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

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."

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.

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..

You have got to be winding me up, feakin holidays for people who do not work ? What are they holidaying from ffs !!

How long are these people going to be claiming benefits, you've got them on it for years, replacing cookers and boilers, its supposed to be temporary support.

Smoking ? Lol, you have been smoking something if you are seriously suggesting welfare should pay for cigarettes.

Travel expenes looking for work ? Its done online and the government pays your interview expenses, they will buy you an interview suit ffs !!
Travel expenses going to a job they don't have ? mmmm eh ?

Newspapers, comics, treats, gifts, clothes etc....well my friend, my wife's weekly food bills are about £140 per week( 2+2) real family), this leaves £70 per week = approx £3,500 per year to buy clothes( no school uniforms), treats and emergencies.

Get real, I am not offering people an alternative lifesrtyle, which is them sitting on their arse while I bust my balls.

You are simply insane.

Smoking ? Lol, you have been smoking something if you are seriously suggesting welfare should pay for cigarettes

The sad thing is Tosh is that they're not joking. The lefties think hard working tax payers should pay for cigs and booze for people on benefits...Its probably their 'hooman rights'....And they wonder why most of the general public want a crack down on welfare.

Sometimes I think people on here are off their heads on drugs

Addendum:

My wife shops at Sainsburys and she assures me if we shopped at Aldis or Liddels then this could be reduced to £100, affordable clothes are sold in all supermarkets and if your cooker/boiler packs in you can get a crisis loan for essential repair/replacement. It doesn't matter how much you owe to credit cards £5 per month keeps them happy.

How can you go on holiday when you are supposed to be looking for a job ?

May I suggest before you moan about the benefit system and the plight of the poor,you do a simple piece of research as I have done.

Assuming an average rent of £500 per month and council tax savings of £140 per month= approx £7,700 plus £12,600 in benefits= approx £20k, one would have to earn £25k plus to nett the same amount, I believe average earnings in the UK is around £26k, so in effect a person on benefits in Britain lives off the average wage.


I repeat noone is starving in Britain who isn't mentally impaired in some way.

Tosh wrote:

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.

Don't ask.

If your IP address has been banned it means you have been on UK debate and done something for them to ban you, it might not have been the biggest crime knowing the UK debate and what they are like.

The government had a plan to wipe out our deficit in 5 years, and one of the ways in which it was going to wipe out the deficit was by taking money from the unemployed, the sick, the disabled and the poor, however this is been disguised as "reforming the welfare system".

Here in North Yorkshire, a senior council officer at the helm of the Tory controlled Scarborough Borough Council has told local newspapers that "the abolishion of the current council tax benefit scheme, and reduced funding for the council will cause hardship".

Many people believe that holliday resorts are nice places to live, and in some ways they are, but most of Britains resorts have much higher than average unemployment, depravation and poverty.

All this on top of the axing of many local bus services, a huge reduction in mobile library services and cuts to community health services, all combined has in many instances isolated many poorer rural dwellers, but if you are relatively well off or rich then it dosent affect you.

Why is it that under a Tory government the wealthy, the banks and big business simply get away with murder, whilst the little old pensioner scrimping and scraping a life, or the hard working council worker made redundant due to cuts has to suffer.

The government had a plan to wipe out our deficit in 5 years, and one of the ways in which it was going to wipe out the deficit was by taking money from the unemployed, the sick, the disabled and the poor, however this is been disguised as "reforming the welfare system".

Here in North Yorkshire, a senior council officer at the helm of the Tory controlled Scarborough Borough Council has told local newspapers that "the abolishion of the current council tax benefit scheme, and reduced funding for the council will cause hardship".

Many people believe that holliday resorts are nice places to live, and in some ways they are, but most of Britains resorts have much higher than average unemployment, depravation and poverty.

All this on top of the axing of many local bus services, a huge reduction in mobile library services and cuts to community health services, all combined has in many instances isolated many poorer rural dwellers, but if you are relatively well off or rich then it dosent affect you.

Why is it that under a Tory government the wealthy, the banks and big business simply get away with murder, whilst the little old pensioner scrimping and scraping a life, or the hard working council worker made redundant due to cuts has to suffer.

Because the Tory right wing witchfinder, have an inherent loathing of the role of the State and the welfare State, its not about cost, the Tory right wing just dont care about the under privileged that they create.

This is something the bulk of the British people are in my view, just getting round to recognising.

Witchfinder,

I accept cuts will cause hardship but no one will starve, life on benefits is not supposed to be pleasant, if it was then no one would work.

Labour should have tackled these issues when the money was pouring in and jobs were available, instead they did nothing to address the long term claimants and opened the doors to a mllion Poles. Now we have no money and there are really no jobs to get them off benefits.

Tosh wrote:Witchfinder,

I accept cuts will cause hardship but no one will starve, life on benefits is not supposed to be pleasant, if it was then no one would work.

Labour should have tackled these issues when the money was pouring in and jobs were available, instead they did nothing to address the long term claimants and opened the doors to a mllion Poles. Now we have no money and there are really no jobs to get them off benefits.

Tosh, your postings are pathetically naive.

We have no money you say ?

Overseas aid, money to the EU, fighting wars in the far East. Dont tell me or anybody else we have no money.

Since the 80's and Thatcher, there has been on onslaught by the right wing Tory's to crucify the living standards of working class people in this country, including the living standards of the jumped up middle classes who remain working class. They have and are taking longer to feel this, but are now worried as public sector jobs go to the wall, and are told they have to work longer for a diminished pension.

To save me going into the rest of your posting, I will ask you this.

Do you think its right that people unemployed, should have to struggle on below par incomes due to our now diminished welfare State systems in the 21 st century. ?, when 10 maybe more people are chasing one job ?

Yes or no ?

So we have at least two votes for a return to The Workhouse from comfortable Tory middle-class samaritans.
The very word 'workhouse' would be sufficient to strike terror into most working class people in Victorian times. To anyone unfortunate enough to fall on hard times, it represented the absolute last resort - a place from which there could often be no return to a normal life.

Such institutions were deliberately designed to provide the unfortunate inhabitants with a harsh and uncomfortable existence.

The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was implemented to reduce the escalating costs of poor relief and to discourage claimants.
Local parishes had formerly borne the cost of supporting the population who were unable to provide for themselves but the new Act required a central body to be established - the Poor Law Commission for England and Wales.

The Commission was responsible for the setting up of Parish Unions to administer poor relief, each Union to be managed by a board of guardians, elected by local ratepayers and property owners.

A requirement was the establishment of ' poorhouses ' whereby all claimants would be accommodated under the same roof with strict rules adhering for all inmates.

One of the main principles of the 1834 Act was that of 'less eligibility' - living conditions inside the institution must be 'less preferable' to that of the lowest paid common labourer outside.

By 1839, 600 unions had been formed and 350 workhouses had been built although there was still considerable opposition to the system, mainly in the North of England.

Strict segregation by age and sex was enforced - wives and husbands, brothers and sisters were separated on entry and any contact within the building not permitted.

Occupants on admittance were stripped, bathed and provided with an ill-fitting 'uniform' of cheap, rough-textured material often ' passed down ' from other inmates.

A normal day would be as follows: Rise; Breakfast; Worktasks; Dinner; Worktasks; Supper; Bed.

God bless you, Sirs, and Tiny Tim.

Tosh
I think you may be misled about the amounts people on benefits get and how easy it is to live on benefits (unless you are a benefits advisor, in which case please accept my apologies for teaching you to suck eggs)

In the first place, people on benefits do not get their housing costs paid, thay get Housing Benefit which, in most cases covers only a part of their rent - as increasingly people have to live in privately rented accommodation in an essentially unregulated market, they have to accept housing at whatever inflated rent the landlord wants to charge, or settle for being roofless, while Housing Benefit rates are calculated on the basis of a notional 'fair rent' which may have little to do with actual market conditions.

Secondly, privately rented accommodation is often substandard in some way, (draughts, damp, broken windows) and there are few really effective sanctions that can be applied to force landlords to bring the property up to scratch. As you will no doubt be aware, living in draughty, damp accommodation is more expensive in terms of heating bills etc, and can also impact on the life span of clothing (I once had a family I was helping whose entire stock of 'interview' clothes had to be replaced because of the mildew in their bedroom). There are also significant health impacts of substandard accommodation, in the form of chronic respiratory conditions and the like, which may well impact a person's ability to seek and retain employment, not to mention the strain of frequent doctor's and hospital appointments for sick children.

You are right, food and clothing are cheaper now than at any time in my memory, and most people on low incomes ought to be able to feed themselves and clothe themselves on the amounts given, if they do not have to pay rent top-up, excessive heating bills etc., and if they have a kitchen that is equipped for cooking nutritious meals in a safe environment (which isn't always the case in privately rented accommodation, where there may be misdew and crumbling plaster, not to mention aged and usafe appliances)

The job market, too, contributes to misery - minimum wage is not a living wage, and many people trapped on long-term benefits, usually through no fault of their own, would only be offered jobs at minimum wage, which I think at the moment gives a take-home wage of just over £200 per week. True, even fully employed people can access benefits like Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Tax Credits - all these benefits are intensely means tested and require time and committment to claim, difficult when you are working 40+ hours per week and unable to get in to the appropriate offices to get help claiming.

£200 per week is a generous income, and allows saving for emergencies only in the situation of a single person living in shared accommodation (usually with parents) and is not enough money to maintain a home, feed and clothe yourself and transport yourself to and from work, and is certainly not enough to feed and maintain a family.

Even so, for most people, working is better and offers more dignity and a better quality of life on the whole than not working, always supposing the jobs are there and one is able to manage to do them. For some people, however, their 'work' could and should consist in acting as a good neighbour, getting involved in residents' associations and allotment societies, and generally supporting the communal life of their neighbourhoods. Here is where in my view we come to the consideration of illness and disability, which are the factors, acknowledged or not, that keep people out of the job market in most cases.

Mental ill health is one of the big unacknowledged factors in preventing people getting and retaining employment. Increasingly, the workplace is an environment in which the survival of the fittest is paramount - security of employment is going, less permanent full time posts are available, workers are increasingly seen as interchangeable units, without individual strengths and needs, who can be got rid of and replaced when they no longer 'fit'. This is an envionment in which mental illness in all its forms will flourish, from stress to depression, from substance misuse to full-blown psychosis.

I compare this with the situation when I started work - as a young and new employee I was given care and attention, put to work alongside more experienced staff, given clear feed back when my performance fell off. There were many chances to learn and to become a functioning member of the team, and, when on occasion I failed, there were other jobs to try until I eventually found my niche. No doubt for you it was the same. I don't think it's like that for young people these days, and for older people who may be struggling to cope with new technology and new ways of organising labour in the workplace, I know it's not the same - personally, I was very relieved to get out of the workplace.

I'm basing what I say on 20+ years as a front line worker, working with vulnerable people in society, being alongside them as they try to navigate the benefits system and seek work and accommodation in what is becoming a very hostile environment. I continue in a voluntary capacity with the CAB and am seeing weekly examples of individuals in hardship, who literally cannot feed themselves and their families, who have to walk three miles to the bureau bacause they cannot afford the (unregulated) bus fare, bringing their pre school children with them because they cannot afford child care.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, just I think it would be good to live in a society where everyone shares the same rights to a roof over their head, a healthy place to live and an opportuity to make a contribution within society, which doesn't by the way have to be via paid employment.

Please don't use this as an excuse to begin taunting and abusing me. I think it likely you will not agree with all I have said, and in that case a simple refutation with reference to facts will be an appropriate response.
Thank you

Anyone see Newsnight last night and their report on state and number of people in Bed & Breakfast accommodation for the homeless....

Reminds me very much of the 1980's and 1990's.....

Lets look at some facts about the area I refered to in my post "The Borough of Scarborough"

There are currently 2700 people claiming unemployment benefit ( Sept ), of this figure more than half have been claiming for over six months, and almost one third for over a year.

It is now October and as the summer ends and winter approaches, the tourism trade will be laying off many workers, the unemployment numbers will rise as they always do in winter.

But the big big problem is that in the last couple of years, the tourist trade has been taking on less and less people at the begining of season at Easter, this been due to the fact that less and less people are coming to stay on the coast, the economic situation, lack of confidence and fear is badly affecting the tourist industry, just as its affecting everything.

The plain and simple fact is there just isn't 2700 jobs, in fact you would be very lucky to find 100 full time jobs on offer at job centres in the borough.

It really is not a case of sitting on welfare and doing nothing, most have no other choice, and for many people in Britains resorts, the only hope is a seasonal job in a cafe or shop on minimum wage, what little manufacturing there is, is suffering, the second largest employer is ( or was ) the public sector.

People often think of urban areas or inner cities when poverty or unemployment is mentioned, but it is equally as bad in some of Britain's resorts, and sometimes worse.

The other huge problem is that those resorts which are situated in areas of outstanding beauty invariably have inflated property prices, yet another hurdle for young local people trying to make their way in life; In Whitby for example you would get a 1 bed flat for £100,000, a few miles away outside the tourist area towards Teesside you can get a 4 bed cottage for the same price.

The plain and simple fact is there just isn't 2700 jobs, in fact you would be very lucky to find 100 full time jobs on offer at job centres in the borough.

Makes you wonder why this and the last government allowed and continue to allow uncapped immigration into a country with no jobs. Many of whom seem to find jobs though and rest I guess are added to the benefits system.......Welcome to the mad house!!!

You are drawing a subjective conclusion based on no evidence

Tosh. LOL. That sums up almost every posting you’ve made on this forum concerning politics. Finally, you posted some figures about benefit payments, but you’ve still failed to show the source. I’ve seen your recent track record for getting so much wrong on the politics board, and those amounts could well be out of date in view of what that fascist Iain Duncan Smith has been doing to reduce benefits. I’m more likely to believe a well-researched article like this one from the very talented blogger Steve Walker, who is a credit to this forum:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t650-dla-to-pip-change-will-drive-at-least-85000-people-into-poverty

I’m disgusted that you refer to homeless people as “misfits”. People lose their jobs through no fault of their own, then can’t keep up their mortgage repayments and get repossessed. Then those with families get shoved in bed and breakfast arrangements. Barking and Dagenham Council’s head of housing, Ken Jones, was on ‘Newsnight’ yesterday saying that they had had to keep 83 families in bed and breakfast for over six weeks. Meanwhile, those in bed and breakfast who are the responsibility of the Tory-run Westminster Council have been charged £3.06 per week for the breakfasts of children under the age of two:-
http://labourwestminster.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/westminster-labour-wins-a-victory-for-homeless-families/

I accept cuts will cause hardship but no one will starve

Wrong yet again:-
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/care/child-starved-to-death-after-benefits-delay/6524052.article#.UG6xc5aTDzc.twitter

See, providing sources isn’t so difficult, is it? I haven’t the time, but if you want to continue discussing benefits, please do so on Steve Walker’s thread (mentioned above) or here:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t314-will-the-cruel-tory-welfare-reforms-save-any-money

Now perhaps we can return to the subject of the thread.

I think you may be misled about the amounts people on benefits get and how easy it is to live on benefits (unless you are a benefits advisor, in which case please accept my apologies for teaching you to suck eggs)

I spent the whole month of April sorting out my sister in laws benefit entitlements, I am now a reluctant expert and it is a maze of bureacracy.

In the first place, people on benefits do not get their housing costs paid, thay get Housing Benefit which, in most cases covers only a part of their rent - as increasingly people have to live in privately rented accommodation in an essentially unregulated market, they have to accept housing at whatever inflated rent the landlord wants to charge, or settle for being roofless, while Housing Benefit rates are calculated on the basis of a notional 'fair rent' which may have little to do with actual market conditions.

Housing benefit is calculated on the number of bedrooms you need, and the rents are based on the localised rate. There is no shortage of rented property due to the housing slump, and landlords wanting DHSS tennants know the rate, supply and demand regulates the market and the DHSS are the biggest customer.

Let me make this pefectly clear, my main point is people are not starving because of cuts as Ivan is suggesting, but my sister in law and her husband and kids do not lead great lives, it is hard.
This hardship encourages them to do one of two thngs, get a job or find black market ways of earning money, they have chosen the latter.

Human nature being as it is ( self interest), if the benefit system is comfortable then who can blame those from staying on it and adapting to this lifestye, supplementing it with other undeclared income. Ido not blame people I blame the sysytem, make it bearable as a temporary stop gap.

I million people who hadn't worked for a decade or more in the boom years is testimony to a flawed system.

£200 per week is a generous income, and allows saving for emergencies only in the situation of a single person living in shared accommodation (usually with parents) and is not enough money to maintain a home, feed and clothe yourself and transport yourself to and from work, and is certainly not enough to feed and maintain a family.

I have demonstrated that £200 per week is enough for a 2+2 family, and it is certainly enough to stave off starvation, which was my main point.

Sometimes I think people on here are off their heads on drugs.

blueturando. I've always thought that you are probably the most reasonable and enlightened of our right-wing posters, but that remark is out of order. I reckon you'll find more cocaine-snorters, like George Osborne, at next week's conference than were at this week's, because drugs tend to be a pastime of the idle rich.

Speaking personally, I don't think benefits should pay for 'luxuries'. I also detest smoking and have never even tried a cigarette in my entire life, but I suspect it must be extremely hard to have to give up the habit overnight.

Let's get this back on thread, please.

Ivan,

Go onto a government website and you will get my figures, its not difficult.

Stop pretending that one child of an asylum seeker is evidence that welfare cuts are causing starvation, the figures don't lie.

More importantly it is now obvious there is a conclave of people on here protesting about cuts to the welfare state who have no knowledge of the welfare state. I can only equate it to non-scientists( religious) claiming science is wrong about evolution.

Do the research and then come back with some real evidence, not some extreme one off occasion when some asylum seeker slips through the biggest safety net in the developed world.

I’m disgusted that you refer to homeless people as “misfits”. People lose their jobs through no fault of their own, then can’t keep up their mortgage repayments and get repossessed.

Homelessness is a choice, one has to be a misfit to prefer living on the streets, there is no need to live on the streets if our govenment will pay to house you in rented accomadation or a B&B.

my main point is people are not starving because of cuts as Ivan is suggesting

Tosh. I'm not "suggesting" anything, I've provided sources which show that children are starving, to death in at least one case. If you're going to ignore the facts, you'll be no better than those evolution-deniers on the religion board!

Go onto a government website and you will get my figures, its not difficult.

No way. It's your responsibility to support your statements with evidence. Haven't you learned how to post a link?

Now which part of this don't you understand: "Perhaps we can return to the subject of the thread"?Please go and discuss benefits in one of the two places suggested. Any further deviation from the subject and this thread will be locked.

I’m more likely to believe a well-researched article like this one from the very talented blogger Steve Walker, who is a credit to this forum:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t650-dla-to-pip-change-will-drive-at-least-85000-people-into-poverty

A credit to the forum because he agrees with your views.

Next ?

No way. It's your responsibility to support your statements with evidence. Haven't you learned how to post a link?

Get real.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/international/benefits/how-to-claim-benefits/

A credit to the forum because he agrees with your views.

Credit to the forum because he writes detailed and well-researched articles, supported by plenty of sources. He doesn't post a load of platitudes straight out of the Tory Party handbook - or any other handbook for that matter.

Where should the Labour Party position itself?

#####

In the Dead Sea.
They stuffed Britain, bigtime....financially and culturally.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

#####

And change the country Labour did.
Now there are 'Britain'/'Christianity'/'West'/'White People' [pick one or more], hating immigrants marching/protesting in the streets, ...hurling insults at British troops, hurling hatred and burning poppies at Remembrance Day services, and stating their aim is to "turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque for the Muslims".

keenobserver1 wrote:They could try going left, going right hasn't worked out that well.

I think you have a good point there keenobserver1, just a tad more to the left and that should bring back the Labour voters that we have lost at the 2010 election.

[quote="Ivanhoe"]

bambu wrote:Where should the Labour Party position itself?

#####

In the Dead Sea.
They stuffed Britain, bigtime....financially and culturally.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

#####

And change the country Labour did.
Now there are 'Britain'/'Christianity'/'West'/'White People' [pick one or more], hating immigrants marching/protesting in the streets, ...hurling insults at British troops, hurling hatred and burning poppies at Remembrance Day services, and stating their aim is to "turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque for the Muslims".

""""""""""Where should the Labour Party position itself?

#####

In the Dead Sea.
They stuffed Britain, bigtime....financially and culturally."""""

"New" Labour werent Labour, they were Thatcherite. Blair and Brown ditched Labour's core values from 1997 and continued Thatcher's right wing free market.

As a supporter and activist in "traditional" Labour, I believe in multiculturalism.

It was Thatcher and her hair brained working class supporters who have stuffed Britain.

[quote="Ivanhoe"]

Ivanhoe wrote:

bambu wrote:Where should the Labour Party position itself?

#####

In the Dead Sea.
They stuffed Britain, bigtime....financially and culturally.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

#####

And change the country Labour did.
Now there are 'Britain'/'Christianity'/'West'/'White People' [pick one or more], hating immigrants marching/protesting in the streets, ...hurling insults at British troops, hurling hatred and burning poppies at Remembrance Day services, and stating their aim is to "turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque for the Muslims".

""""""""""Where should the Labour Party position itself?

#####

In the Dead Sea.
They stuffed Britain, bigtime....financially and culturally."""""

"New" Labour werent Labour, they were Thatcherite. Blair and Brown ditched Labour's core values from 1997 and continued Thatcher's right wing free market.

As a supporter and activist in "traditional" Labour, I believe in multiculturalism.

It was Thatcher and her hair brained working class supporters who have stuffed Britain.

Of course you believe in multiculturalism, and all that entails...you're from the Left.
We're not talking 'food', and 'national dress of the old country' here.
Multiculturalism is a menace, and has been a dismal failure in Britain and everywhere else in the Christian West it's been worshipped and appeased.
100+ Sharia law courts in Britain already etc.
Multicultural ghettos everywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3xsnEzA8Fw
Cameron: State multiculturalism has failed

Every word true.

bambu, What's your answer then ?

Ivanhoe wrote:bambu, What's your answer then ?

Answer to what, exactly...the failure of multiculturalism?
If that, ...

. Massive immigration should be halted.
. All illegal immigrants should be deported.
. All Sharia law courts should be abolished..."One law here, and one set of courts...British law and British courts".
Multicultural ghettos should be made obey British culture and British laws...no 'no-go zones' for 'Whites/non-same race as the ghetto-dwellers' allowed.
Anyone erecting "No Whites after 7pm" signs as reported from Alum Rock Birmingham...should be found and prosecuted.

If it's good enough to toss Emma West in prison without a trial on the strength of a YouTube video, then it's good enough to arrest and prosecute "Preachers of hate" for saying "all homosexuals should be stoned to death" etc.
As should people advertising flats for "Asians only".

bambu wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:bambu, What's your answer then ?

Answer to what, exactly...the failure of multiculturalism?
If that, ...

. Massive immigration should be halted.
. All illegal immigrants should be deported.
. All Sharia law courts should be abolished..."One law here, and one set of courts...British law and British courts".
Multicultural ghettos should be made obey British culture and British laws...no 'no-go zones' for 'Whites/non-same race as the ghetto-dwellers' allowed.
Anyone erecting "No Whites after 7pm" signs as reported from Alum Rock Birmingham...should be found and prosecuted.

If it's good enough to toss Emma West in prison without a trial on the strength of a YouTube video, then it's good enough to arrest and prosecute "Preachers of hate" for saying "all homosexuals should be stoned to death" etc.

bambu, I take it you are a member of the BNP ?

Nah, but I'd be joing the EDL if I lived in England.

Oh, and multiculturalism has been a dismal failure in Australia as well.

You are not promoting the EDL, with its history of unprovoked violence against non-white people, on this forum. Therefore your link has been removed. Ivan.

"Oh, and multiculturalism has been a dismal failure in Australia as well."

But that's OK because politicians have apologised for being beastly to the abbos all that time.

Now where were we before Tosh so neatly derailed the thread's discussion?

bambu wrote:Nah, but I'd be joing the EDL if I lived in England.

Oh, and multiculturalism has been a dismal failure in Australia as well.

You are not promoting the EDL, with its history of unprovoked violence against non-white people, on this forum. Therefore your link has been removed. Ivan.

And therein lies a perfect example of why Britain is like it is today.

Jesus Christ, I suppose we could all walk around with our blonde haired blue eyed kids and eat pie and mash and sing about how we used to rule the world. But thankfully most of us have more than one brain cell! The EDL are a bunch of brain dead thugs! Fine stock they are! Yes indeed!

oftenwrong wrote:"Oh, and multiculturalism has been a dismal failure in Australia as well."

But that's OK because politicians have apologised for being beastly to the abbos all that time.

Now where were we before Tosh so neatly derailed the thread's discussion?

"Abbos" is racist.

Adele Carlyon wrote:Jesus Christ, I suppose we could all walk around with our blonde haired blue eyed kids and eat pie and mash and sing about how we used to rule the world. But thankfully most of us have more than one brain cell! The EDL are a bunch of brain dead thugs! Fine stock they are! Yes indeed!

I don't see anyone else much defending British culture, British law etc from those who would take it all away.
Well besides the EDL, BNP, Britain First and their ilk that is.
Standing against with those abusing Britain's war heroes.
They're the ones I see in the streets fighting against the haters hurling abuse at British troops...and the haters who were burning poppies and screaming out "British troops burn in hell", "British troops terrorists" at Remembrance Day ceremonies.

As it showed in the Youtube video I posted "60 Minutes, EDL and Oz"...down at Fleet St, "the comfortable middle class are signing up[to the EDL]"..."a judge, a trader, a barrister, an IT expert, a journalist" etc...the actual people shown.
Seems many Britons now agree with their Prime Minister.

Who was it protesting in the streets [although small in number, but very symbolic, with their "Taking Our Country Back" placards and flags when Emma West was arrested and tossed in prison just before last Christmas for her allegedly racist rant/verbal stoush on the tram?

"Britain First" it was...mostly older folk.

Account suspended pending review by the moderation team. Ivan.

"Abbos" is racist."

Comical, emanating from an obvious racist, but actually it's satire, bambu.


sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr] noun
The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

oftenwrong wrote:"Abbos" is racist."

Comical, emanating from an obvious racist, but actually it's satire, bambu.


sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr] noun
The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

Who were the 7/7 bombers, and from where did they spring?

I can't share the same space as someone who's singing the praises of the BNP and the EDL. It kind of turns my stomach. What with his racist rants and that other muppet the monkey, you have your work cut out for you Ivan.