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

First topic message reminder :

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

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

jackthelad wrote:By the way, Ed Miliband is my member of Parliament, I have been in touch with him about other concerns and he has replied or someone on his behalf. He said, now he and the Labour Party will listen to what people have to say, will it make a difference, I doubt it, he is a stick in the mud European in my opinion. If he changes his mind about Europe then all well and good, then there will be no need for to vote for UKIP. Still it will be interesting to see how many seats UKIP win in the European elections, quite a few if we can go on the council voting, I suppose there will be a low turn out for that too.

 
To a certain degree I do agree with you Jackthelad, I tend to think that Ed and the Labour party will go away with the results of the local and EU elections and have a big Conflab on what policies they will have to put into there 2015 Manifesto so that they win the 2015 general election, and since most of the people in the UK want a referendum on IN-OUT of the EU the Labour party will have to come out and offer one.
 
As I have said before Jackthelad be very carefull of what you wish for do not let Farage pull the wool over your eyes with  that ciggy in one hand and a pint in the other pretending to be something he is  DEINITELY NOT, he is nothing more than an EX Tory party member & EX City of London Dealer.   He is also more right wing than todays Tories if he gets into power the UK would go back to the days of what fills the pages of a Charles Dickens book.
 
I would of thought that anyone that lived in Ed Milibnds constituency would have easy access to his party office and could let there feelings be known to his staff in his constituency office who I would hope would pass on your and other Labour party members anger and frustration  at his preformance for the working people of the UK.

Statistically, the next General Election is still Labour's to lose. In the meantime it is unhelpful for fair-weather supporters to wail like a jilted bride.

The basic salary for MP'S is £67,000. Maybe mps in opposition should be paid a reduced amount of £47,000? Perhaps then the Labour party would get off their arses and actually provide decent opposition to this present government.......or perhaps half of them would walk away from politics and get other jobs - we'd soon see how little conviction / integrity many of these lazy career politicians have.

If Ed was a horse I wouldn't put my money on him. He already looks like an also ran.

Impossible to call at this stage, of course, but my gut tells me that Cameron will somehow squeeze back into power next year- perhaps with the help of a few shifty deals which he is currently vowing not to make, and with the benefit of poor old Miliband's inability to convince anyone about anything much.

Such a shame - to say the least - at a time when Labour should have been waltzing it...       

This round of election results are most interesting. But lets look at them in light of the UK now having a four party state and not a three partu state to start with. Ivan does indeed make a very fair point about us needing immigrants due to our falling birth rate.. Howver, there are many issues to come out of this other than this issue of a falling birth rate.
 
As there is a question mark over this whole issue of employers using low skilled overeseas immigrants to drive down wages within companies. Now, its this lie that all immigrants that are coming into the UK to fill in high skilled jobs that people really dislike in my view.. as its not very hard to find many low skilled immigants working in low paid jobs in cafes or your local factories.
 
Its this that is up-setting many working class people. Not immigants that are doctors or the like.. but immigants found working in low paid factory jobs or on the land picking veg. As these was the sort of Jobs that our own people once did. but what was these elections really about? Well for me it was about the economy and how people see themselves doing within it?  So it was more about empolyment laws and low wages and housing than about anything else.. but the main question from a left wing view point is can Labour party win in 2015? well yes they sure can? As the European elections was always going to be used by UKIP to high light immigants while playing on peoples fears about the Economy.
 
In the last round of European elections UKIP polled 17% but in the following General election there share of the vote fell to just 3% from 17%.. but lets say this time that they had 28% share of the vote and its falls in the general election to say 16% or less.. this in turn would mean we on the left would need only about 30% to 33% win. As when its a four party state the share of the votes for each party will indeed fall for each party. As this can be seen in just about every other state with Europe that has a four party state system.. but do we have problems with UKIP.. well yes we do.. but our loss of vote to them is nothing like the loss of votes the Tories or Lib/Dems face.. its my own view and based on a BBC Poll of UKIP Voters that we lost aout 7% of our vote to them in the North. As it is was clear from this poll that 7% of UKIP voters said they would beturn home to us come the general election.
 
But lets be clear about this.. the Labour party did not lose the council elections in 2014 at all.. we just did not win as many votes as we had hoped for at the start of this election.. did we lose the European election? Well no not really as we picked up seats on the 2010 elections.. but sure it could have been better for us.. but then all three parties would agree with that view point.. but is this the end of the world then? No its not.. can we win.. sure we can.. its all to play for and nothing has really changed in my view.. bar from this whole question of facing up to some home truths about   immigants and what we do about employment laws that favour low paid jobs while pricing out our own paeople from jobs they could do.. but we also need to face up to right wing policy that has used cheap unskilled  immigants to drive down wages while putting up rents..

The private care home, where I work, would not be able to function without immigrants, on a quick calculation there 18 Eastern European workers and that includes 5 qualified nurses out of the 10 they employ.......

Of course they advertise for workers but the carer jobs are all minimum pay and the hours expected are long (11 hour shifts) with staff being called in at short notice to cover for sickness, most of which comes from the non-immigrant workers......

I often hear the British workers complain that the immigrants get all the extra shifts but when they are asked to do them they refuse citing other arrangements........

yes i do agree with your point about care home staff astrad1. but i am sure you would agree i think that it has been also used to drive down wages within each area of work within our economy. its in turn hit many low income families very hard indeed. but i also believe that its poiticians cliams that all immigrants who are coming over here are highly skilled workers that is rubbing salt into the wounds of many working people. even more so when they know that many of these people are not being use[d as skill labour at all, but a cheap labour to drive down wages. as it make politicians sound as if they are indeed lying about this issue. as the real truth is i think is working class low paid people are getting feed up with year on year of low wages and not wage rises at all while a few are just getting richer from employing cheap immigrant workers.
 
its therefore dead easy for UKIP to tap into this fear and use it as a whole question of the UKs immigration policy and not the employment laws that are in-fact far too weak. this has not really been addressed at all. what is more working people are just watching poiticians come on TV and justifying it too them on the grounds of the economy. i have a factory near my own home and it goes out of its way to employe immigrants who they can hire in for the day and get shot of without any fear of paying them off.. whats more many  Agency workers know they are being ripped off as well and know they are being used by employers and know they are being used to drive down wages. they also know they are being blamed for this too. all of these is building up to same very nasty things happening between them and our people. but hey.. do the compaines care about this? Not at all..        

astrad1, and Ed

None of the above will do.

The only answer, though unpalatable to unfettered A-holes, is a radical overhaul of wage structures, redistribution of wealth, and fairer sharing of profit/reward.

Oops! Did I point at the effing elephant in the room?

Well sickchip i would also agree there needs to be a radical overhaul of wage structures and employment laws. however, to get this one will need to first elect a party that is willing to do this? UKIP are right wing Tories all in name? the tories will never do it.. the Lib/Dem will be dead for the next 30 years.. so that leaves you with the Labour party or Greens? well i know who i think would do it and its not the Greens

Ten reasons why Ed Miliband has to win in 2015

From an article by Owen Smith MP:-

We are ten months away from the most important general election for a generation. If Cameron’s Conservatives win, the fabric of our country will change so dramatically that progressive politics may never be able to fully repair the social and economic contract which has bound Britain together for much of the last 100 years. That isn’t hyperbole, it is a cold-eyed assessment of the malign ambition that the modern Tory party has for Britain, and of the duty we have to stop them.

1. The end of a truly national NHS in England.  
2. Insecurity and injustice at work will only increase.
3. The gap between London and the rest of the UK will continue to grow.  
4. Corporate power and poor practices in the City will go unchallenged.  
5. A Tory Britain will slide towards break-up, even when the Scottish referendum is won.
6. Isolation, then exit, from Europe beckons.  
7. Young people will see disinvestment and disillusion grow.  
8. Incompetence, injustice and inefficiency will remain the watchwords of a Tory-run welfare system.  
9. Climate change and concern for the environment will be dismissed, catalogued under ‘green crap’.  
10. Inequality will yawn ever wider, as the state shrinks smaller.

For the details of each of those ten points:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/07/ten-reasons-why-ed-miliband-has-win-2015

Yep - all the more reason to be depressed about Milly's inability to capture the imagination of the British public when he has such a huge target.     

The Tory Party can expect to receive support from all those who have absorbed the doctrine of "me first", but the great unknown is whether that majority of voters who have clearly become less well-off by Coalition activities during the past four years can recognise which side their bread is buttered, at the next Election.

Wise words, which we can but hope will resonate in the minds of the Great Voting Public...

Blair found a way...     

Tony Blair pandered to Rupert Murdoch and as a result received the support of 'The Sun'. Cameron did likewise and was lumbered with Coulson, Hunt and Gove as part of the deal for support (along with a promise about BSkyB). Creeping round Murdoch has also worked for Tony Abbott in Australia, and that country has now joined the club and been landed with a malevolent halfwit as PM.

In Blair's day, the BBC (whilst always fawning over royalty) wasn't as blatantly right-wing as it is now.

Yes, Blair had (and probably still has) more charisma than Ed Miliband but, with hindsight, is that necessarily the most important quality in a potential PM? Choosing a government shouldn't be on a par with selecting the winner of 'X Factor'.

I don't disagree with most of that ( not too sure about the extent in toto of BBC partiality ).

 But the fact is that Joe Public doesn't care for Miliband in sufficient measure to elect him. Fair or unfair, that will be the verdict...

I have just about enough confidence in the British electorate to believe they will elect Labour next year – at least by default – because things don’t smell right around Cameron. The amount of sleaze is reminiscent of the dying days of John Major’s regime. It was certainly easier for Blair then because Labour had been out of office for 18 years, not 5, and when you read articles like this you can see what we’re up against:-

No, Andy Coulson was not 'a criminal' when David Cameron hired him

From an article by Allan Massie:-

"Ed Miliband says that David Cameron brought a criminal into number 10, Downing Street…….When Mr Cameron invited Andy Coulson to be his press officer or spin doctor, Mr Coulson had not been charged with any crime, let alone convicted. Therefore he was then, in the eyes of the Law, an innocent man. Crimes may be committed, but nobody is a criminal till he has been tried in a court of law and found guilty……..I reckon Mr Miliband owes Mr Cameron an apology. I doubt if he will offer one."

The relevant exchange at PMQs (presumably on 25 June) is worth watching in my opinion:-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/allanmassie/100075417/no-andy-coulson-was-not-a-criminal-when-david-cameron-hired-him/

So according to Tory spin, you’re not a criminal when you commit crimes, only once you’re convicted. (Those beasts who killed Lee Rigby weren't criminals when they murdered him, according to this logic.) If you dare to suggest otherwise it shows bad judgement on your part – far worse judgement no doubt than that shown by a Tory PM who ignored multiple warnings about Coulson before taking him into the heart of government.

One thing upon which Ed Miliband has nailed his colours to the mast is upon any referendum on British membership of the EU, which has already been decided by the people we elected to represent us in parliament.

Things in this area will only get worse Ivan, by the time 7th May 2015 comes around they will have Ed Milibands as MUD they along with the Tory media know that they cannot depend on the people of the UK to vote Tory so they will do what they have always done and besmurge Eds name, so that no one will vote for Labour in the hope they will not be known as "The One Term Firm".

But it is likes of us on this forum to get the word out there and to tell the people of the UK EXACTLY what the Tories are trying to do and what they will do IF they get back into power in May 2015, we need to spell it out in all its harshness as Ivan has put on this post. 

oftenwrong wrote:One thing upon which Ed Miliband has nailed his colours to the mast is upon any referendum on British membership of the EU, which has already been decided by the people we elected to represent us in parliament.

If he comes out offerering a in/out referendum on the EU people will just say he is jumping on the bandwagon and this will not go down well with the voting public OW, Ed is answering the needs of most of the UK with policies on gas electric bills there standrds of living & zero hour contracts and there rights at work, private landlords ect. You may not think Ed is working this all out but there is a stratergy in what he is doing I would just say to all SUPPORT Ed and the Labour party because they are the only party that will give us a FAIR gov't for all and not just for the chosen few.

QUOTE: " Ed is answering the needs of most of the UK with policies on gas electric bills."

The Public Accounts Committee, chaired by Margaret Hodge, warns that the poorest consumers will be most affected by proposals to include extra charges of £250bn for improving the infrastructure of the energy companies.

Company shareholders no doubt think that this is entirely correct, as they are relieved of the responsibility for maintaining their own companies' assets.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/07/02/we-mustnt-force-the-poorest-to-pay-for-repairs-to-our-crumbling-infrastructure/

Surely Ed will not allow the private energy companies away with this one OW ?  I know the big six have lost plenty of customers and I will be following them in November when my contract runs out with SSE I will b going with one of the smaller companies who I think will give me a fair deal on my gas & electric.

Ivan wrote:Ten reasons why Ed Miliband has to win in 2015

From an article by Owen Smith MP:-

We are ten months away from the most important general election for a generation. If Cameron’s Conservatives win, the fabric of our country will change so dramatically that progressive politics may never be able to fully repair the social and economic contract which has bound Britain together for much of the last 100 years. That isn’t hyperbole, it is a cold-eyed assessment of the malign ambition that the modern Tory party has for Britain, and of the duty we have to stop them.

1. The end of a truly national NHS in England.  
2. Insecurity and injustice at work will only increase.
3. The gap between London and the rest of the UK will continue to grow.  
4. Corporate power and poor practices in the City will go unchallenged.  
5. A Tory Britain will slide towards break-up, even when the Scottish referendum is won.
6. Isolation, then exit, from Europe beckons.  
7. Young people will see disinvestment and disillusion grow.  
8. Incompetence, injustice and inefficiency will remain the watchwords of a Tory-run welfare system.  
9. Climate change and concern for the environment will be dismissed, catalogued under ‘green crap’.  
10. Inequality will yawn ever wider, as the state shrinks smaller.

For the details of each of those ten points:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/07/ten-reasons-why-ed-miliband-has-win-2015

that's great, but why then has the Labour party supported almost everything this government has done? Miliband is part of the problem. Balls is part of the problem. They are wedded to the same economic paradigm as the tories. They refuse to support protest, they refuse to support industrial action, they refuse to vote against the government. Rachel Reeves even pledges to be tougher than the tories!

Redflag wrote:Surely Ed will not allow the private energy companies away with this one OW ?  I know the big six have lost plenty of customers and I will be following them in November when my contract runs out with SSE I will b going with one of the smaller companies who I think will give me a fair deal on my gas & electric.

He doesn't support nationalisation which is the only answer.

I bet all the tea in china that there will be another price hike next year - even though there's an election next year (though perhaps cameron will do a deal behind the scenes to get them to back off so he can be reelected and then...bam! next year twice the price).

To a certain extent GW I can agree with what you have said, to start off with let me give you a few maths question the HOC has 650 seats which consists of 305 Tory Fib-Dems 57 Labour has 258 the rest of the seats are taken by the SNP DUP UUP SDLP and Independents.   If you add those up you will find that the Tories and the Fib-Dems have a majority of 362 plus the DUP & UUP parties being Unionists will side with the Tories if anything to do with getting a bill passed so there is no way the Labour party can stop any bill they want to get through and into law, the party Shien Fein are stopping the Irish gov't from implementing the bedroom tax within Ireland and the DUP party  do not like it at all, but because of the way the Irish parliament is set up there is nothing the DUP party can do about it.

I do agree with you on what will happen between Scameron and the energy companies in the hope that will buy him some votes in the general election of 2015, but what they have not reckoned on is the people leaving the big six energy companies because I for one will be leaving in November when my contract with SSE is up.  I also agree with you on the re-nationalize the gas and electric and trains there was a poll of people in the UK and it came out as 68% for re-nationalization of our public services.

My own point of view GW is I would rather cut off both hands without anisthetic before I would vote Tory or Ukip who are more right wing than the Tories, that is something I cannot understand Labour and Fib-Dem voters voting for Ukip even here in Scotland who do not vote Tory at all have just voted for Ukip in the EU elections.

ghost whistler wrote:-
Rachel Reeves even pledges to be tougher than the Tories!

What Rachel Reeves actually said was that Labour will be tougher than the Tories “when it comes to slashing the benefits bill”, mainly because of its jobs guarantee scheme. If you get people working, the benefit bill should fall although, as we know, about 60% of people receiving housing benefit are working. However, if Labour keeps its pledge and brings on a massive increase in house building, that part of the benefit bill should also fall in due course.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

The Tories have long peddled the myth that Labour is soft on scroungers and layabouts, which is utter rubbish. No governing party wants to pay people to sit and home doing nothing, and it’s not a principle of either social democracy or socialism. If you’re fit to work, you should do so; it’s not fair to let other workers pay for you through their taxes, and socialism should always be about fairness.

I’ve recently read ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists’ for the third time, and this issue arises in the novel. “What are you goin’ to do, in this ‘ere Socialist Republic of yourn, with them wot won’t work?” said Crass. Barrington replied: “In the Co-operative Commonwealth there will be no place for loafers; whether they call themselves aristocrats or tramps, those who are too lazy to work shall have no share in the things that are produced by the labour of others. Those who do nothing shall have nothing. If any man will not work, neither shall he eat.”

To win power, Labour needs in excess of 10 million votes, and apparently Labour’s core voters are also the most enthusiastic proponents of welfare reform: almost half believe that if benefits are cut it will help people stand on their own two feet.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/02/the-tories-as-the-workers-party-not-as-ridiculous-as-it-sounds/

If you are able-bodied and lose your job, you should (unlike now) be treated with respect and given time to help you find a similar occupation. After a while, you should be offered, and should accept, training for another job. Where Labour will differ profoundly from the current regime is that you won’t be made to boost the profits of Tesco or Poundland on a workfare scheme, and you won’t be treated like a criminal and made to do community service. And if you’re unfit to work, you won’t be hounded to death by bastards like Iain Duncan Smith. Labour is far from perfect (and not as left-wing as either you or I would like), but it's far far better than the corrupt and vicious right-wing ideologues who are currently dismantling the welfare state - and it's the only alternative government on offer in May 2015.

Ivan I agree with what you have said in your post, I also agree that the Labour party have not always got policies spot on after all they're are human beings and humans are renowned for making mistakes.  I also know that to get a majority gov't Labour have to appeal to a broad range of people so they will vote Labour in May 2015, the reason Labour need a majoity gov't in 2015 they have so many nasty bills to REPEAL the main one being the NHS 2012 privatization bill along with too many others. 

As we know from previous elections, the Tory response to every Labour proposal is to shout, "Where will you get the money from?"

There had better be answers ready, which can legitimately include (a) borrowing and (b) taxation. Obviously. Every government does such things.

Ed Balls wants the Office for Budget Responsibility to cost the pledges in Labour's manifesto for the 2015 election, but the Tories have vetoed the idea. Osborne is determined to claim that there is a 'black hole' in Labour's spending plans and he doesn't want the truth getting in the way.  

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/tories-cynically-veto-ballss-plan-allow-obr-audit-labours-manifesto

IVAN You are spot on, could it be that Osborne does not want to remind people what he said about taking another £25 Billion out of public services. Perhaps it would be better if Ed Balls got his Manifesto costed by an Independent auditors because getting the office of budget Responibility could fiddle the figures on the orders of Cameron & Osborne.

It looks as if Ed has positioned himself well....  

It makes you wonder if he's thinking "shall I bang their heads together?".


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwOWkS2IEAAI84I.jpg

All I see in that picture Ivan is the pure hatred that is in Eds eyes for the Plonker Cameron. I just wish he would use some of that hatred in PMQs every week then he would have the Tories on the ropes every week.

Bobby could that not be Eds stratergy allowing Scaameron to think Ed is playing into Scamerons hands then just when Cameron is not expecting it WHAM Cameron is on his back not knowing what has hit him, or it could be that Ed is thinking "Give Him Enough Rope to Hang himself With"???

If it gets much worse then Milly will outshine even John Major in the 'totally ineffectual' stakes.

And that's not a badge too many people can wear...   

I’m sure it was arranged so that Ed Miliband was made to look statesmanlike at PMQs today, leaving backbench Labour MPs to ask more abrasive questions, one of which elicited the lie from Cameron that 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty by this government. (The Child Poverty Action Group says that in terms of absolute poverty, the figure has risen from 2.3 million to 2.6 million children since 2009/10.)

http://www.bbench.co.uk/jacob-montgomery/camerons-fallacious-economic-recovery

According to George Eaton of ‘The New Statesman’, Ed used PMQs to drive a wedge between Cameron and Clegg on civil liberties:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/pmqs-review-miliband-exploits-coalition-divide-anti-terror-powers

If there’s any appeasement going on, it’s being done by Cameron with his pathetic attempts to pander to the Europhobes in his toxic party. The more he gives them, the more they demand; a referendum is not enough now, they just want out. A strong leader would have stood up to them and said: “The EU is in Britain’s best interests, we’re staying in, matter closed.” Still, as Napoleon said: “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake”.