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 bobby Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:52 pm

Ivan, all of those New Labour achievements you very kindly listed must have been Tory, as our Ancient Saxon Knight knows for a fact and keeps telling us that Blair and Brown where closet Tories.

by bobby Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:07 pm

Ivanhoe said: bobby, I dont regard means testing workers and pensioners for handouts paid for by the very same workers taxation as moving forward.

Ivanhoe. just what kind of a Socialist are you, isn't that a large part of what

Socialism is all about. Taking a bit more from those with to assist those without to exist. Believe me you wouldn’t want my Tax Bill, but I am quite happy to see a chunk of it going to all of the Socialist benefits. The pot is only so big, and when you pay those who do not need the same as you pay those who do need simply because they paid into it, those without will continue to get an unfair deal, so thank the lord their aren’t too many Labour supporters who think like you, mind you I’m sure there are plenty of wealthy Tories that like and will (to use your favourite term) embrace you idea.

What means testing does is to find those who need help and can stop those who don’t need help from getting it even though they have paid into the Tax System.

by Ivanhoe Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:48 pm

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe said: bobby, I dont regard means testing workers and pensioners for handouts paid for by the very same workers taxation as moving forward.

Ivanhoe. just what kind of a Socialist are you, isn't that a large part of what

Socialism is all about. Taking a bit more from those with to assist those without to exist. Believe me you wouldn’t want my Tax Bill, but I am quite happy to see a chunk of it going to all of the Socialist benefits. The pot is only so big, and when you pay those who do not need the same as you pay those who do need simply because they paid into it, those without will continue to get an unfair deal, so thank the lord their aren’t too many Labour supporters who think like you, mind you I’m sure there are plenty of wealthy Tories that like and will (to use your favourite term) embrace you idea.

What means testing does is to find those who need help and can stop those who don’t need help from getting it even though they have paid into the Tax System.

bobby, please enlighten me if you know better, but arent the Nordic and European welfare States non means tested and paid for through higher income tax. ?

by skwalker1964 Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:09 pm

Ivan wrote:
New bloody Labour who were a shower..
Ivanhoe. Like you, I wish that the last Labour government had done more to reverse the insane Friedmanite policies which have infested our politics since 1979. However, let's keep things in perspective and consider what Labour did do and then compare it to the evil policies now being pursued by Tory headbangers trying to take us back to the Victorian era:-

- Uninterrupted economic growth from 1997 to 2008
- Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s
- Made Bank of England independent
- Home ownership up by more than a million
- Minimum wage introduced and increased
- Minimum Income Guarantee for working families
- Nearly 3 million more people in work since 1997
- ‘New Deal’ for young unemployed
- Entitlement to 28 days paid leave annually
- Trebled spending on NHS
- 85,000 more nurses and 32,000 more doctors
- Brought back matrons to hospital wards
- Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70
- Set up NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice
- More than doubled spending on education
- Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
- Nursery school entitlement for all three and four year olds
- Free fruit for most four to six year-olds at school
- Child benefit increased by 26% in real terms since 1997
- Set up Child Trust Funds
- Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard
- Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners
- Winter fuel payments to OAPs
- Free prescriptions and eye tests for everyone over the age of 60
- Free TV licences for over 75s
- Free bus passes for pensioners
- Reduced VAT on gas and electricity from 8% to 5%
- Cut standard rate of income tax from 23p in 1997 to 20p (lowest since the 1930s)
- Free admission to museums and galleries
- 14,000 more police
- Brokered peace in Northern Ireland
- Banned smoking in public places
- Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution
- Banned driving when using a mobile phone
- Abolished foxhunting
- Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals
- Introduced civil partnerships
- Restored city-wide government to London
- Cleared most hereditary peers out of House of Lords

Great list, Ivan. The only thing I'd take issue with is making the Bank of England independent. Independent central banks have tended to be a classic neoliberal goal - it sets finance and fiscal policy out of the reach of democratically-elected governments, and therefore out of reach of the people's influence and wishes. Since they are, by definition, run by people with a 'pedigree' of high international finance more closely-linked to other international financiers and institutions than to the people they nominally serve, this means that the chances for any genuinely radical, more socially-responsible policies and measures are extremely slim.

by bobby Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:07 pm

Ivanhoe said; bobby, please enlighten me if you know better, but arent the Nordic and European welfare States non means tested and paid for through higher income tax. ?

I can not enlighten you on something I don't know about. perhaps now seeing you may have done some research, you could give us the link.

I see you have bugger all to say about the Social Chapter. Or Ivan's long list of New Labours Achievements, all you can carp on about are Free market trading and means testing, both of which have there place.

by blueturando Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:14 am

Blair and New Labour actually did very well up until the Iraq war and also when Brown took over office. I do not believe he was thatcherite, but he was fully aware that you cannot just have policies and appeal to a very small part of the UKs population (IE the ultra left) He therefore embraced the free market while making policy and social changes that were lacking from the previous Tory administration.

To be able to afford a strong public sector you have to allow the private sector to grow and flourish...The money has to come from somewhere. If a governemnt just keeps on icreasing taxes, then people dont spend and poverty will just keep on growing. Taxing at 80% of a smaller and smaller figure does not bring in more money to spend

As for Balls....well me and every other Tory is praying that Ed Miliband keeps him where he is. Balls may get up Osbournes nose but keep get up the majority of the publics noses even more and that will do just fine for me. If Ed brings in his brother or Darling to the shadow treasury position then Cameron and co will be panicking big time. Evette Cooper is actually pretty competent and head and shoulders above her husband when it comes to politics and public perception.

The biggest hope for Cameron is that Miliband does return to the 'Traditional' Labour ideas of the left, because the voting public have no appetite for it

by **Ivan** Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:57 am

me and every other Tory

blueturando. What makes you think the Labour Party wants advice from its enemies?? Shocked

keep get up the majority of the publics noses…….. the voting public have no appetite for it

Since when have you been a pollster? Is this what 'The Daily Mail' is peddling these days? What evidence do you have that a large number of voters don’t want a return to the traditional Labour values of a strong welfare state from the cradle to the grave and an NHS that is run for patients and not private profit?

To be able to afford a strong public sector you have to allow the private sector to grow and flourish...

Another Tory myth. There is no reason that the state cannot create jobs. In any case, it is often government contracts, financed with public money, which provides work in the private sector. I note that the serial liar Cameron is boasting of lots of new private sector jobs (most of which are low-paid and part-time), but it transpires that many of them are just jobs that have been transferred from the public sector.

If a governemnt just keeps on icreasing taxes, then people dont spend and poverty will just keep on growing

It depends on who you tax. Rich people don’t spend all of their money, often stashing it away in off-shore accounts where it does this country no good whatsoever. On the other hand, reducing taxes and increasing income for the poor guarantees growth in the economy, because the poor will spend. The reason that poverty keeps on growing is because this lunatic government is throwing people out of work who could otherwise be paying tax and spending. Try reading up about ‘the paradox of thrift’, you might learn something:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t646-keynes-friedman-and-the-paradox-of-thrift-who-is-right

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:08 am

Ivan wrote: ....reducing taxes and increasing income for the poor guarantees growth in the economy, because the poor will spend. The reason that poverty keeps on growing is because this lunatic government is throwing people out of work who could otherwise be paying tax and spending.

Growth in the economy also relies upon the ready provision of Credit facilities, which are of limited value to the unemployed.

by Redflag Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:42 am

Ivanhoe wrote:Redflag, Actually my efforts are going nationwide on the internet with other people.

And we arent talking about the coalition, we are talking about New bloody Labour who were a shower.

Yes Ivanhow NL did get things wrong, try putting yourself in Labour and Tony Blair's place thatcher had been in for ages and even the the most UNFAIREST tax on the people of the UK people still voted her back in, so Labour knew there had too be a way to get them back into power not unless you would rather of had more of bloody Thatcher.

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:26 am

Redflag wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:Redflag, Actually my efforts are going nationwide on the internet with other people.

And we arent talking about the coalition, we are talking about New bloody Labour who were a shower.

Yes Ivanhow NL did get things wrong, try putting yourself in Labour and Tony Blair's place thatcher had been in for ages and even the the most UNFAIREST tax on the people of the UK people still voted her back in, so Labour knew there had too be a way to get them back into power not unless you would rather of had more of bloody Thatcher.

Good point Redflag, but in my view, Labour should have kept it's true colours, and let the voters of this country face the consequences of where they put their cross.

by blueturando Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:30 pm

blueturando. What makes you think the Labour Party wants advice from its enemies??

Ivan.....Its not advice, it's just my opinion....just like you have many opinions on the Tories. This is a thread on where Labour should position itself and I have given my opinion, as is usual on a discussion forum.

But! You have to wonder why the polls have Labour lagging behind the Tories (Coalition) when the public are asked who you trust on the economy, when they are significantly ahead in the overall polls

Since when have you been a pollster? Is this what 'The Daily Mail' is peddling these days? What evidence do you have that a large number of voters don’t want a return to the traditional Labour values of a strong welfare state from the cradle to the grave and an NHS that is run for patients and not private profit?

As much as you hate it, there is huge support out there for reforms to the welfare state and most of the polls carried out show this. I know you are against this, so I expect the denials.

Yes the state can create jobs and in the past it has been guilty of creating 'non' jobs with wierd and wonderful job titles that mean very little. These salaries have to be paid for tax revenue comes from the private sector. Yes public sector empoyees pay tax, but the money to pay them originally comes from the private sector....Its not rocket science

I am familiar with both Keynes and Friedman and belive neither were right as they are at the extreme ends of the spectrum

by KnarkyBadger Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:40 pm

The public are being brainwashed by tory and lib-dem lies and propaganda. When the cuts begin to bite them they'll wake up. Labour needs to save its soul and be on the left not trying to out nasty the nasty party.

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:55 pm

KnarkyBadger wrote:The public are being brainwashed by tory and lib-dem lies and propaganda. When the cuts begin to bite them they'll wake up. Labour needs to save its soul and be on the left not trying to out nasty the nasty party.

Absolutely. We British are like bloody sheep.

by **astradt1** Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:56 pm

Why do the Labour party keep being asked what they would do if they came in to power in over two years time?

Cameron is not asked why he is waiting for so many of his plans are for 4 years time and what does he expect to happen if his party are not in government.....

Remember the Troy's keep going on about not realising how 'bad' things were when they got managed to con their was in.....

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:04 pm

astradt1 wrote:Why do the Labour party keep being asked what they would do if they came in to power in over two years time?

Cameron is not asked why he is waiting for so many of his plans are for 4 years time and what does he expect to happen if his party are not in government.....

Remember the Troy's keep going on about not realising how 'bad' things were when they got managed to con their was in.....

I hope and prey that Ed Milliband will show his true colours within this year, if not sooner.

by skwalker1964 Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:16 pm

astradt1 wrote:Why do the Labour party keep being asked what they would do if they came in to power in over two years time?

Cameron is not asked why he is waiting for so many of his plans are for 4 years time and what does he expect to happen if his party are not in government.....

Remember the Troy's keep going on about not realising how 'bad' things were when they got managed to con their was in.....

Was listening to the 'Weekly Parliamentary Review' on podcast this morning. They were discussing the issue of whether Labour were suffering by not outlining more policies now. The right-winger (of course) said yes, blah blah, no ideas, blah blah.

But the rest, including a supposed expert on political strategy said they'd be insane to publish firm plans 2 years before the election and give the Tories time to work out their attacks and undermine the ideas in the public perception. He also pointed out that Cameron, in opposition, waited until much nearer the election before coming out with anything firm.

Of course, he then broke most of those anyway, but that's another story..

by Redflag Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:22 pm

skwalker1964 wrote:
astradt1 wrote:Why do the Labour party keep being asked what they would do if they came in to power in over two years time?

Cameron is not asked why he is waiting for so many of his plans are for 4 years time and what does he expect to happen if his party are not in government.....

Remember the Troy's keep going on about not realising how 'bad' things were when they got managed to con their was in.....

Was listening to the 'Weekly Parliamentary Review' on podcast this morning. They were discussing the issue of whether Labour were suffering by not outlining more policies now. The right-winger (of course) said yes, blah blah, no ideas, blah blah.

But the rest, including a supposed expert on political strategy said they'd be insane to publish firm plans 2 years before the election and give the Tories time to work out their attacks and undermine the ideas in the public perception. He also pointed out that Cameron, in opposition, waited until much nearer the election before coming out with anything firm.

Of course, he then broke most of those anyway, but that's another story..

I have always thought that Cameron is in need of some ideas because he has none of his own, that is the reason trying to get Ed Miliband to tell him what will be in the Labour Manifesto and Ed is not biting so I hope that Ed keeps there ideas close to his chest until the time comes to announce them to the UK public.

by blueturando Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:33 pm

But the rest, including a supposed expert on political strategy said they'd be insane to publish firm plans 2 years before the election and give the Tories time to work out their attacks and undermine the ideas in the public perception. He also pointed out that Cameron, in opposition, waited until much nearer the election before coming out with anything firm

Skywalker.....I know as a Tory my opinion counts for little, but I do not believe that Miliband has to outline firm economic policies for 2015 because no one knows what state the economy will be in by then and what funds are available....but he should be outlining Labours values and principles on the economy in much stronger language.

The economy is what most British people worry about the most and at the moment its only the Coalition who has shown plans or ideas (good or bad)on how to deal with this. So this is the only guide for many swing/floating voters. How can these people say they trust Labour on the economy when they having nothing to go on?

Some posters are going to have to get over their 'right wing' press conspiracy theories as its just comes across as playing the blame game for your own short comings. Many right wingers would say the press is bias to the left and they're wrong too.

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:22 pm

bluey, Lets build council houses, bring back manufacturing, introduce a decent minimum wage, return industry, secure pensioners a decent State pension income, thus putting money in people's pockets and then watch our economy grow.

by KnarkyBadger Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:00 pm

Ivanhoe wrote:bluey, Lets build council houses, bring back manufacturing, introduce a decent minimum wage, return industry, secure pensioners a decent State pension income, thus putting money in people's pockets and then watch our economy grow.

A dangerous Socialist option that! I agree entirely

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:04 pm

KnarkyBadger wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:bluey, Lets build council houses, bring back manufacturing, introduce a decent minimum wage, return industry, secure pensioners a decent State pension income, thus putting money in people's pockets and then watch our economy grow.

A dangerous Socialist option that! I agree entirely

A civilised country would make sure it built housing for people to rent if they cant afford to buy. A minimum wage is also civilised. We need long term jobs, only manufacturing and industry returned can achieve this. And we need a much higher State pension for our elderly people.

If this is socialism so be it. To me its fairness and common sense

by KnarkyBadger Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:09 pm

Alas I doubt it will happen. The rich will bitch or refuse to pay their share for a crisis they made so it will fall on the poor, both working and not to pay the bill.

by blueturando Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:10 pm

Its a brilliant option and I and many others could think of a few more to add to the list...All nice to haves.....but now please tell us all how this can be achieved in the present domestic and global financial enevironment

by blueturando Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:12 pm

Knarky.....What would you like to the rich to do? Gives us some figures, possibly ones that will not make them run for the hills. Oh and when you say the rich caused this crisis, is that all wealthy people or just the banking industry?

by bobby Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:55 pm

Ivanhoe wrote: only manufacturing and industry returned can achieve this. And we need a much higher State pension for our elderly people.

And if we did ever return to being a manufacturing Nation, just where would we flog off our wares without then having you scweeming and scweeming until you are sick, they are embracing "Thatcher’s free market" again. Really Ivanhoe, they couldn’t win with you no matter what they did.

You want a higher minimum wage, higher pensions more houses built, but constantly fail to tell us as to where the cash comes from. The Welfare State without the ability to earn becomes a massive burden and can not be sustained, which is why I think this Government is encouraging the economy to fail, in order to implement their ideological policies. Trading goods for cash will pay for the benefits of a Welfare State, and for that we need a free Market to trade in, not a market full of restraints that can only hinder business.

We need a mix of both Socialist and Capitalist policies to ever be able to carry ourselves in this world, what we don't need is for the Tories to do everything they can for only their rich mates, or a Labour Party who only look after the interest of those lower down.

by bobby Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:04 pm

Knarky.....What would you like to the rich to do? Gives us some figures, possibly ones that will not make them run for the hills. Oh and when you say the rich caused this crisis, is that all wealthy people or just the banking industry?

Hello Bluey, I can not go along with that, as if there is money to be earned and those who now do that business decided to bugger off, someone else will step into the breech.
If I had a business and employed 1,000,000 people and each person netted me £10 per day, and my tax burden went up by £2 per day, it would still be more than worth my while to keep trading. My point is this. If Mr Starbuck or any other buisnessman had to pay a bit more in tax, so long as they are in proffit they will continue.
All this they will go abroad is just another load of Tory scaremongering, and quite frankly not worth reading let alone taking notice of.

by Redflag Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:11 pm

blueturando wrote:Knarky.....What would you like to the rich to do? Gives us some figures, possibly ones that will not make them run for the hills. Oh and when you say the rich caused this crisis, is that all wealthy people or just the banking industry?

You and I know blue it was the bloody banking sector right across that rotten sector that caused the problems of today, and if your wondering why people are so enraged just take a good hard look at who is paying the bloody price people in work having to depend on food banks so that there families do not go hungry, As for the rich the ones that refuse to pay there CORRECT amount of tax because they can afford to employ accountants to lesson there tax where as the person that pays there tax by P.A.Y.E. can not but maybe they need to pool there money to pay an accountant to FIDDLE the amount that they have to pay.

While the majority of people pay there FULL AMOUNT it is IMMORAL for the dick heads that get off scot free from pay there's.

I hope this explains the reason for the anger within the UK.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:17 pm

Such discussions almost always propose that someone else should meet the expense. The difference between Socialism and the Tories is that the first type of administration will try to provide at least a minimum standard of dignified existence for the population, whilst a Tory Government will take shelter behind, "Not our job!"

by Redflag Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:10 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Such discussions almost always propose that someone else should meet the expense. The difference between Socialism and the Tories is that the first type of administration will try to provide at least a minimum standard of dignified existence for the population, whilst a Tory Government will take shelter behind, "Not our job!"

Or OW do not dare ask our donors to pay the correct amount of tax, that would effect our party funds and our voters could not afford to pay there kids fees at Eton.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:18 pm

And where should the Tory Party position itself?

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1) - Page 19 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3NyP0nJPeB_Y8fcA7ofnGnxb-J5D2R10uyHle80fjVjpGUuVZ

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1) - Page 19 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3NyP0nJPeB_Y8fcA7ofnGnxb-J5D2R10uyHle80fjVjpGUuVZ

(victorianplumbing.co.uk)

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:30 pm

Phil Hornby wrote: And where should the Tory Party position itself?

(victorianplumbing.co.uk)

May I pull the chain ?/lever ?, flush ?

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:36 pm

Of course! Provided you aren't a water-closet Tory... Very Happy

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:41 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:Of course! Provided you aren't a water-closet Tory...

Course I am, "lol"

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:02 pm

In that case , you can bog off... Very Happy

by skwalker1964 Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:10 pm

blueturando wrote:
But the rest, including a supposed expert on political strategy said they'd be insane to publish firm plans 2 years before the election and give the Tories time to work out their attacks and undermine the ideas in the public perception. He also pointed out that Cameron, in opposition, waited until much nearer the election before coming out with anything firm

Skywalker.....I know as a Tory my opinion counts for little, but I do not believe that Miliband has to outline firm economic policies for 2015 because no one knows what state the economy will be in by then and what funds are available....but he should be outlining Labours values and principles on the economy in much stronger language.

The economy is what most British people worry about the most and at the moment its only the Coalition who has shown plans or ideas (good or bad)on how to deal with this. So this is the only guide for many swing/floating voters. How can these people say they trust Labour on the economy when they having nothing to go on?

Some posters are going to have to get over their 'right wing' press conspiracy theories as its just comes across as playing the blame game for your own short comings. Many right wingers would say the press is bias to the left and they're wrong too.

Blue, the value of your opinion to me is directly proportional to the reasoning and supporting evidence you put forward for it, just as anyone else's is.

We happen to agree on this occasion - I believe Labour should be far more vociferous in presenting Labour principles (not policy at this stage), and in dismantling/refuting Tory assertions & arguments.

Where we will no doubt disagree is on the Coalition 'blame game'. Confronted by the 'inherited mess' mantra, Labour leaders seem to think that silence is the best policy. I think they should by aggressively showing it for the nonsense that it is, as many will assume that if they don't refute it, it must be true. If necessary, they should run nationwide billboard ads along the lines of the ads the Tories ran just before the 1% debate, putting forward the hard facts on the economy, the reasons for the debt (the bank bailout) and the fact that Cameron and the Tories voted for that bailout.

Passivity is a bad idea.

by boatlady Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:12 pm

I know everyone says workfare is a bad thing, but just imagine --- if the government paid a living wage for unemployed (or under employed) people to work at proper jobs, doing things the community needs like --- oh I don't know --- building houses? providing child care so parents can go out to work? providing employment services for school leavers? --- fill in the gaps - sure you can all think of other worthwhile work we need doing to give us a civilised life and a stable future --- why isn't that a possibility?

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:41 pm

Phil Hornby wrote: In that case , you can bog off...

i think you talk "crap".

by skwalker1964 Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:43 pm

blueturando wrote:Knarky.....What would you like to the rich to do? Gives us some figures, possibly ones that will not make them run for the hills. Oh and when you say the rich caused this crisis, is that all wealthy people or just the banking industry?

If they ran for the hills because they don't want to pay their taxes, why would we miss them?

It's supply & demand - if the wealthiest leave because they can't stand to be fractionally less wealthy, someone else will take the opportunity and fill the void created by their leaving. Quite possibly several someones - and all (since they're still here) ready to pay their taxes.

And hey presto, a more diverse, healthier economy, with wealth less concentrated in the hands of a very few.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:49 pm

One of the unfortunate truths about politics is that where a party positions itself is not just dependent upon what it is truly right for it to do. There is also the ever-present need to make itself electable, so that it has a chance to carry out its policies in the first place .

Accordingly, principles have to be conditoned by pragmatism - 'the art of the possible'. This state of affairs is driven by the relative immaturity of the electors, who are always more than prepared to shoot the messenger...

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:22 pm

Voter apathy has skewed election results since the beginning of the 21st. Century.

http://ukpolitical.info/turnout45.htm

by blueturando Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:50 pm

I know everyone says workfare is a bad thing, but just imagine --- if the government paid a living wage for unemployed (or under employed) people to work at proper jobs, doing things the community needs like --- oh I don't know --- building houses? providing child care so parents can go out to work? providing employment services for school leavers? --- fill in the gaps - sure you can all think of other worthwhile work we need doing to give us a civilised life and a stable future --- why isn't that a possibility?

In principle Boatlady this is not a bad idea, but unfortunately as we have seen in the past certain employers will use this as cheap labour knowing salaries will be topped up by the government...The only people who will and have previously benefited from such schemes are the owners and shareholders.
Its the same as housing benefit...I am sure these landlords would not have rents at such high levels if there was NO government assistance and people couldn't afford to pay what they are charging. Property is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, or it lays empty and no landlords would be prepared to have that happen

by Sponsored content