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

by blueturando 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."

by **Ivan** Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:53 pm

Can't find it anywhere Adele, it must have been deleted.

tlttf. LOL. Your ‘deleted’ message is on this very thread – on page 15! I have a relative who works for Specsavers, would you like her to make you an appointment?
Laughing

On the next occasion that you can’t find something because of your own stupidity or incompetence, send a message to one of the staff. Threads are not the place to make complaints or false allegations. We delete very few posts on this site (although we certainly remove threads praising racists, as you know from experience), but it does say this very clearly at the top of the home page:-
"Please note that threads may be moved to more appropriate boards and similar threads will be merged."

As to your platitudes about ‘free speech’, take them to Conservative Home and ask there why anything that isn’t sympathetic to their rabid point of view is zapped on sight.

by blueturando Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:02 pm

There is a reason we only have a niche manufacturing base and that is we cannot compete with China, India and other similar economies. What business owner in their right mind would manufacture products in the UK that would be too expensive to sell into market?

If an Apple Iphone cost £20 to make in China, but £40 to manufacture in the UK, why would Apple or any other business manufacture products here?

by Tosh Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:08 pm

Ivan,

Why are you so left wing/anti Tory ?

Don't you think the vast majority of people are moderates ?

In todays global economy, no government( not even America) can create sustainable markets, these can only be created by self interested and profit oriented capitalists, employers get money, employess get money and our government gets money.

The bottom line is, altruism has no place in business, self sacrifice does not motivate people as effectively as self interest, we don't like equal status and we don't want no status, we all want to be significant individuals.

We may have social instincts, compassion and altruism, but we need individual status, too much sacrifice entails living your life purely for others, and I aint Jesus or you, both of you are quite entitled to live life this way but I choose different proportions, its my life and my story.

Too much socialism removes individuality and status, and that is inhumane.

by **Ivan** Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:31 pm

He was a true altruist

Tosh. Yes he was, and still is. Gordon Brown earned £900,000 last year from work as an academic, author and speechmaker, but none of it went to him. It all went to funding his charitable and public service work. Can you imagine any Tory spiv giving away all their earnings?? Brown has also declined to take a pension for being PM.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/times-clarification-gordon-brown-did-not-pocket-penny-his-%C2%A3900k-earnings …

by oftenwrong Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:33 pm

George Orwell commented at length in "Animal Farm" and "1984", Tosh. At a 180-degree remove, your heroine Ayn Rand thought that meritocracy should decide the winners.

by Tosh Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:41 pm

George Orwell commented at length in "Animal Farm" and "1984". At a 180-degree remove, your heroine Ayn Rand thought that meritocracy should decide the winners..

No need to exagerate my relationship with Ayn Rand, and I believe I did post my disapproval concerning her altruistic attitudes. As a victim of Stalinism she was slightly biased against socialistic/altruistic pretensions, she found people to be just as self interested in a communist system.

I am two thirds me and one third society, its enough to make me sleep at night.

by Tosh Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:47 pm

Tosh. Yes he was, and still is.

I believe our country would have been better served with Brown rather than Blair as PM.

by Adele Carlyon Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:19 pm

I'll second that!

by **Ivan** Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:23 pm

Don't you think the vast majority of people are moderates?

Tosh. I don’t doubt the majority of people see themselves as ‘moderates’, but I’m not entirely sure what it means. I suppose you’ll tell me it has something to do with the elusive ‘centre ground’ in politics, which is shifting all the time and is much further to the right now than it was in the 1970s.

‘Moderate’ suggests to me a certain half-heartedness about what you believe in, implying that perhaps you only moderately support benefits for the disabled or a free NHS. Couldn’t we then have extreme moderates, and why not moderate extremists? Would a moderate Nazi have thought it right to murder 3 million Jews but not 6 million? Aren’t we just in the realm of semantics?

Too much socialism removes individuality and status, and that is inhumane.

Poverty arising from the inequality which unregulated capitalism produces is inhumane. You don’t worry about your individuality or status when you’re struggling to put food on the table for your children, something which is happening now in the UK to an increasing number of people. It isn't socialism which has caused that.

by Ivanhoe Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:32 pm

Ivan wrote:
Don't you think the vast majority of people are moderates?
Tosh. I don’t doubt the majority of people see themselves as ‘moderates’, but I’m not entirely sure what it means. I suppose you’ll tell me it has something to do with the elusive ‘centre ground’ in politics, which is shifting all the time and is much further to the right now than it was in the 1970s.

‘Moderate’ suggests to me a certain half-heartedness about what you believe in, implying that perhaps you only moderately support benefits for the disabled or a free NHS. Couldn’t we then have extreme moderates, and why not moderate extremists? Would a moderate Nazi have thought it right to murder 3 million Jews but not 6 million? Aren’t we just in the realm of semantics?

Too much socialism removes individuality and status, and that is inhumane.
Poverty arising from the inequality which unregulated capitalism produces is inhumane. You don’t worry about your individuality or status when you’re struggling to put food on the table for your children, something which is happening now in the UK to an increasing number of people. It isn't socialism which has caused that.

No, it's right wing Tory free market policies.

by Adele Carlyon Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:36 pm

But isn't that it in a nut shell Ivan? It's me, me, me! That's what's wrong, it's always been wrong. But without people with a social conscience we really would live in a damn ugly world. It's bad enough already, but I do not want to envisage a world where even more of the people are just out to look after no 1. It's the reason I hate Thatcher and Tories in general. To me, they're nowt but selfish, emotionally anal, I'm alright jacks! No thanks, I prefer giving a shit!

by Ivanhoe Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:08 am

Adele Carlyon wrote:But isn't that it in a nut shell Ivan? It's me, me, me! That's what's wrong, it's always been wrong. But without people with a social conscience we really would live in a damn ugly world. It's bad enough already, but I do not want to envisage a world where even more of the people are just out to look after no 1. It's the reason I hate Thatcher and Tories in general. To me, they're nowt but selfish, emotionally anal, I'm alright jacks! No thanks, I prefer giving a shit!

Brilliant. Spot on. Well put Adele.

by Redflag Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:42 am

Adele Carlyon wrote:I'll second that!

Sorry can not agree with either Brown or Blair, Ed Miliband will give the Labour voters and members what everybody in the UK wants rid of Scam..er..on and his dick head of a gov't.

by Ivanhoe Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:58 am

Redflag wrote:
Adele Carlyon wrote:I'll second that!

Sorry can not agree with either Brown or Blair, Ed Miliband will give the Labour voters and members what everybody in the UK wants rid of Scam..er..on and his dick head of a gov't.

Redflag,

I am a traditional Labour supporter. But the Tories are'nt as you say, dick heads. They are very rich people
and very intelligent, mostly private school educated, without ever having had minimum wage jobs.

They have a right wing ideological Agenda which in my view the "dick head" British public and electrate are slowly waking up to as public service jobs are lost and people are being told they must work longer for their pensions.

This does not make the Tories dick heads, or other inflamatory names. It means they are politicians basically crucifying the working classes.

It is up to the working classes to get themselves politically educated, and wake up to what is really going on.

by blueturando Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:10 pm

Sorry can not agree with either Brown or Blair, Ed Miliband will give the Labour voters and members what everybody in the UK wants rid of Scam..er..on and his dick head of a gov't..

Brilliant Redflag.......Replace 1 millionaire toff with another milllionaire toff. Ed may have fooled you, but the general public are not so easily fooled. The coalition happened because people paniced over the economy and deficit. They wanted action now, not later...and Labour were not trusted to fix the economy. Unfortunately the Coalition has managed to cock it up, but that certainly doesn't mean the general public now think Labour are good with the sums....far from it!!!

So what do we have now?? Ed Milliband wearing a Cameron mask....One Nation (Big Society) 'We wont reverse the cuts and difficult decisions will have to be made'.......Sound familiar??? 'We will sort out the Banks'...I will put money on it they wont.

Ed Milliband has nothing in common with the working class...never has, never will. So we come down to arguments for career politicians who at the end of the day are looking to make a nice little earner for themsleves...You know it, I know it and increasingly the general public are wise to it.

If you want a party for the working class then get a working class man or women to lead the party. That person would garner much more respect than an Eton toff, or a champagne socialist

by Ivanhoe Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:34 pm

blueturando wrote:
Sorry can not agree with either Brown or Blair, Ed Miliband will give the Labour voters and members what everybody in the UK wants rid of Scam..er..on and his dick head of a gov't..

Brilliant Redflag.......Replace 1 millionaire toff with another milllionaire toff. Ed may have fooled you, but the general public are not so easily fooled. The coalition happened because people paniced over the economy and deficit. They wanted action now, not later...and Labour were not trusted to fix the economy. Unfortunately the Coalition has managed to cock it up, but that certainly doesn't mean the general public now think Labour are good with the sums....far from it!!!

So what do we have now?? Ed Milliband wearing a Cameron mask....One Nation (Big Society) 'We wont reverse the cuts and difficult decisions will have to be made'.......Sound familiar??? 'We will sort out the Banks'...I will put money on it they wont.

Ed Milliband has nothing in common with the working class...never has, never will. So we come down to arguments for career politicians who at the end of the day are looking to make a nice little earner for themsleves...You know it, I know it and increasingly the general public are wise to it.

If you want a party for the working class then get a working class man or women to lead the party. That person would garner much more respect than an Eton toff, or a champagne socialist

Off the top of my head, oddly enough I agree with much of what you say Bluey.

Ill write more later. The Labour party is not going to return to it's core values of fairness and equality that's for sure.

But after over 30 years of right wing doctrine in this country which has seperated and divided the British people completely, I believe Labour, whatever they stand for, will win by a mammoth landslide at the next G/E by default.

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:21 pm

But without people with a social conscience we really would live in a damn ugly world. It's bad enough already, but I do not want to envisage a world where even more of the people are just out to look after no 1. It's the reason I hate Thatcher and Tories in general. To me, they're nowt but selfish, emotionally anal, I'm alright jacks! No thanks, I prefer giving a shit! .

Will you kindly dismount off your high horse of virtue, it is making me nauseous.

First off, filling a world full of HATE is ugly, so please stop it.

Secondly, just because someone does not share your political philosophy does not mean they do not share your social conscience.

Thirdly, it is not possible for any human to just look after number 1, the primordial and universal law of reciprocity is based on need, no man is an island.

And finally, we have a society that fully embraces social cooperation and reciprocation, but debates what is the fairest balance between individual and social responsibility, ie altruism versus self interest. In this very subjective area it is the majority who must decide, such is the nature of freedom and democracy.

Hope you are well.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:27 pm

As is so often the case, George Orwell summed it up 70 years ago with the immortal line, "All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others."

The curious thing is that "Animal Farm" was satirising Stalin's Russia but applies equally to Cameron's Britain.

by Ivanhoe Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:32 pm

Tosh wrote:
But without people with a social conscience we really would live in a damn ugly world. It's bad enough already, but I do not want to envisage a world where even more of the people are just out to look after no 1. It's the reason I hate Thatcher and Tories in general. To me, they're nowt but selfish, emotionally anal, I'm alright jacks! No thanks, I prefer giving a shit! .

Will you kindly dismount off your high horse of virtue, it is making me nauseous.

First off, filling a world full of HATE is ugly, so please stop it.

Secondly, just because someone does not share your political philosophy does not mean they do not share your social conscience.

Thirdly, it is not possible for any human to just look after number 1, the primordial and universal law of reciprocity is based on need, no man is an island.

And finally, we have a society that fully embraces social cooperation and reciprocation, but debates what is the fairest balance between individual and social responsibility, ie altruism versus self interest. In this very subjective area it is the majority who must decide, such is the nature of freedom and democracy.

Hope you are well.

Tosh, do get off "your" intellectual high horse. Adele is down to earth and spot on.

The Tory's are self centred. This is how Thatcher got into power in the first place. And now I wonder how many people voted for her, wish they had not ??????

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:58 pm

The curious thing is that "Animal Farm" was satirising Stalin's Russia but applies equally to Cameron's Britain..

In effect it highlighted the flaws in human nature, power corrupts and it applies equally to all forms of governance.

Noone was really surprised that all political parties covered up the expenses fraud for decades and the guilty covered the full political spectrum.

Although the duck house and moat cleaning made me smile.

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:07 pm

Tosh, do get off "your" intellectual high horse.

No.

Adele is down to earth and spot on.

Hate is bad, I am a little surprised to hear she is from earth. (only kidding, no harm..no foul).

The Tory's are self centred.

We are all self centred.

This is how Thatcher got into power in the first place. And now I wonder how many people voted for her, wish they had not ??????.

You are so self centred you object to the outcomes of the democratic process, but I do not hate you.

I love you as I love myself, which is a lot. Razz

by boatlady Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Adele, I thought your comment was succinct, realistic and just what I'd have liked to say myself.
I also prefer to give a shit

by Adele Carlyon Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:01 pm

Thanks BL! It's just the way I'm put together. I'm not so much of a hater. I'm one of those people who always try and find summat good in the bad things. I'm a fighter for the under-dog. But where Tory idealology is concerned I can find no good!

And Tosh Dearest! If I wanna hate them I jolly well will thanks! And if you're worried about my Karma, well lets just say the amount of love I have for other things, and especially my family, so cancels out the hate I feel for people who are, and support the tories. p.s I don't really hate them, I despise them! Wink

by Adele Carlyon Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:03 pm

Tosh really reminds me of a poster over on that cess pit that is UK Debate. Hmmmmm lol

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:24 pm

There can be only one.

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:13 pm

Poverty arising from the inequality which unregulated capitalism produces is inhumane.

Good evening comrade Ivan,

Inequality and poverty in Britain has little to do with unregulated capitalism, and more to do with people being the product of nature and nurture.

You don’t worry about your individuality or status when you’re struggling to put food on the table for your children, something which is happening now in the UK to an increasing number of people.

Noone struggles to feed their children in this country, even if they have a truckload of them, the developing world is not paying thousands to get here just to starve, and our welfare state is the envy of America's poorest.

It isn't socialism which has caused that.

I agree.

The enemy is not regulated capitalism, the enemy is governments failing to plan for the inevitable peaks and troughs of supply and demand.

by Redflag Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:06 pm

Adele Carlyon wrote:Tosh really reminds me of a poster over on that cess pit that is UK Debate. Hmmmmm lol

I thought the same thing Adele, it was his posts that made me think UKD immediately.

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:13 pm

You are both mistaken, and I cannot believe there is a poster similar to me, its just impossible.

by Redflag Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:20 pm

Tosh wrote:You are both mistaken, and I cannot believe there is a poster similar to me, its just impossible.

Go over to UK Debate tosh and take a good look, maybe then you will understand where Adele and I got our thoughts from.

by **Ivan** Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:22 pm

Noone struggles to feed their children in this country, even if they have a truckload of them

Tosh. That's just the sort of complacent, arrogant - and false - remark I'd expect from a Tory. Why don't you stop pretending that you're not one??

Here's an extract from an article by Adrian Jenkins:-

Low income parents are struggling to feed their children as benefit changes and rising food and fuel prices squeeze their budgets, a charity has warned. South Derbyshire Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) said the problem was not only "shocking and increasing" but forcing the needy to approach food banks for help.

“Parents are having to really push their budgets further to find food for their children,” said Ashley Canner, the CAB’s primary care trust outreach worker and social policy co-ordinator. “We are worried, but it’s nothing to the worry we are going to be feeling next March and April when all the new changes to benefits come in.”

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Survival-battle-10082012.htm

Out of your depth yet again old chap, I'm afraid! Rolling Eyes

by **Ivan** Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:25 pm

"A record number of people are turning to charities to help them feed their families. The Trussell Trust, which runs the UK's only network of food banks, fed almost 129,000 people last year, including 6,000 in Scotland."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17867328

by Redflag Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:29 pm

Ivan wrote:"A record number of people are turning to charities to help them feed their families. The Trussell Trust, which runs the UK's only network of food banks, fed almost 129,000 people last year, including 6,000 in Scotland."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17867328

Hi Ivan do not let the Salmond hear you say we have food banks in Scotland, he is more than likely to tell you that you are havering (polite way of saying your lying). cheers

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:11 pm

A record number of people are turning to charities to help them feed their families. The Trussell Trust, which runs the UK's only network of food banks, fed almost 129,000 people last year, including 6,000 in Scotland."

Ivan,

Most of these are homeless people, homeless through choice, the rest have mental or addiction problems, you are talking about a tiny section of society that is totally incapable of fending for themselves.

I repeat the current benefit system ( I have checked ) is sufficient to feed anyone with a functioning brain or there would be millions of people at food banks, just like America.

Stop pretending real poverty exists in Britain, what exsts in Britain is bad parenting and bad housekeeping, do you not believe a human being should be responsible for anything to do with living ?

Robots, thats what you want us all to become, robots of the state.

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:14 pm

Go over to UK Debate tosh and take a good look, maybe then you will understand where Adele and I got our thoughts from..

emmm, I can't, my IP address is banned. Embarassed

Don't ask. Very Happy

by **Ivan** Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:24 pm

Tosh. When you're posting on the religious threads, you deal in facts and reject the fiction. When you post on the politics threads, there's never a fact in sight - just the same old Tory platitudes and prejudices. I don't want anyone to become a robot and I don't believe that many people make themselves homeless through choice - do you have any evidence to support that remark?

You made the statement that "no one struggles to feed their children in this country", and I've just demonstrated that you're wrong. Why don't you apply the same rigour to your political statements that you apply to your ones concerning religion?

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:54 pm

Ivan,

Food banks is not evidence our welfare system is failing to provide sufficient resources for the poor to feed their families, is it now ?

You are drawing a subjective conclusion based on no evidence, the plain fact is benefits are calculated to provide at least food for millions of people earning zero, and if this calculation was wrong then there would be millions not 129,000 at food banks. These unfortunates cannot be earning less than zero, which suggests other reasons. I have provded you with numerous potential causes, I would imagine it is a combination of them all.

I do not live in an ivory tower, I know plenty of people on welfare, most consider Sky, alcohol and tobacco as life's essentials, sorry but they are not.
The Beveridge Report aimed at temporary assistance and support, it was never intended to be a lifestyle choice, life is bearable on social security.

I hope you are not proposing that we increase benefits for everyone just to accommodate 129,000 misfits for goodness sake.

by Tosh Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:34 pm

Okie Dokie,

You requested evidence.

An unemployed couple with 2 kids gets their housing free and 90% reduction in council tax, they can also claim for free school meals, kids clothing allowance and free dental care, plus concessions to council leisure services.

They get approx £210 per week unemployment benefit/child tax credits, and £135 per month family allowance, this equates to roughly £1050 per month or £240 per week.

Deduct 10% council tax (£20), gas/electric £100 and phones/internet £50 leaves £880 per month or £210 per week.

If you are telling me £210 per week cannot feed a family of four then you are shopping at Harrods.

The defence rests.

by oftenwrong Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:29 pm

Tosh's imaginary 2 + 2 family enjoy a fuel bill unrecognisable to most people, don't smoke or rent a TV, have no travel expenses getting to (or seeking) work, don't buy newspapers, comics or educational material, no toys, no treats and presumably have a staycation once a year. They make their own Christmas and Birthday presents and Mum makes her own dresses. Fortunately there are never any of those unexpected calls for outlay on a new cooker/frig/Hoover/boiler or similar emergency. If God wills, government welfare cuts will not apply to them until the kids graduate from Uni.

by sickchip Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:37 pm

tosh

They get approx £210 per week unemployment benefit

I think you'll find that should read per fortnight. Rolling Eyes

...or £105 per week.

by Shirina Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:03 am

In the UK, the richest ‘earn’ twelve times as much. London is one of the most unequal cities on earth, where the top 10% receive 273 times more than the bottom 10%.

In the US, executives earn 450 times more than the average worker. Or, to put it in numerical terms, the top 1% or 300,000 people earn more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined.

by Tosh Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:11 am

I think you'll find that should read per fortnight. ...or £105 per week. .

I am not sure if you are intending to be devious or you are just thick, you deleted the child tax credit which represents half of the amount quoted.

They get approx £210 per week unemployment benefit/child tax credits,

It is £210 per week, go check my figures and apologise for your mischievous editing.

by Sponsored content