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 astra Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:00 pm

When I was working a few years ago now, deductions came to about 26% - 33% of the paypacket. So, that would make a take home (NET) pay of £26,000 be worth around £39,000 Gross.

It makes me quite sick to think that I was crawling out of bed at 0300hrs for £22,000 Gross and thought I was well orft!

I have no qualms about sick ill people getting help to this value as electricity and gas can run away with money, especially if the heating has to be turned higher or a kidney dialasis machine lives in the spare bedroom.

by Penderyn Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:06 pm

The thieves are counting family allowance as parental income, of course. Obviously the poor and the sick should be starved to death, especially the children: how else will we be able to afford keeping totally useless bankers and CEOs in the style to which they have become accustomed?

by blueturando Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:06 pm

I gree Astra....We have a moral duty of care for our fellow citizens and in cases that you mentioned money should never come into it.....

But I can also see how many people would be very upset at others receiving the equivalent of 39k, while others like you work your balls/tits off for a fraction of that...and then have to pay tax and N.I. on top of that too

by Redflag Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:11 pm

blueturando wrote:I gree Astra....We have a moral duty of care for our fellow citizens and in cases that you mentioned money should never come into it.....

But I can also see how many people would be very upset at others receiving the equivalent of 39k, while others like you work your balls/tits off for a fraction of that...and then have to pay tax and N.I. on top of that too

Can you show me the average joe that gets a yearly salary of between £35,000 and £39,000 per year maybe mangers but not the normal man on the street IN WORK.

by astra Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:13 pm

and then have to pay tax and N.I. on top of that too

The bit that really chokes me nowadays is benefit recievers get a pension even if they did not take the "Responsible route" and save for retirement.

Oh yes I will get a pension, but any savings are taken into account and deductions made accordingly.

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:35 pm

astra wrote:
and then have to pay tax and N.I. on top of that too

The bit that really chokes me nowadays is benefit recievers get a pension even if they did not take the "Responsible route" and save for retirement.

Oh yes I will get a pension, but any savings are taken into account and deductions made accordingly.

The bit that really chokes me is that you see a raft of benefit cheats. I dont, I see a raft of people being made unemployed thankis to right wing Tory ideoligy, and a benefits system that pits man again man ( if you get my drift ), and some people fall for it all the time.

It's called means testing. And it's divisery.

by blueturando Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:41 pm

Penderyn.....Be Serious about the issues. Why are people who don't need the money receiving family allowance when that money could used for people who really need it?

by blueturando Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:45 pm

Can you show me the average joe that gets a yearly salary of between £35,000 and £39,000 per year maybe mangers but not the normal man on the street IN WORK

Exactly Redflag....That's the point.....To many working people a salary of 39k is completely out of reach, so woould it be more beneficial to them just to go on benefits to receive the equivalent of a 35-39k salary? Is that what ASTRA should have done instead of getting out of bed at 3am everyday to go to work for 22k?

by Penderyn Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:47 pm

Tax gives the best return on any spending I make. If I buy trade-goods from capitalists I have to pay for their political expenses.

by blueturando Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:49 pm

The bit that really chokes me is that you see a raft of benefit cheats. I dont, I see a raft of people being made unemployed thankis to right wing Tory ideoligy, and a benefits system that pits man again man

Unfortunately you seem to forget that their unemployed people all the way through the New Labour years and doesn't change the fact that the average working man or women is starting to feel cheated...that's why you have the resentment

by blueturando Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:52 pm

Tax gives the best return on any spending I make. If I buy trade-goods from capitalists I have to pay for their political expenses..

What the hell are you talking about???? Way off point...it doesn't even make sense

by Penderyn Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:01 pm

blueturando wrote:
Tax gives the best return on any spending I make. If I buy trade-goods from capitalists I have to pay for their political expenses..

What the hell are you talking about???? Way off point...it doesn't even make sense

Not to you, doubtless, because you are not into thinking. For every identical piece of piss I buy from the thieves I have to pay a huge torytax to pay for their advertising, and thus for their control of newspapers and thus for their control of their parliament. Grow up.

by blueturando Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:12 pm

Now back up that statement with some facts and not just delusional paranoia

by astra Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:25 pm

Ivanhoe said,

The bit that really chokes me is that you see a raft of benefit cheats. I dont, I see a raft of people being made unemployed thankis to right wing Tory

I have lived in this street now for 30 years, and I can assure you that the people who were unemployed in 1981 are STILL unemployed, and are not incapacitated in any way!

How do they manage it?

I am constantly getting check ups and reminders not to stray off the Gubmint prescribed yellow brick road!

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:48 pm

Clearly most of the commentators here are Male. The point of child allowance is that is payable to THE MOTHER of the household, and in many circumstances is the only income for which she is not dependant upon The Old Man. That's why it has always been universal and not means-tested. Up to now.

Clearly there are women fortunate enough not to need it. Equally clearly there are wealthy retired people who laugh when their pittance of a State Pension arrives. Similarly they would not dream of waiting to see an NHS Doctor alongside people they didn't even know socially.

But those exceptions are a spit in the ocean. The cost of sieving them out would exceed the savings. Child Allowance is what it sounds like - an amount of money set aside for children. What bloody fool denies help to millions in case a few don't actually need it?

by Ivanhoe Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:13 pm

astra wrote:Ivanhoe said,

The bit that really chokes me is that you see a raft of benefit cheats. I dont, I see a raft of people being made unemployed thankis to right wing Tory

I have lived in this street now for 30 years, and I can assure you that the people who were unemployed in 1981 are STILL unemployed, and are not incapacitated in any way!

How do they manage it?

I am constantly getting check ups and reminders not to stray off the Gubmint prescribed yellow brick road!

I take it your area is a hive of business and manufacturing with plenty of social housing at cheap rents and a decent minim wage then ?

by blueturando Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 pm

I have lived in this street now for 30 years, and I can assure you that the people who were unemployed in 1981 are STILL unemployed, and are not incapacitated in any way!
How do they manage it?

I take it your area is a hive of business and manufacturing with plenty of social housing at cheap rents and a decent minim wage then ?.

Ivanhoe.....Typical with you lot...you can never answer the question. Another inconvenient truth for you to deal with

by Penderyn Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:52 pm

blueturando wrote:Now back up that statement with some facts and not just delusional paranoia

I don't bother to prove the world is not flat. Those who believe that are too thick too listen. Do you think you don't pay large sums for advertising? Do you think that advertising payments don't give control of media? Do you think control of the media doesn't give control of your capitalist parliament? Do you think?

by witchfinder Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:18 pm

Allthough I am dissolutioned at Ed Miliband and the labour leadership, here is why decent and fair thinking people must never consider voting tory :

Tory MPs today dismissed business secretary Vince Cables plans to kerb excessive boardroom pay as "Liberal clap-trap" and "drivel", a number of tory back bench MPs heckled the business secretary when he said there must be greater transparency on boardroom salaries.

This is the true Conservative nature coming out, not opposed to the super rich from getting richer whilst making the road sweeper and lollypop lady redundant.

by **astradt1** Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:31 pm

I wonder how this limit of £26K per year is made up?

What is the housing benefit sum?
What is the job seekers allowance sum?
What is the Income support sum?

I wonder how they came up with the figure of £26K and not say £30K or £20K?

Can any one enlighten me?

by astra Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:19 pm

Ivanhoe, I am NOT a Tory (Spit) BUT if such a proclamation would ensure ongoing sarcy comments and bites then so mote it be! Very Happy

I take it your area is a hive of business and manufacturing with plenty of social housing at cheap rents and a decent minim wage then ?

You can see from the panel under my avtar where I live, and NO the Sir John Hall's and Alan Shearers are NOT my next door neighbours!

The Washington I live in is the original "Wessyngton" not to be confused with D.C.! (Even President Jimmy Carter knew the difference between the two on his visit during his tenure in office!) In 1980 this area that Washington now covers had 2 working pits in it's heyday there were over 60 pits in this little corner of County Durham alone. (Look up the Cecil Parker visit to this area in the 60's/70's)

I have watched the damage done to the area and the sacked miners, steelworkers and shipbuilders, and I have stayed in gainful, LEGAL employment. Factories have opened up, and the folk I am ridiculing all say they will NOT go to work, (QUOTE)as a back shift would interfere with their social lives!(UNQUOTE)

PS, when the Eddie Shah and Wopping thing was going down, we in the printing trade recieved NO help from Joe Gormley OR Arfah Scargill and the disruptive infiltrators from militant tendency Red Star or the British Communist Party who had ALL infiltrated the LAbour Party AND the National Union of Mineworkers. That the leaders of t he NUM and Labour had allowed this infiltration in the first place is disgusting. BUT then, was it not the heralded Kinnock himself who sent a missive to the Kremlin asking what kind of deal he would get from Russia if Labour won and gave up Nuclear Weapons?

Makes me wonder if Salmond has done ? tried the same deal. I would certainly ask him if I had the chance!

by astra Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:22 pm

What is the housing benefit sum?
What is the job seekers allowance sum?
What is the Income support sum?

Hello Astradt,

I have heard that Choudary is in a Mansion in London somewhere getting £34,000 rent payed by us a year
Job seekers is about £60,00 per week for a grown man
no idea about income support.

"THE Government has admitted it is powerless to stop hate cleric Anjem Choudary claiming £25,740 a year in state handouts.

The Sun told yesterday how the Muslim extremist, who lives in a £320,000 house, racks up £15,600 a year in housing benefit.

He also gets £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 in income support and £3,120 in child benefits".

by **Ivan** Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:23 pm

This is the true Conservative nature coming out, not opposed to the super rich from getting richer whilst making the road sweeper and lollypop lady redundant.

In a nutshell, excellent analysis.

by astra Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:35 pm

Hello Ivan

Is there some way that the Libs can wriggle out of this coalition? Liek now? you know, start a ball rolling! This of the Torys heckling Cable (OK not a bad sport in itself Very Happy

) but the Torys are becoming too comfortable and require a wake up call. They did not get power on their own merit and if the support were withdrawn, then the whole thing goes tits up and we get to vote again. This may be the only course for the Libs as a last sign of a crumbling backbone

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:43 pm

"A week is a long time in Politics"
H. Wilson

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:19 am

I don't bother to prove the world is not flat. Those who believe that are too thick too listen. Do you think you don't pay large sums for advertising? Do you think that advertising payments don't give control of media? Do you think control of the media doesn't give control of your capitalist parliament? Do you think?.

Penderyn........Nope you dont get off that easy. Please give us some examples of what youre talking about or it would appear you are just making things up as you go long

by bobby Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:16 am

Please give us some examples of what youre talking about or it would appear you are just making things up as you go long.

Wot like the arseholes in the Tory led Coalition do when making policy disisions.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, but then I suppose the pot and the kettle do serve a purpose.

There you are bluey, now you can accuse me of being Paranoid again!.

by **astradt1** Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:26 am

"THE Government has admitted it is powerless to stop hate cleric Anjem Choudary claiming £25,740 a year in state handouts.

The Sun told yesterday how the Muslim extremist, who lives in a £320,000 house, racks up £15,600 a year in housing benefit.

He also gets £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 in income support and £3,120 in child benefits".

So this "cleric" receives £160 per week to live on......

His landlord receives £15600 a year in taxpayer benefits........

I wonder what the value of 10 or 11 Downing Street is and what would the market rent be on them?

The Maximum housing benefit level allowed to be claimed is £17,400....

Interestingly the Maximum MP's Second Home allowance is £17,400.........

by Penderyn Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:32 pm

blueturando wrote:
I don't bother to prove the world is not flat. Those who believe that are too thick too listen. Do you think you don't pay large sums for advertising? Do you think that advertising payments don't give control of media? Do you think control of the media doesn't give control of your capitalist parliament? Do you think?.

Penderyn........Nope you dont get off that easy. Please give us some examples of what youre talking about or it would appear you are just making things up as you go long

You can go to an observatory and ask them to show you planets and pictures of the earth which will help you with the matter. Daddy's busy!

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:42 pm

Well there's the issue Penderyn......

There seems to be a lot of wild statements flying around on this forum from mainly Labour supporters, but you and they cannot seem to back it up or you moan about things that are also equally true about Labour.....This is of course an inconvenient truth and therefore silence decends on the thread or the subject is quickly changed.....funny that!

Anyway I guess we are going to get nowhere so I will leave you to make up another wild rant or two when you're not so busy

by sickchip Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:43 pm

astradt1 wrote:I wonder how this limit of £26K per year is made up?

What is the housing benefit sum?
What is the job seekers allowance sum?
What is the Income support sum?

I wonder how they came up with the figure of £26K and not say £30K or £20K?

Can any one enlighten me?

Let me help to clarify.

If an unemployed couple were getting £26,000 in benefits they would receive £105pw themselves, and the rest would be paid direct to their landlord. The £105pw they receive would have to pay for gas/electric, other bills (phone, etc), travel, food, and clothing.

Personal living allowances remain the same - £67.50 single adult and £105 for a couple (JSA). The cap concerns housing benefit......one persons rent might be £100pw and another persons might be £200pw.

by **astradt1** Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:28 pm

There seems to be a lot of wild statements flying around

What like benefit recipients get more than £26,000 a year?

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:00 pm

What like benefit recipients get more than £26,000 a year?.

Well if there are not any getting more than 26k per year no one will mind if the cap is set at level then would they?

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:13 pm

There cannot be any political or social obligation to house claimants at public expense where they would like to live, simply because it's a nice place.

Where's the logic in subsidising private landlords? The homeless deserve shelter, but in the type of property appropriate to their station, as the Victorians so quaintly put it.

There would be a lot more sense in subsidising Nurses, Firemen, Police and other essential personnel to live in Central London or similar locations.

by blueturando Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:59 pm

Good post OW......Now this I agree with.

All this hoohah about the benefit cap and most of the money is going to greedy landlords.......So!!! Will this cap force said landlords to reduce their rents, because the rest of the general public would certainly not pay their sky high rates

by astra Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:07 pm

Will this cap force said landlords to reduce their rents,

Can you see Cameron telling this to the Duke of Westminster?

Would said Peer of the Realm wear it?

by Penderyn Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:08 pm

blueturando wrote:Well there's the issue Penderyn......

There seems to be a lot of wild statements flying around on this forum from mainly Labour supporters, but you and they cannot seem to back it up or you moan about things that are also equally true about Labour.....This is of course an inconvenient truth and therefore silence decends on the thread or the subject is quickly changed.....funny that!

Anyway I guess we are going to get nowhere so I will leave you to make up another wild rant or two when you're not so busy

Sorry - there just seems no point whatever in talking to tories. It's nothing personal, just a matter of different planets. Here they don't appear sane. I'm sure it is different where they belong.

by Ivanhoe Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:11 pm

blueturando wrote:Good post OW......Now this I agree with.

All this hoohah about the benefit cap and most of the money is going to greedy landlords.......So!!! Will this cap force said landlords to reduce their rents, because the rest of the general public would certainly not pay their sky high rates

Bluey, if your hero Thatcher had not stopped building council houses in the 80's, the British would not be reliant on the greed ridden private landlord/ lady sector.

And no, this cap will force people and families onto the streets. great ey ?

by Ivanhoe Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:35 am

Britain needs social housing on mass, just like after the second World War. Britain needs a complete and national renewal, after over 30 years of right wing doctrine.

Under Thatcher we had a silent, subtle war on the working classes, because the rich were'nt effected, just the poor, as is now.

We need social housing for people who can't afford to buy, of which there are millions. We need to return an Industrial, and Manufacuring base to Britain, so people can have real sustainable jobs with a decent miniumum wage. This way people can indeed stand on their own two feet without being means tested for demeaning Tax Credits. Housing benefit ect, the means test is a trap.

We definately need higher State pensions for our elderly people, and for everybody else reaching retirement age, 60 for both men and woman. This means paying higher income tax, and NI contributions. If we want these things, we have to realise we have to pay for them. Private pensions and Health insurance are expensive and insecure. We can't have it both ways.

The unjust Council tax needs to be abolished and an appropriate income tax increase needs to be brought in across the board. We need to use much more of our gross national product to fund our vital services, even if this means cutting Third World aid, and fighting foreign wars, we need to produce again, and we need to continue our ties with Europe.

People in retirement should not have to pay income tax, they have already paid income tax when working.

We need to ditch the enterprise culture, because this gives way to greed and exploitation of the worst kind.

We need to adopt Europe's Social Charter which is a legalised framework preventing workers exploitation.

We need to remove any reasons for the British working man and woman to strike. Fairness must be the order of the day, which means consolidation all round between manufacturing, business, workers, and Unions.

Your views please ?

by blueturando Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:52 am

We need to ditch the enterprise culture, because this gives way to greed and exploitation of the worst kind.

Morning Ivanhoe.....This is the only flaw in your plan as without enterprise you would not be able to generate the funds you require for you social programme....Unless you have another plan that is?

by Ivanhoe Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:54 am

blueturando wrote:
We need to ditch the enterprise culture, because this gives way to greed and exploitation of the worst kind.

Morning Ivanhoe.....This is the only flaw in your plan as without enterprise you would not be able to generate the funds you require for you social programme....Unless you have another plan that is?

Morning Bluey, please read again my posting, it's all there, it's all covered.

by Sponsored content