskey warned that Mr Miliband was setting Labour on course for electoral "disaster" and undermining his own leadership by accepting Government cuts and the cap on public sector pay.
Mr Miliband hit back against his union critics, insisting that Mr McCluskey was "wrong" to attack his decision to embrace austerity measures.
It has emerged that the leader of the GMB has written to the union's senior officials saying that the speech by Ed Balls may have a "profound impact" on its relationship with the Labour Party.
General secretary Paul Kenny said in the message: "I have spoken to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls to ensure they were aware of how wrong I think the policy they are now following is. It is now time for careful consideration and thought before the wider discussions begin on the long-term implications this new stance by the party has on GMB affiliation.
"It will be a fundamental requirement that the CEC (executive) and Congress determine our way forward after proper debate. I will update everyone as events unfold but I have to say this is the most serious mistake they could have made and the Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee." The GMB declined to comment on the message but confirmed it had been sent.
Mr McCluskey said in an article in The Guardian: "Ed Balls' sudden weekend embrace of austerity and the Government's public sector pay squeeze represents a victory for discredited Blairism at the expense of the party's core supporters. It also challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and perhaps his leadership itself."
Mr Miliband responded in a statement: "Len McCluskey is entitled to his views but he is wrong. I am changing the Labour Party so we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around and that requires tough decisions."

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down


Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Mel on Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:38 pm

Hello bobby and Red,

My 18yr old daughter has I am proud to say managed to get an offer from Kings College in London to study law. Whilst on the train to her boyfriend who lives in Leeds, who should enter her carriage but Ed and his entourage. Ed sat next to my girl for half an hour and she told him she is also studying politics, philosophy, psychology. She explained that her father (that is me) is an avid Labour supporter.
He (Ed) said "let me speak with him on the mobile" (me). We had a long chat. He was charming. However I explained that charm alone is not enough and action is required. He said that the Tories were "cooking their own goose" and "UKIP will finish them off".
He went on to say that people have short memories and he is saving all his prolific amount of flak for nearer the next election so that it compounds upon self destruction that the Coalition is creating for themselves day by day.

My reply was "scorched earth" and he agreed that a lot of "nasties" have been created "that will be difficult to undo".

I was mildly impressed and wished him luck for all our sakes. My daughter said he was very positive and articulate. Fingers crossed !!!!

Interesting indeed.

Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:35 pm

You're spot on Mel what the heck is up with the Labour party, they should be jumping up and down on these Tory policies

Red.......I think you will find that the reason is that if Labour get back into power in 2015 they will reverse few, if any of the Tory policies especially on welfare either because the Tories have done the dirty work for them or as I believe Miliband will realise he does not have the money to do so. I certainly don't think he is going to borrow 40,50,60 billion or so to satisfy Balls, even Miliband isn't that dumb

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:40 am

Thanks for the links, OW - if you've seen my last couple of posts, you'll see some other sources that seem to be the definitive ones as regards the latest Shapps lies.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:17 am

skwalker1964 wrote:Thanks for the links, OW - if you've seen my last couple of posts, you'll see some other sources that seem to be the definitive ones as regards the latest Shapps lies.

Thank YOU for burning the midnight oil in order to track down the true facts which lay behind my intuitive leap backwards to LABOUR's action to rationalise the benefits system five years ago.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11682
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Mel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:31 am

blue you know full well that it is not "if" Labour get into power, which will be at the next election. You are of course correct in your assumption that Labour will be unable to reverse few of the disgusting polices put in place by the Tories.
You can be sure that they will salvage SOME of the welfare reform distruction, those parts that have hit the sick, the disabled and the poor. No doubt you will be affected when they return to the 50p tax angle.

Yes they will borrow and spend to get growth moving with building the nations infrasructure
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:33 am

blueturando wrote:
You're spot on Mel what the heck is up with the Labour party, they should be jumping up and down on these Tory policies

Red.......I think you will find that the reason is that if Labour get back into power in 2015 they will reverse few, if any of the Tory policies especially on welfare either because the Tories have done the dirty work for them or as I believe Miliband will realise he does not have the money to do so. I certainly don't think he is going to borrow 40,50,60 billion or so to satisfy Balls, even Miliband isn't that dumb

And we all KNOW WHY blue, its because the Tories have FCUKED UP ROYALY on the economy and there will be so many public contracts gone to the MATES and Tory donors in the private sector. After BLACK APRIL the next time that the Tories get into power will be when HELL FREEZES OVER , the Labour party might not be able to reverse everything that the nasty party has done to the people of the UK but at least they will be fair to all, more than what can be said for the nasty party. As for DUMB there is three of them Cameron Osbourn & Clegg and the people of the UK will EXTRACT a heavy price from this shower of Incompetents, and if anything is found that is not above board that the tories did while in power there will be a call from the me and plenty of others to put the ones responsible in the bloody DOCK and think that could be Landsley and CHUNT for what they have done to OUR NHS. cheers cheers cheers
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:37 am

Mel wrote:blue you know full well that it is not "if" Labour get into power, which will be at the next election. You are of course correct in your assumption that Labour will be unable to reverse few of the disgusting polices put in place by the Tories.
You can be sure that they will salvage SOME of the welfare reform distruction, those parts that have hit the sick, the disabled and the poor. No doubt you will be affected when they return to the 50p tax angle.

Yes they will borrow and spend to get growth moving with building the nations infrasructure

At least Mel there will be REAL JOBS that get people back to work, not the shyte of workfare or zero hour contracts, plus we will find out exactly how many real jobs the private sector created during the Tories term of power. cheers
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

16 policies that Labour would implement if in power

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:48 pm

From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Eoin Clarke has just published an excellent and thoroughly-sourced article on his fantastic ‘Green Benches‘ blog listing 16 policies that Labour would implement if in power, including cuts in tuition fees, a massive house-building programme, rent-caps and a reversal of the odious bedroom-tax, as well as funding measures such as a higher tax-rate for the wealthy, a repeated tax on bankers’ bonuses and a mansion tax. Oh, and of course repealing the destructive Health and Social Care Act, which I broke in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

While the Labour manifesto for the next general election is not written yet, these items show that the Tories’ jibes that Labour have no policies or ideas are nothing but hot air and desperate schoolyard taunts – and that if you want to live a better, fairer country, there’s only one party that sees a way toward it.

Please take a look at Eoin’s great summary at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] – and spread the word.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:14 pm

RED....Another typical rant without actually saying anything, just the usual stock answer.

Look if the Tories can change the rules and law on Welfare Benefits then so can Labour, so there is no need to worry because Ed Miliband will reverse all the nasty tory policies as soon as, and if they come back to power....Wont he? Smile There will be no excuse to keep the Benefits changes that Labour are so against...unless Ed is a liar of course Shocked

RED....You need to take a chill pill you seem particularly angry today. Have your benefits been affected in some way, or are you just mad that the anarchy you predicted this month has just not happened? Unfortunately for you lefties the coalition has puiblic opinion on its side on Welfare changes...maybe that's why youre so angry because we wont play your Socialist game anymore?

Interesting to note that almost a million people who were claiming disability benefit have now signed themsleves off this rather than take the test. Maybe it included the 30 people claiming for 'Blisters' or the 60 claiming for 'Acne'....who knows.

I know you want an ENTITLEMENT culture...fine if you want to pay for that between you and the other lefties, but the rest of us have had enough of the free loaders...Get a job, get a life and get some self respect!!!!

I know youre going to say there are no jobs, but in the same breath you lot say there are no issues with immigrants claiming benefits because most of them work......Well they cannot work if there are no jobs. You cant have it both ways RED, although I know you want to.

So I am expecting the usual rant without answering any of the points made, well let me save you the time....

Bloody Tories, phucked up everything ever in history, rich donors, Maggie the devil, posh boys, rich lovers...poor haters, dont live in the real world, hate the NHS, Schools and everything else just in case...There now, I hope that saves you the time of another rant and I might get a real answer from you

Love n' hugs Blue lol!

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Ivan on Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:38 pm

blueturando. Your last five messages have all been aimed at the same member, so this is beginning to look like a case of harassment.

It is of course your prerogative to believe the lies that Grant Shapps (when he’s not being Michael Green) spouts, or to consider that I “make things up as I go along” and to take everything Redflag says with “a pinch of salt”. (Eric Hoffer reminded us that “propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.”) However, all that your recent posts reveal is desperation. You’ve realised that the sick and twisted party of sociopaths which you support, the monsters who are spreading fear and inflicting misery on some of the poorest people in the country, are heading for annihilation at the next election, that is if civil unrest doesn’t engulf them first.

I note how keen you are once again to claim majority support for this and that. Well just remember that 64% of the people who voted in 2010 didn’t want the Tories, and of those who did, many of them wouldn’t have voted for them if they’d known that privatisation of the NHS was on their agenda. So please don’t be a hypocrite and complain if Labour doesn’t reveal many of its plans at this point in time, when we only found out much of what the toxic Tories were going to do AFTER the last election.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 6966
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:47 pm

blueturando. Your last five messages have all been aimed at the same member, so this is beginning to look like a case of harassment.

Come on Ivan, surely you can do better than that! Very disappointing

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:03 pm

blueturando wrote:RED....Another typical rant without actually saying anything, just the usual stock answer.

Look if the Tories can change the rules and law on Welfare Benefits then so can Labour, so there is no need to worry because Ed Miliband will reverse all the nasty tory policies as soon as, and if they come back to power....Wont he? Smile There will be no excuse to keep the Benefits changes that Labour are so against...unless Ed is a liar of course Shocked

RED....You need to take a chill pill you seem particularly angry today. Have your benefits been affected in some way, or are you just mad that the anarchy you predicted this month has just not happened? Unfortunately for you lefties the coalition has puiblic opinion on its side on Welfare changes...maybe that's why youre so angry because we wont play your Socialist game anymore?

Interesting to note that almost a million people who were claiming disability benefit have now signed themsleves off this rather than take the test. Maybe it included the 30 people claiming for 'Blisters' or the 60 claiming for 'Acne'....who knows.

I know you want an ENTITLEMENT culture...fine if you want to pay for that between you and the other lefties, but the rest of us have had enough of the free loaders...Get a job, get a life and get some self respect!!!!

I know youre going to say there are no jobs, but in the same breath you lot say there are no issues with immigrants claiming benefits because most of them work......Well they cannot work if there are no jobs. You cant have it both ways RED, although I know you want to.

So I am expecting the usual rant without answering any of the points made, well let me save you the time....

Bloody Tories, phucked up everything ever in history, rich donors, Maggie the devil, posh boys, rich lovers...poor haters, dont live in the real world, hate the NHS, Schools and everything else just in case...There now, I hope that saves you the time of another rant and I might get a real answer from you

Love n' hugs Blue lol!

You are no better than the backstuds in gov't blue, yes there is a few very few people that abused the welfare system, I would not advise for people that live in GLASS HOUSES to throw stones, while everybody else has to take pay cuts or pay freeze I notice the shytee assed gov't gave themselves £100.00 rise in expenses to help them with the rise in the cost of living poor dears, again while everybody but them poor buggars need an increase as well as there £134, 400 (cabinet minster) pay.

As for LIARS the Tory party has that one all sown up they are MASTERS at it mixed in with a bit of SPIN, by the time the Labour party get into power in 2015 the deficit you all rant on about will be worse than they got it in May 2010, so at least when we say the Tories spent all the money by giving there friends and Tory donors huge chunks of it to the private sector for S.F.A. so that they would top up the Tory party funds that will do them not one bit of good because no mattter how much money they throw at it the majority of the UK will not be voting Tory or Lib-Dem in May 2015. cheers cheers cheers
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Mel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:15 pm

blue wrote "Unfortunately for you lefties the coalition has puiblic opinion on its side on Welfare changes"
Indeed blue because the Tory press and your snide Gideon has highlighted the few who abuse the Welfare system and used these people as typical of those who are unfortunate to have to rely upon on benefits because many many have been put on the scrap heap by measures this Tory dominated Coalition have dished out mercissley. For example the many in the public sector who have been sacked with the false promise that the private sector would take up the slack.
Oh yes the slack has been taken up by way of cheap labour and most of it part time which has been craftily massaged the unemployment figs whilst creating for the wealthy the cheap labour which coincides with what the rich employers already had taken advantage of---the Poles and such like who were born to be slaves in their country.
Every measure taken by your lot is designed to assist the rich and nobody else. Even the middle classes have not escaped Tory ideology that has lain dormant since the demise of Thatcher.
The perfect opportunity to take advantage and supress the majority came to them by way of the global banking crisis, whereby they have duped many people by using the crisis as a tool to administer their evil ideology on false pretences.
Of course they knew and fully realised that come what may they they would not last for a second term in office, thus as I have said before, scorch the earth whilst making their own kind richer and more powerful than ever and it has happened. They made sure they had a full 5yr term to achieve their aim making the 5yr term rule from word go.

If you bother to read OW's posts you will see the con artists work unveiled as a sham regarding the figs when you and your Tory rag claim falsley "Interesting to note that almost a million people who were claiming disability benefit have now signed themsleves off this rather than take the test." These figs date back to NL's watch. You I see prefer to ignore the truth on this matter, or have you too been duped?
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:31 pm

Please also see the very detailed research by Steve Walker, here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11682
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:38 pm

I know you want an ENTITLEMENT culture...fine if you want to pay for that between you and the other lefties, but the rest of us have had enough of the free loaders...Get a job, get a life and get some self respect!!!!

Because you and I rarely have occasions to speak to each other, Blue, I want to illustrate something. Perhaps you are unaware, but I am disabled. It's official now, at least medically. I suffer from a pain so persistant and intense that the best medicines at maximum dose have little effect. Last night was so bad I broke down and wept for half an hour wondering how I was going to make it through to the next day.

But the anti-socialist, anti-compassion policies of the right-wing in this country has made it so incredibly difficult to get benefits from the government that one has to hire a lawyer to fight on your behalf in court. The process can take half a decade. Meanwhile, during the fight, you have no access to medical care, you have no income, and no means to support yourself. My mother has been draining away her retirement in order to keep me from becoming homeless.

What's more, the process for getting benefits is extremely deceptive. It is designed so that honest people stroll into the office maintaining their honesty - and getting screwed for it. You have to be as sharp as a tack while answering their questions or you can accidentally "incriminate" yourself and not even be aware of it.

For instance, here in the US, you have to be tested by a government-employed "disability doctor" whose job it is to KEEP you from receiving benefits. The process begins with bias straight away. These doctors will ask a series of deceptive questions designed deliberately to get benefits applicants to admit they can work - and it's done in such a way as to punish honesty.

During one such test for myself, I was asked the seemingly inoccuous question: "Can you sit for four hours?" Well, even quadriplegics can sit for four hours, so what does that prove? But my response to the doctor was another question: "Sit for four hours doing what?" He responded, "Just sitting for four hours."

I wasn't having any of this. I told him straight up, "Look, I KNOW these questions are to determine if I can work, and since no job on earth that I'm aware of pays people to come in and just sit in a chair, I need to know what I'd be doing while sitting for four hours." Naturally, many people will blurt out, "Sure, doc, I can sit for four hours" and the next thing they know, their application is being denied because they could work at a job sitting down. Never mind the fact that a person like me would be in so much pain that sitting is ALL I could do.

The right-leaning people in both of our nations seem to think that the disabled are faking it - just freeloaders looking for a lifetime of handouts. The LAST damn thing people like me need is for the right-wingers to turn public opinion against the sick and disabled. Making benefits for disability even more difficult will only ensure that people like me will never see a dime of help - but those who know how to game the system, those who really are moochers and freeloaders will ALWAYS find a way. There is no such thing as a scam-proof system.

Being disabled isn't an effing vacation. It is a living hell. I'm here to tell you that first hand. Sure, there might be people on the benefits roll because of blisters and acne, but that's because they know how to play the game. I don't ... and because of that, I have been denied EVERY benefits program this country offers DESPITE how horrible the pain is. I can't even get pain meds because the mentality here is that it's better to keep them out of the hands of one abuser than to put them in the hands of a thousand people who need them. Yet I know someone, a lawyer who graduated from one of the top universities in the world, has pain meds by the truckload - and she's not even sick OR in pain!

The right-wingers need to lay off with the propaganda concerning the disabled. Last night I told one of my roommates that I'm at the point where I feel like storming the hospital with a gun giving them three options: 1) give me pain meds to make it stop 2) I'll blow my brains out right here in the ER lobby or 3) put a needle in my arm and euthenize me ... because I can't take it anymore. The LAST thing I need to worry about is fighting a paper war with the government for YEARS while wondering where my next meal will come from or if I'll end up out on the street.

THINK before you lecture ANYONE about having "self-respect," because I can guarantee you that if you felt like I do, self-respect doesn't mean a lorry full of horse dung. All you care about is making the pain stop, even if just for a little while.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:51 pm

The ATOS type of organisation has its origins in the Insurance Companys' CLAIMS DEPARTMENT whose first task is to reject claims.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11682
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Mel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:11 pm

Hello Shirina,
All that you have said hits the nail on the head. If any so called government can stoop so low as to do what they are doing to genuine people such as yourself and go further by dismantling the NHS for the benefit of private enteprise, it is for one purpose and one purpose only-- ultimate profit for the already wealthy.

These rich devils can never get enough wealth because as we can see from history, wealth brings power and powr is the ultimate goal for the likes of Cameron and his cronies. Thatcher was typical of a power guided woman and nothing and I mean nothing else matters to their kind especially the poor the sick and the disabled.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:21 pm

Mel wrote:Hello Shirina,
All that you have said hits the nail on the head. If any so called government can stoop so low as to do what they are doing to genuine people such as yourself and go further by dismantling the NHS for the benefit of private enteprise, it is for one purpose and one purpose only-- ultimate profit for the already wealthy.

These rich devils can never get enough wealth because as we can see from history, wealth brings power and powr is the ultimate goal for the likes of Cameron and his cronies. Thatcher was typical of a power guided woman and nothing and I mean nothing else matters to their kind especially the poor the sick and the disabled.

You have got to the nub of this problem Mel, so much so there is not a lot more that can be added except now their right wing rags are using six kids death to prove their point which is NO point at all.
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:14 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Thank YOU for burning the midnight oil in order to track down the true facts which lay behind my intuitive leap backwards to LABOUR's action to rationalise the benefits system five years ago.

My pleasure - that and a compulsion lol!
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:23 pm

blueturando wrote:I know you want an ENTITLEMENT culture...fine if you want to pay for that between you and the other lefties, but the rest of us have had enough of the free loaders...Get a job, get a life and get some self respect!!!!

Nobody who votes for a party run by a millionaire whose only experience of work was a £90k a year PR role obtained for him by mummy's connections and who got his start in politics because of a call from Buckingham Palace to Conservative HQ has any right to talk about others 'entitlement culture', blue - and that's just Cameron. The IDS thread should make educative reading!
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by skwalker1964 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:29 pm

blueturando wrote:I certainly don't think he is going to borrow 40,50,60 billion or so to satisfy Balls, even Miliband isn't that dumb

It never ceases to amaze me how willfully blind right-wingers are to the fact that there is more than one way to balance the books if you need to spend. The Tories are busy impoverishing people in the hope of forcing them to go out and find (non-existent) jobs to balance what they're losing via the bedroom tax etc - the national version of going out to earn more is increasing income via taxation, which is exactly what's required.

We can afford to take from the rich - they can afford it, and if it's not taken in tax they just sit on most of it (which is why they're rich). We can't afford to impoverish the poor, because they'd spend it so taking it from them is to suck money straight out of the economy.

We don't even need to raise the tax rate (though I'd advocate that too) - just effectively enforcing the taxes that already exist, on both companies and rich individuals, would remove any need for borrowing or a deficit.
avatar
skwalker1964

Posts : 819
Join date : 2012-05-15

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by bobby on Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:40 pm

What we see happening is irrefutable proof, the Tories were planning all of their welfare cuts and NHS privatisations long before May 2010 when they almost won the Election, this despite Herr Camerons guarantee there will be no top down reorganisation of the NHS prior and up to the actual Election. How else could all their policies be implemented so quickly after the Election, whereas things like closing Tax loopholes for themselves and their donors are taking a hell of a lot longer, assuming of course they are in fact doing something about it, after all, all we have is their word that they are looking into it. Perhaps their idea of looking into it is to pick up a report, reading the first line then filing it under “looked at”.
As ow has said, they have had 68 years to prepare for what they are now doing, and thanks to the Banking crisis, they have found an excuse for the austerity measures they have been dreaming about for years, and are certainly making hay whilst the clouds are hiding them.
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:21 pm

Bobby, Herr Cameron did say that Lansley had been working on the NHS reform for 6-7 years, and yet just as you have said he did say the NHS is safe in my hands BLOODY LIAR. cheers
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Mel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:30 pm

Spot on bobby. The question is why isn't Ed questioning raving Dave about his promise to address the tax loopholes? Perhaps he has and I have missed it.
I suppose the answer is the same "it's being addressed" If so WHERE IS THE PROOF!!!!?
Perhaps the nosey press can look into the matter instead of labelling benefit claimants in the same pot as PHILPOTT day in day out. Pigs flying again with press owned by tory supporters/donors.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by bobby on Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:59 pm

Hello Mel, I think that the time has come that Labour need to be seen in the fight for Governance. If for some reason they are holding back, I for one would like to know what that reason is. You never win a fight by letting your opponent get the first punch in, you win by kicking the crap out of him before he can do you any harm. I know it doesn’t sound too Christian but I am not a Christian, so anyone who wants to slap my cheek had better know what they are letting themselves in for, as it wont be my other cheek that will be on offer.

Like you Mel I want to see Ed Miliband getting stuck in to the Coalition Government, I mean its not as though he hasn’t got any ammunition is it.

Each day that passes is a day for the tame Tory newspaper dogs to write more lies and get a few more don’t knows on the side of the coalition. Ed needs to stop that from happening, and you can’t beat the likes of this lying, Cheating thieving Government by being Mr Nice Guy, those days went over two years ago, now we need to be as vigilant to any Tory misdeeds as they are at committing them and let nothing go, and I mean nothing. I don’t care if a potential fight is fought by fair means or foul so long as Labour win, Herr Camwron has laid down the ground rules for a dirty fight, and its now time he reaped what he sowed. We need to be rid of the dirty filthy pond life that call themselves The Coalition Government
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:25 am

Mel wrote:Spot on bobby. The question is why isn't Ed questioning raving Dave about his promise to address the tax loopholes? Perhaps he has and I have missed it.
I suppose the answer is the same "it's being addressed" If so WHERE IS THE PROOF!!!!?
Perhaps the nosey press can look into the matter instead of labelling benefit claimants in the same pot as PHILPOTT day in day out. Pigs flying again with press owned by tory supporters/donors.

There is something else that thy promised to do bobby and still have not done it, regulate the banks before they do what they did in 2008 the Libor scandal was started in 2010 so they are still up to there old tricks and still have not learned any lessons.
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:28 pm

Living in Jersey I know that many of the tax loopholes have been closed by Cameron. The Coalition and the channel islands + Isle of Man have just signed a new transpancy agreements to stop tax avoidance, much to the annoyance and cost of offshore Financial institutions. They have also closed the VAT loophole where no tax was paid on importing goods less than £18, this has caused the closure of Play.com (Exists only as a marketing website now) and other similar companies.

As a Jersey resident, can we have Labour back in please because they did eff all and we all made a lot of money here during the New Labour years....Its sooooo unfair!!!

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:36 pm

blueturando wrote:Living in Jersey I know that many of the tax loopholes have been closed by Cameron. The Coalition and the channel islands + Isle of Man have just signed a new transpancy agreements to stop tax avoidance, much to the annoyance and cost of offshore Financial institutions. They have also closed the VAT loophole where no tax was paid on importing goods less than £18, this has caused the closure of Play.com (Exists only as a marketing website now) and other similar companies.

As a Jersey resident, can we have Labour back in please because they did eff all and we all made a lot of money here during the New Labour years....Its sooooo unfair!!!

That still still does not stop the Tory donors from putting there money in Belzie wish is right off shore and will not do nothing about getting THEM to pay there correct amount of tax, and when are they going to stop the banks from doing what they done in 2007/08, as you know the Libor was done in 2010 2-3 years after there original crime of having to get the taxpayer to bail them out, if they do not do anything soon the bankers will get us the taxpayer into MORE DEBT
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by tlttf on Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:42 pm

Red, surely you don't think the Libor scandal began in 2010, this was an ongoing farce that had been carried on for years and was only found out in 2010.

Anyway, what is labours position on welfare, they are extremely timid about talking about the subject. Does everybody agree that child benefit should only be paid for the first 2 kids?

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:44 pm

People with money in offshore Bank accounts must have been given something to think about when Cyprus announced a 60% deduction from withdrawals, Red.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11682
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by bobby on Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:49 pm

When I was a kid and the younger of two children, I believe my parents only got family allowance for the first child back then, this was worked into the husbands tax code, it was a way of guaranteeing a certain amount of cash to the Mother before the old man pissed it all up the wall in the boozer.
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Ivan on Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:07 pm

Does everybody agree that child benefit should only be paid for the first 2 kids?
tlttf. LOL. Does anyone, other than our Jersey tax exile, ever agree with anything you post? Evil or Very Mad

Do you ever stop and think before posting your drivel? If the number of children is to be limited, how? By the number of children born to a mother, or by the number of children born to a father, or to a specific couple? And is it to be limited by the number of babies or the number of births; what if somebody budgets for one child and has triplets?

Presumably you’re happy to penalise children who are unfortunate enough to be the third or fourth addition to a family. Bring them up in deprived circumstances and increase the likelihood of producing adults who are alienated from society and cost the country more in the long term. (It costs about £40k a year to keep someone in jail).

Instead of relying on knee-jerk reactions from ‘Daily Mail’ readers for your inspiration, try looking at the scurrilous research produced by three wicked left-wing churches before opening your trap:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

bobby
. I believe you’ve got it the wrong way round. I think you only got family allowance for second or further children, not the first.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 6966
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by bobby on Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:38 pm

Hello Ivan, Thanks for that correction. As there were only the two of us I always thought it was as I said.
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:25 pm

People with money in offshore Bank accounts must have been given something to think about when Cyprus announced a 60% deduction from withdrawals, Red..

Only if they're stuck in the EU. Fortunately we decided many years ago not to be part of that farce.

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:30 pm

tlttf. LOL. Does anyone, other than our Jersey tax exile, ever agree with anything you post?

If only I was rich enough to be a tax exile Ivan. You already know why I live here and that was because I couldn't find a job in the UK upon leaving school in the early 80's....I took Tebbitts advice and got on my bike so to speak

But yes I do agree with TLTTFand Labour has gone all shy because their argument is shot and the public have had its fill of benefit free loaders, who are very different from people who really need the help

IVAN.....youre a man in the know...What is Labours position on Welfare at the moment?


Last edited by blueturando on Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:41 pm

Because you and I rarely have occasions to speak to each other, Blue, I want to illustrate something. Perhaps you are unaware, but I am disabled. It's official now, at least medically. I suffer from a pain so persistant and intense that the best medicines at maximum dose have little effect. Last night was so bad I broke down and wept for half an hour wondering how I was going to make it through to the next day.

Hi Shirina, No I was aware of your disability as we have discussed it before during one of the religous threads.
No one, especially me is saying that people who are in genuine need should not be helped financially by our welfare system. The problem is that we have too many people who are not in genuine need playing the system and the coalition government are the only ones with the balls to tackle this.
The lefties on here will pretend this does not happen, but they will never see things they DONT WANT to see. If we could weed out these free loaders then just maybe there would be more funds to support people like you Shirina who are genuinly in need of the help...That's the irony of the situation

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 50
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by tlttf on Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:40 am

Does everybody agree that child benefit should only be paid for the first 2 kids?


tlttf. LOL. Does anyone, other than our Jersey tax exile, ever agree with anything you post? Evil or Very Mad

Do you ever stop and think before posting your drivel? If the number of children is to be limited, how? By the number of children born to a mother, or by the number of children born to a father, or to a specific couple? And is it to be limited by the number of babies or the number of births; what if somebody budgets for one child and has triplets?



Poor old Ivan, trapped in attack mode against anybody that dare ask a question that isn't written in his little red book.

Where have I said penalize anybody? Surely anybody that goes on to have more kids can afford them (lifestyle choice), I come from a family of 6 kids, there was only allowance for one paid by the government, since when did it become mandatory for the taxpayer to pay for somebody's life choice. There's enough hardship out there without adding to the general bill. No doubt you believe that those appearing on Jeremy Kyle are celebrities!

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by tlttf on Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:47 am

Re the labour party (with all it's successes) looking at what is happening in France and looking forward to the same over here, or are they finally having their eyes opened to the destruction that socialism brings?

tlttf
Banned

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by sickchip on Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:57 am

blueturando wrote:
Because you and I rarely have occasions to speak to each other, Blue, I want to illustrate something. Perhaps you are unaware, but I am disabled. It's official now, at least medically. I suffer from a pain so persistant and intense that the best medicines at maximum dose have little effect. Last night was so bad I broke down and wept for half an hour wondering how I was going to make it through to the next day.

Hi Shirina, No I was aware of your disability as we have discussed it before during one of the religous threads.
No one, especially me is saying that people who are in genuine need should not be helped financially by our welfare system. The problem is that we have too many people who are not in genuine need playing the system and the coalition government are the only ones with the balls to tackle this.
The lefties on here will pretend this does not happen, but they will never see things they DONT WANT to see. If we could weed out these free loaders then just maybe there would be more funds to support people like you Shirina who are genuinly in need of the help...That's the irony of the situation

blue,

The percentage of people on benefits who are freeloaders, as you put it, is miniscule. Most benefit claimants are simply between jobs - or need benefit top ups to subsidise their pathetic wages......and, as a co-incidence (?), subsidise the profits of their employers.

If there is one bad apple in a barrel - do we condemn the entire barrel?

The tory party are using isolated cases, such as Mick Philpott, to tar everybody on benefits with the same brush.....guilt by association. It is a disgusting abuse of power, and slanderous; and it is sad that many people like you are falling for the propaganda of tory oppression and subjugation.

There is NOTHING wrong with the welfare system - in fact basic benefits should be increased by about 10% IMO. There is EVERYTHING wrong with our wage ratios and wealth distribution - that is what is really screwing our economy. Welfare is an essential expense in a modern civilised nation and shouldn't be questioned.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1149
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Ivan on Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:56 am

Where have I said penalize anybody?

tlttf. If you stop child benefit after two children, you are penalising all the children in the family by reducing the household income. I would have thought that even you could have worked that out.

lifestyle choice
A trite, lazy, meaningless soundbite which no doubt saves you the bother of thinking. Doesn’t it have something to do with Ford cars?

I come from a family of 6 kids, there was only allowance for one paid by the government
That’s untrue. Family allowance (the predecessor of child benefit) was introduced for each child after the first. From 1979 it was paid for all children:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There's enough hardship out there without adding to the general bill.
I agree. That’s why today’s tax cut for millionaires is an obscenity.

The Child Poverty Action Group has long argued that child benefit is the best way to tackle child poverty. Children are the workforce of tomorrow, the people who will work and pay tax to fund the pensions of all of us in retirement. Try looking at the big picture for a change.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 6966
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Redflag on Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:57 am

tlttf wrote:Red, surely you don't think the Libor scandal began in 2010, this was an ongoing farce that had been carried on for years and was only found out in 2010.

Anyway, what is labours position on welfare, they are extremely timid about talking about the subject. Does everybody agree that child benefit should only be paid for the first 2 kids?

Wel according to the news that is when it is supposed to have started ? so does that mean it not just the Tory party that is protecting the banks now the media is giving them a helping hand ? The Labour party is not timid on welfare, according to the gov't they have been against every welfare cut the Tories and Lib-Dems have put through so look to your own gov't for what the Labour position is on welfare.
avatar
Redflag
Deactivated

Posts : 4282
Join date : 2011-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 24 of 25 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum