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

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”.

Leave them alone,
and they will come home,
dragging their tails behind them.

bobby wrote:I have just watched the first PMQ's since the extremely long summer recess, yet despite people in THIS country suffering real poverty and homelessness Ed Miliband chose to use all of his 6 questions discussing 2 American Murders and SFA about this crippled country. I hoped he would use this particular PMQ's to start his bid for leadership, but as usual we get nothing. Talk about playing into Mr Cameron's  hands.
I wonder how much time the American Government would give this matter had two Britt's been murdered by a Muslim immigrant to America..

Four years ago, when Cameron climbed onto the shoulders of the quisling Lib-Dems in order to become PM, he announced that PMQs would in future be a civilised exchange of views, with none of the preceding Punch-and-Judy (Pulcinella) yah-boo politics.  That didn't last very long, did it?

In the run-up to next May's General Election (if God wills) Miliband must at all times appear like a man confidently expecting to be Britain's next Prime Minister.  Which involves statesman-like attitudes and behaviour, and includes nodding respect for and sympathy with, the priorities of our friends in Washington.

Unlike Salmonella, who thinks that reaching the finishing line in a race is more important than what you might have to do with your Victory afterwards.

Oh, yes

" Which involves statesman-like attitudes and behaviour..."

I understand the subtleties of all that, but it does not excuse Milly not having made sure that at least somebody on his team regularly highlights the multitude of lies etc etc perpetrated by Cameron.

We'll all be sorry when we end up with more of the same and Labour are shrugging and wondering why and where it all went wrong.  But what do I know...?

oftenwrong said: " Four years ago, when Cameron climbed onto the shoulders of the quisling Lib-Dems in order to become PM, he announced that PMQs would in future be a civilised exchange of views, with none of the preceding Punch-and-Judy (Pulcinella) yah-boo politics. That didn't last very long, did it?"

No absolutely correct Terry, yet he still remains PM "doesn't he?

One of Cameron's first acts as Prime Minister was to extend the time between elections to five years.

It's always better to be in charge. Who now can say what might have been the result of a general election held soon after Gordon Brown succeeded Blair as leader of the Labour Party?

A lot of people said if Gordon Brown had held an election when he became PM OW he would have won the election, but who knows people are very fickle as we found out in May 2010.

I've always thought Gordon should have held a General Election straight away - he'd have won at that point almost certainly, and by the time the next election came may well have had a sensible plan in place for dealing with the recession.

Now if I only had my time machine ready -----

You have a good point there boatlady and at this moment I realy wish you did have a time machine but not to erase our memories of the last 4 years.

boatlady said: "and by the time the next election came may well have had a sensible plan in place for dealing with the recession."

If you recall, after the banking cock-up, because of Brown and Darling's speedy intervention, we where by the time of the 2010 election in growth and the unemployement figure was reducing.

So there you go - he didn't have enough confidence (maybe not enough support within his own party) to take the obvious step.

Such a shame - I think he'd have been a great PM in a recession kept his eye on the important stuff and understood that the wealth of nations has little to do with money and everything to do with an empowered and motivated citizenry.

What we now have is a downtrodden underclass and a bloated elite

QUOTE: "What we now have is a downtrodden underclass and a bloated elite"

Which will continue until everyone decides to get behind the only credible alternative - a Labour administration.

It's been Labour Party policy since 1918 to abolish the House of Lords. Bizarrely, Blair removed all but 91 of the hereditary peers but did nothing to make the chamber more democratic, and Cameron has since stuffed the place with record numbers of Tory donors and cronies.

Now Ed Miliband is promising to replace the House of Lords with a senate elected from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, instead of from constituencies like MPs:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849

boatlady wrote:I've always thought Gordon should have held a General Election straight away - he'd have won at that point almost certainly, and by the time the next election came may well have had a sensible plan in place for dealing with the recession.

Now if I only had my time machine ready -----

I have too disagree with you on one point boatlady, Gordon Brown will go down in history as one of the BEST Chancellors the UK ever had, but he did not have what it takes to be PM I am a Scot saying it he has also proved what a great orator he is after what he did for the Referndum for Independence debate.

To be a PM you have to be a master of all trades and master of all of them to be a great PM, something I think Ed Miliband will be if he gets a majority gov't in 2015.

Gordon Brown spent many years scheming to replace Blair's Leadership of the Labour Party, but apparently never planned what he would do with it when he got it.

edit:

Reason for editing : (It's not 3.23 a.m I'm writing this at twenty past five on Saturday afternoon, November 1

oftenwrong. Your post said Saturday at 17:23 when I read it; it probably only showed Port Moresby time (wherever that is) to you and others who haven't yet made the necessary adjustment.

This problem did affect everyone in the Forumotion family, and I posted a message from our masters on 27 October:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t645-staff-notices-for-members

I’m not sure what caused the problem; I wonder if it was anything to do with the clocks going back last weekend? I wish we could move the clocks forward in the summer and then stop bloody changing them twice a year, as I think we did for a while in 1968, but that’s another story….  

Being a kindly fellow, I’ve accessed your profile and changed the time setting to London, and you should be okay now. I’m afraid we can’t cater for the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and set the time several minutes behind London for those of you who live west of the Greenwich Meridian.

Quite true actually OW, and IMHO I do not think he would have made a very good P.M. just like I do not believe our present Labour leader will make one either.
That is not to say that I will not be voting for him, as we cannot have our David back in can we? But as the current surveys are going Labour it seems are at their lowest point since november 2012.
Which is neck and neck with the Tories and UKIP 3RD. Apparently good old David boosted the Tories support with his speech last week promising all these tax cuts ETC, of course who is going to pay for them all? the good old disabled,,and homeless ETC.
Do not worry he is buying his votes, and is out there early telling everyone, while Ed is nodding his head.

Up to a point I agree Stuart but with the state of Scottish Labour is does look as though the next G.E. will be very close and more than likely end up with another coalition, Not unless Ed Miliband brings a rabbit out of the hat quickly.

I never felt entirely comfortable in the knowledge that many divisions resulting in a Labour victory had depended upon the votes of Scottish MPs.

I know Scotland reasonably well, having worked alongside business colleagues in Edinburgh, and socialised with them, so I'm aware that they often have different priorities to we soft-southerners. As a bit of a rebel myself, I totally comprehend their wish to have more of an individual identity.

Nevertheless, I think a very old adage still applies even in this modern age. We can either hang together, or Hang separately.

Well OW I do think personally that we are going to hang separately.

The Labour Party will be positioning itself on the benches opposite to the next government -whatever mix of the disgusting and distasteful that might be.

If only Labour had decided to oppose both craftily and in a targeted fashion, instead of the clueless limp fight it has put up for more than 4 years.

I am thinking of locking the front door, putting my fingers in my ears, and taking an extended hibernation...

You think like myself then Phil, the Tories are the next government.

Please understand there is no depression in this house and we are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. They do not exist.
-- Queen Victoria

Well at least you have plenty of time to work out how to get over the depression when it comes OW.

http://t.co/Me1MhnL44b---
links to a blog post that I found interesting, reassuring and inspiring - nice to know some people have faith in Labour and want a Labour government - and are prepared to work for it rather that sitting on the sidelines criticising

boatlady. That link doesn't work.

Damn! have to try again - was a really good blogpost

Never mind boatlady, we all make 'em love.

Now can't find it - won't try to paraphrase or anything, but the theme was anger against supposed Labour supporters who are more interested in standing on the sidelines and giving newspaper interviews criticising the leader of the party, than in taking part in the work that is going forward to convince the British electorate that we need a Labour government.

Thousands of activists are out every week, knocking on doors, phoning constituents, stuffing envelopes (and delivering them by hand) to get the message out - whatever anyone thinks of Ed Milliband, he is the leader of the party that has the only hope, if elected, of undoing some of the damage done by the Tory wreckers to our national institutions - colluding with the wish of the right wing media to see Ed denigrated is counter-productive to the eventual success of the party and insulting to all the party activists, who, in good faith, are giving up so much of their time and energy to see a Labour victory.

Many Labour activists are not themselves currently affected by the iniquities visited upon us by this government, but are motivated by a concern and care for their fellow citizens who are less fortunate - to have these efforts mocked by those who appear to see politics as as a spectator sport is insulting and counter-productive - those mocking Ed Milliband may as well vote Tory or UKIP and have it over with.

Letters to the Guardian, QUOTE:

Mc Dave · Top commenter · Bath Spa University

Don't fall for this ancient ploy of change the leader near an election and it will all be better for you and the country in general, they wheel this crap out year after year hoping no one is intelligent or clever enough to remember anything more than five years ago.(for any political party I mean) because its nonsense.. if it was true it shows he shouldn't of been head of the party in the first place and if its a false representation to get Labour through the door of no 10 again do you really want it shoved in your face you are blatantly being lied and conned again as per usual right from the start, before they even gain any power they will loose all creditability as they already have?

In my day, you had to pass basic English before you could go to University - and be able to construct a coherent sentence

Everybody is entitled to their opinions are they not? just because I think like Phil that the Tories will win the Election, does not mean that i'm going to vote for them by any shape or form. So I do not have a go at anybody for their belief that labour will win the election do I ?

oftenwrong wrote:I never felt entirely comfortable in the knowledge that many divisions resulting in a Labour victory had depended upon the votes of Scottish MPs.

I know Scotland reasonably well, having worked alongside business colleagues in Edinburgh, and socialised with them, so I'm aware that they often have different priorities to we soft-southerners.  As a bit of a rebel myself, I totally comprehend their wish to have more of an individual identity.

Nevertheless, I think a very old adage still applies even in this modern age.  We can either hang together, or Hang separately.

With the SNP wanting to hang seperately from the UK they will not be happy until they pull Scotland away from the UK OW, the referendum was not 24 hours old before SNP started harping on for another Referendum at the moment there mind is not on running Scotland but how to get another referendum on Independence.

There is not a lot of common ground to share between UKIP and the ScotNats, but each (and both) is/are symptomatic of the malaise gripping the Westminster "first-past-the-post" electoral system.
The People are fed-up by this Buggins' turn agreement which suits Labour and the Tories because it perpetuates government by either one or the other.

Unless PR is introduced soon, parties will be elected on a mere handful of public votes, which falls a long way short of democracy.

Miliband's 'Labour' party are not only up against the Tories and other political parties. I believe their main enemy is the press and media - the majority of whom, or at least the most influential, are right wing and will conduct a sustained campaign of misinformation against Labour in the run up to the election. A subtle drip drip of negativity about Miliband and Labour will be pervasive; and, unfortunately, I believe a percentage of gullible public will fall for such propaganda and that the press will see Labour lose the election.

A sad side effect of this is that Labour will seek to seen as tough as other parties on issues like benefits, immigration, europe, etc.

I think you have it in one , sickchip. It would take an exceptional leader to overcome the disadvantages and Miliband isn't of that stature...

Well sickchip and Phil you have it between you in your posts, the one problem being, is that as nice a guy as Ed is, it is his strength against the press and opposition that is letting him down at the moment is it not?
The other problem that Labour face is who would they choose to replace him, after the election in May?
Who have they got with that strength?

Sweet Jesus and Mary, what possible virtue can there be in discussing succession to leadership of the Labour Party now?

Unless all socialist-inclined voters unite behind the Labour Party as currently constituted, we may as well invite the Tories to sell everything including our Souls.

OW I do not see Ed strong enough to win the election in may for labour, so I see the bloody tories getting in.
I do not know what will happen if that does happen, except disaster for the poor and those on benefits.
I am having sleepless nights as it is, heaven knows what it will be like if the tories get in.