Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 2)

Just to prove what a liar I am, always “making things up as I go along”, I’ll add three more sources to the discussion, but no doubt that won’t convince the pig-headed amongst us:-
 
“The Beveridge Report proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children (apart from for a family's first child if one parent was working), which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation. The recommended nine shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged.”
 
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/beveridge-report-child-benefit.htm
 
“Known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second AND subsequent children, thus helping shore up the depleted population by encouraging more births. It continued through the post-war boom but was restructured when the economy turned down again, being reinvented as Child Benefit in the second half of the 1970s. The new payments were tax free and first-time mothers also became eligible.”
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html
 
“In the UK, child benefit is administered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The system was first implemented in August 1946 as ‘family allowances’ under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s (= £0.25) per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s (= £0.40), and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s (= £0.50) for the third and subsequent children.

It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed ‘child benefit’ and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth £4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings.”
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

For some time after the end of World War 2, the retail price of food was subsidised by Government. The obvious advantage of such a subsidy was that it helped most those who needed that help most, the Poor.

This link refers, but also demonstrates how the Nation's economic situation compares with the way things were fifty years ago. Here is just a taste: Quintin Hogg's introduction to a CPC pamphlet, Prospect for Capitalism (1958): "The fantastic growth of the economy, the spectacular rise in the standard of living, the substantial redistribution of wealth, the generous development of social welfare, and the admitted humanizing of private industry, have rendered obsolete the whole intellectual framework within which Socialist discussion used to be conducted."

http://barneshistorian.com/ser1-lect8-00.php

Ivan, more than happy to stop personal attacks, would you care to join me?

skwalker1964 wrote:I disagree with the entire premise. Cuts don't need to be made and the whole austerity proposition is arse-first foolishness. There is no shortage of money - it's just in the wrong places.

Your right skywalker, instead of giving lucrative public contracts to their friends in the private sector put it into building council homes so that people could get out of the bedroom tax by moving to a smaller property.

And who builds these homes Red......Private sector companies of course..Doh!!!

How many Construction-workers does a Council need when the Government has prohibited any further construction of Council Houses?

The problem with the UK over the past 40yrs:

We overvalue property and, by doing so, we undervalue homes. We overvalue profit and as a consequence undervalue people.

Oh, how very true - we've forgottten that the wealth of nations can't be counted in pounds and pence.
The wealth of any country lies in a healthy, well educated and motivated citizenry.

Since 1945, a disproportionate amount of Government expense has been a feeble pretence at maintaining the status of Britain as a continuing World Power with an Empire to command and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I would cheerfully throttle any Government Minister who repeats the inane "Punching above our weight" cliche.

All of our Scandinavian neighbours, plus Holland Belgium and Luxembourg enjoy a higher standard of living than we do. The quality of life for the average citizen is higher in places like Italy.

What's the message? Are we really unaware of the explanation for our dire financial position?

Being a member of the elite nuclear club or having a seat on the UN security council does not put food on the table, it dosent give anyone a better life, a good education or better health.

The way to go in regard to a nuclear deterrent is a European one, shared costs, saving money, allowing spare money to be spent on things that make life better for citizens.

That gets my vote

boatlady wrote:That gets my vote

Mine too OW, but I will admit we do need nuclear just look at the madness of North Korea without it we would be up a creek without a paddle.

Thet's the old chestnut, Red:

My Dad's bigger than your Dad !

Does anyone really expect the belligerence of rogue Administrations to be constrained by logic?

oftenwrong wrote:Thet's the old chestnut, Red:

My Dad's bigger than your Dad !

Does anyone really expect the belligerence of rogue Administrations to be constrained by logic?

It is very worrying OW.

Btw

Miliband's respectful curtsy to Thatcher and his cap-doffing to the aristocracy in the House yesterday was pathetic. He's so caught up in wanting to appear statesmanlike and respectful of procedure it's becoming patently obvious he has nothing new to offer. Why didn't the Labour mps who refused to attend turn up and make their voices heard? Pathetic and cowardly - not one of them has the courage of their convictions.

His Labour party are just another tag team partner to the tories that will do everything they can to maintain the status quo and preserve the present order of things.

Ed Miliband: A stage-schooled politician - all style and technical ability.....but no grit, substance, conviction, or bite.

Being there, and being the leader of the Labour party, Miliband didn't have much choice. Those who didn't turn up knew it was going to be a sickfest and did the right thing. There was little to be gained by turning up and spouting vitriol, deserved as it would have been.

QUOTE "His Labour party are just another tag team partner to the tories that will do everything they can to maintain the status quo and preserve the present order of things."

What would YOU like them to do then sickchip? Stache some barrels of gunpowder in the cellars perhaps?

blueturando wrote:And who builds these homes Red......Private sector companies of course..Doh!!!

Private companies EMPLOY people DOH!!! and lets hope they do not do it the Thatcher or Cameron way by paying their workers BUTTONS which is the Tory way. They are that thick they can not see that BUTTON wages lead to high Welfare Bill, and of course caused by the Tories past and present who do not believe in FAIR days pay for a FAIR days work. It does not matter who builds these homes as long as they are wind and weather proof and are for council so that people can move into smaller homes so then the bedroom tax would be up the creek without a paddle.

It seems we as country are not as skint as we have been told we are according to William Hague when we are being charged £10 Million to bury the Wicked Witch from the RIGHT DING DONG

To be fair Sickchip....Miliband was dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't. Seems to me he did the best that he could in a bad situation

Red....please stay off the drugs thet're affecting your brain. You really do make it up as you go along. Do you get you political info from Viz...or have you been transported here for the 1970's

skwalker1964 wrote:Being there, and being the leader of the Labour party, Miliband didn't have much choice. Those who didn't turn up knew it was going to be a sickfest and did the right thing. There was little to be gained by turning up and spouting vitriol, deserved as it would have been.

....strength in numbers - but it was left to Glenda Jackson, almost entirely alone, to provide strong opposition and pertinent views about Thatcher.

Red Ed? Why'S he red? Is he blushing after shaming himself with his subservient display?

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE "His Labour party are just another tag team partner to the tories that will do everything they can to maintain the status quo and preserve the present order of things."

What would YOU like them to do then sickchip? Stache some barrels of gunpowder in the cellars perhaps?

No.

....but - they might try opposing tory policies, overturning tory legislation on welfare if elected......and building social housing, reducing levels of inequality, etc etc. You know - basically all the things they didn't do during the last 13yrs of Labour rule. They could do that instead of following the same philosophies and ultra neo-liberal free market agenda that their supposed opposition, the tory party, do.

"Is he blushing after shaming himself with his subservient display?"

There is nothing to feel ashamed about concerning civilised behaviour. The Tory toffs and their Press running-dogs would just love to portray the Opposition as ignorant Chavs.

The Labour Party in opposition has no power to change anything. The first priority is to get elected.

ow,

Sadly, I'm struggling to see them getting elected with Ed at the helm. He is not convincing.

I really hope it is all a cunning plan to cajole the electorate into voting Labour, and once elected they'll overturn promises made to 'get elected' and began a radical program of reform and change for the better of all Britons.

With just one more term for Thatch, this is how the flag may well have looked, folks...!

But if you wanna make a million quid pdq why not market this design as lavaTory paper accompanied by the motto :
" The Lady IS for wiping" !

In these straitened times, please use both sides of the paper, for economy.

Phil Hornby wrote:

With just one more term for Thatch, this is how the flag may well have looked, folks...!

But if you wanna make a million quid pdq why not market this design as lavaTory paper accompanied by the motto :
" The Lady IS for wiping" !

wouldn't a better motto be 'she can kiss my Ar5e'?

" In these straitened times, please use both sides of the paper, for economy."

Ah - so the Lady IS for turning after all...

Tony Blair issued a stark warning yesterday that Labour is in danger of being seen as a party of protest as he urged Ed Miliband not to allow it to slip back into its “comfort zone”.
He wrote: "The Labour Party is back as the party opposing 'Tory cuts', highlighting the cruel consequences of the Conservative policies on welfare and representing the disadvantaged and vulnerable."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-labour-new-danger-tony-blair-leads-party-grandees-in-attack-on-ed-miliband-8568148.html


??????? erm.....

"The Labour Party is back as the party opposing 'Tory cuts', highlighting the cruel consequences of the Conservative policies on welfare and representing the disadvantaged and vulnerable."

And that would be a bad thing because?-----

Tony Blair has always placed the interests of Tony Blair above the interests of The Nation.

The passage of time has not altered that, he doesn't want Miliband & Co. to rock his boat.

oftenwrong wrote:Tony Blair has always placed the interests of Tony Blair above the interests of The Nation.

The passage of time has not altered that, he doesn't want Miliband & Co. to rock his boat.

I see that Ed Miliband has told Tony Blair to butt out( in a nice way) of the running of the Labour party QUITE RIGHT, he is the leader of the Labour party and it is HIM alone that will take us into a win in the general election of 2015.

Since the Coalition was formed in 2010, the public's preoccupation has been with Economics. "Staying alive", in a nutshell. However in a wind-and-rain-swept landscape such as we live in, a major component of survival is warmth, or Energy as it's called now.

The only alternative to importing Gas from abroad seems to be (dangerous) and (expensive) Nuclear-generated power, which is already ten years behind schedule to fill even the current demand.

An incoming Socialist Government MUST have a "Plan B" that incorporates re-opening selected Coal Mines.

It's unavoidable. Now someone tell me I'm absolutely wrong, and kindly have your timetable for freezing to death available for public discussion.

(Guests at The Ritz Hotel in Piccadilly may of course please their bloody selves)

blueturando wrote:-
Living in Jersey I know that many of the tax loopholes have been closed by Cameron.

There is evidence that many of those loopholes haven't been closed:-

George Osborne is watering down tax-avoidance changes to help Tory donors

"Osborne’s softly-softly approach to tax avoidance is more evidence, if it were needed, that the coalition is a government of the rich, for the rich, to the detriment of the rest of society."

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/04/26/george-osborne-is-watering-down-tax-avoidance-changes-to-help-tory-donors/

It is the same reason he will not regulate the banks Ivan, too many of them are giving donations to Tory party funds, and they have a cheek to talk about Labour getting donations from the members of the Unite Union. Pot Kettle & Black come to mind.

The Osborne Prayer

"Lord, let my Banking Laws be draconian."

But not before the Election.

oftenwrong wrote:The Osborne Prayer

"Lord, let my Banking Laws be draconian."

But not before the Election.

God has said sorry that one is out of the bag already OW.

You have to have some sympathy for Balls - after all, look at the mess he will have inherited from the Coalition...

Phil Hornby wrote:You have to have some sympathy for Balls - after all, look at the mess he will have inherited from the Coalition...

Not a mess PH more like a DOGS BREAKFAST, like yourself I would not like the job that he has to do after Cameron and Osbourn, but I hope if he finds anything fishy he has it investigated so that the right person gets the blame not the Labour party, let us see if they can taked what they have dished out over the last three years.

Our friend tlttf was talking about Ed Miliband's interview on 'The World at One' yesterday, not Ed Balls. As usual, his account bore no resemblance to the actual exchanges, but that won't concern someone who has previously posted libel about one Labour politician (and refused to retract it), before proceeding to make up stories about both of the Miliband brothers.

The verbatim interview, which of course tlttf could have provided but which wouldn't have satisfied his deceitful agenda, is here:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/29/local-elections-politics-live-blog

tlttf's message urged us to vote on Thursday. I'm sure we all will. In the council elections, he'll be voting for UKIP (the party with a candidate who's been photographed making a Nazi salute) in the hope that it will get Chelsea out of the EU. UKIP is the party that scares people with stories about 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain in January (that's everyone from both countries!) and whose leader has just lied on the radio about obesity causing more deaths than smoking.