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

by **Ivan** Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:33 am

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

by ghost whistler Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:21 pm

But they aren't just not opposing them. They are actively supporting them. Ed Balls is promising more of the same if he gets in. Labour are hopelessly following the dance lead by UKIP on immigration, and they shamelesslys upported Duncan Smith's disgusting 'emergency' workfare legislation.

In Miliband's own constituency there are careworkers on strike that he has refused to meet at every turn.

Not being able to effect change while in opposition, due to the system, is one thing (though I find that a poor excuse), but to sit back and not even speak out beggars belief. They have let the Tories dominate the discourse regarding the economy unchallenged for 5 years. It was plainly not Labour's fault that the economy tanked, the burden of proof is on the Tories to prove their claims - yet the Labour party have failed to challenge this rhetoric almost entirely. All they have now is a alughing stock in the red faced buffoon Ed Balls. Miliband is seen as weak - and he is. he is no socialist at all. Rachel Reeves has also pledged to be as tough as the tories on the welfare budget which can only mean one thing: more misery.

They are finished in Scotland as well.

There is no chance of a Labour majroity IMO. I just do not see it happening. I simply do not see anything positive coming from them in the long term. The only thing they have going is they are not the Tories. Really it is hobson's choice.

by Redflag Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:53 pm

What they say and what they do is another thing GW, to get a majority Ed and the Labour party have to appeal to people right across the spectrum. If you think the last 5 years have been rotten if the Tories get back into power in May the UK will not know what has hit it NHS will be gone and so will Welfare benefits in fact most of the public services will be gone.

So if you think that the Labour party are not worth voting for, there is not one thing that Ed can do for the care workers in his constituency not unless you want Ed to LIE his way into power in May because that is something he will not do, he wants to honest and open with the voting public so every promise he makes he wants to be able to keep it.

If you take a look at Scamerons promises he made before the 2010 G.E he has broken every one of them then deleted them off his web page so people could not check up on him and his party. I will give you an example the Tories & Lib-Dems are boasting about taking the low paid out of tax because it is a personnel allowance EVERY ONE in the UK benefits even those earning over £100,000 yet the Tories make out its just for the low paid.

by ghost whistler Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:55 pm

In the current situation and under the current electoral system they are worth voting for, but just don't expect them to turn things around in any meaningful way.

I entirely agree that another tory government would be catastrophic. That's the only thing compelling a labour vote.

Ed could get involved in the care workers struggle. He could at least try, could he not? Ignoring them is a disgrace.

by **Ivan** Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:49 pm

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 2) - Page 15 B0U4FegIEAAk8vm

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0U4FegIEAAk8vm.jpg

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:04 pm

I am trying to keep away from these threads now because my dissenting views have proved unwelcome in some quarters and appear to offend the prevailing thrust of contributors' fancies, but I feel compelled to say that Ed Miliband has proved to be far too timid and ineffective to even begin to highlight - let alone challenge -the Tory path to the destruction of the lives of the needy and dispossessed. Nothing he has said to counter the lies and deceit about his Party's record from 1997 -2010 has even begun to sound convincing in any way.

Additionally, he is clearly afraid to wander too far from any political line where , to do so, will bring down the wrath of Murdoch and similar propaganda tyrants upon him - and so he presents as neither fish nor fowl to the electorate.

That is why I say that , despite the fact that Labour should be walking this contest, he will not gather a majority at the GE and , by his failures and frailties, will allow another Cameron -led coalition of the corrupt to prevail...

by ghost whistler Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:59 pm

Ivan wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0U4FegIEAAk8vm.jpg

Right, that's a photograph. Can you now report what Ed has actually done for these people other than pose awkwardly in a picture?

by ghost whistler Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:05 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:I am trying to keep away from these threads now because my dissenting views have proved unwelcome in some quarters and appear to offend the prevailing thrust of contributors' fancies, but I feel compelled to say that Ed Miliband has proved to be far too timid and ineffective to even begin to highlight - let alone challenge -the Tory path to the destruction of the lives of the needy and dispossessed. Nothing he has said to counter the lies and deceit about his Party's record from 1997 -2010 has even begun to sound convincing in any way.

Additionally, he is clearly afraid to wander too far from any political line where , to do so, will bring down the wrath of Murdoch and similar propaganda tyrants upon him - and so he presents as neither fish nor fowl to the electorate.

That is why I say that , despite the fact that Labour should be walking this contest, he will not gather a majority at the GE and , by his failures and frailties, will allow another Cameron -led coalition of the corrupt to prevail...

I agree entirely. Labour won't walk the election. That's far from guaranteed. Does he even really want to be PM?

They should have made Joh McDonnell leader, but that part of the labour party died years ago.

by **Ivan** Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:11 pm

Attack is the best form of defence, I guess. What a Face

Whatever Ed Miliband has or hasn't done, he clearly hasn't ignored the Doncaster care workers. He stood with them on a picket line in mid-October last year. Of course the BBC didn't bother to report it.

by ghost whistler Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:09 pm

What has he done for them? That's what's important. A photograph on its own is proof of nothing other than he got his picture taken with them.

by boatlady Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:48 pm

On the other hand, we KNOW what another Tory government will do - can you really say you want that?

by ghost whistler Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:33 pm

As I said, no. That's the only reason to support a labour vote.

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:49 pm

With such enthusiastic friends, the Labour Party doesn't need opponents.

by **Ivan** Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:59 pm

Phil Hornby. Please don’t stay off threads because some of us don’t always agree with you. The point of a forum like this is to discuss issues with those who hold differing opinions, otherwise it just becomes a place where everyone is saying “hear, hear” to each other. The aim is not just to air views which the mainstream media usually either ignore or warp, but also to chew over our differences in a friendly manner. For example, the EU, the monarchy, Tony Blair, Churchill, universal benefits, Scottish independence, political correctness, Gibraltar, the Elgin Marbles and yes, Ed Miliband, are all issues where members of this forum hold varying opinions.

I doubt if Ed Miliband does anything which might appease Murdoch, he went to the top of his black list a couple of years ago. I can’t help thinking that the Tories and their chums must be frightened of Ed; if he’s the ‘waste of space’ which Cameron so graciously called him in Parliament, why keep attacking him, usually in the most unreasonable way? For his part, Ed is trying to offer something new – a decent and honest politician – in stark contrast to the sleazy and unprincipled Tories. Whether he is successful, the next three months will tell. But people who meet him are usually impressed, and even Isabel Hardman (assistant editor of ‘The Spectator’) tweeted this today: “Miliband doing a good job on this Ask The Leaders session. Shows why Cameron wants to avoid TV debates - Miliband would exceed expectations.”

If there is to be another coalition led by Cameron, it could only be with the Lib Dems (if there are enough of them left – down to 5% in one poll recently) and maybe a few Democratic Unionists. The most likely coalition would be a Labour-led one with the SNP. The polls are starting to show small Labour leads again and I’m still optimistic that there could be a Labour government with a small overall majority, but that will probably depend on whether the SNP surge in Scotland can be repulsed.

P.S. How are members of the Pease Pottage Conservative Club feeling about the sudden decision by their local MP (that man with two female names) not to stand again in the general election in May? Does he want to spend more time with his jerry cans?
bomb

by ghost whistler Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:41 am

oftenwrong wrote:With such enthusiastic friends, the Labour Party doesn't need opponents.

Why do i owe Labour anything? How i feel about them is in response to their actionh and policies.

by Redflag Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:10 pm

ghost whistler wrote:What has he done for them? That's what's important. A photograph on its own is proof of nothing other than he got his picture taken with them.

What would you have him do ?? GW, with NO majority in the HOC as I have already told you I know the Labour party has not got everything right they have made mistakes after all the Labour MPs are human being capable of making mistakes just like you & me. I will share something with you if the Tories get into power again in May they will run amock with the public services so by 2020 there will be NO public services and there will be blood spilt in the Revelution that WILL happen if the Tories get back into power, people will only take so much before they snap and the Tories will be the losers because people will be looking to hurt them the way they have hurt the people of the UK.

More so because it was not the normal working man/women that caused this austerity, it was the GREEDY BANKERS that done that all on there own, without the help (as the Tories have spun since May 2010) that it was all "Labours Fault" The Tories are protecting there donors and backers (bankers & Hedge Fund Managers) the exact ones that caused the financial crash in 2008, I am sorry that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling bailed the BACKSTUDS out of there MIRE I wish he had allowed them to go to the wall.

I would rather see a Labour gov't in May, I could put my life on the line and say the Labour party would NOT treat the people of the UK the way the Tories have done over the last 5 years, since May 2010 the Tories have LIED and smeared Ed Miliband & the Labour party while LYING about every stat that has came out, the jobs they brag about most of them are Zero Hour contracts. IMHO the reason they do not want the Labour party to win is Labour would tell the UK ALL the underhand deals they have done at the expense of the taxpayer. cheers

by ghost whistler Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:33 pm

With respect to the care workers. Has he met with their employer? What has he done to help them? We all know he is in opposition but at least try. Labour isn't even trying. They voted with the government to support fracking last week just as they voted to support Duncan Smith's emergency workfare legislation, robbing the unemployed of their benefit. That's not the action of an opposition that hasn't power; that's wilful collusion with the Tories. This is the problem: you are saying that Labour can't do anything. I'm saying they are, too often, supporting the agenda of this government - all the while that government is kicking them in the nuts.

by Redflag Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:13 pm

With respect the care workers employers is the private sector "what" could Ed Miliband say to them, when this Tory gov't is all for the private sector and will do EXACTLY NOTHING to stop them from making there profits through profits come the donations to the Tory party. Goes to show how much you watch the debates in the HOC on the Parliament channel, I do not know how many times I have to remind you that Ed Miliband does not have a majority in the HOC that is the Tories & the Lib-Dems that hold the whip hand in the HOC they can get what they want through and into law. Like the 2012 National Health Act Bill or the changes to the Welfare Bill or for that matter one of the other nasty bills.

So what you see as willfull collusion is nothing more than Ed saving his energy for battles he can win, so instead of blaming Ed Miliband for what the Tories & Lib-Dems are doing blame the Tories & L/Ds because they are the ones you should be directing your anger at. Here is something else you need to work out how do you think Tony Blair got the landslide he got in 1997 by engaging the people that would normally vote Tory to vote Labour to give Tony the majority in the HOC and that what Ed Miliband is aiming for because without that majority all the UK will get is another Tory majority gov't and more natiness like you have never seen before because the Tories will believe they have shut off the only party that fights for the working class, and will be cock-ahoop knowing they have pulled the wool over the eyes of the people of the UK again just like they did in 2010. You must have seen and heard them LYING and smearing Ed Miliband and the Labour party with the help of the right wing media who also repeat the Tory BLATANT LIES about Ed Miliband & the Labour party.

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:03 am

It isn't willful collusion when the opposition votes in support of the government? What would you call it then?

by boatlady Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:42 am

Waiting for a winnable battle?

Nicely put, Red

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:39 am

Some people here seem to be missing the point.

Again: what do you call it when Labour actively colludes with the government?

I'm not just talking about voting against them and, because they are in the minority as the opposition, fail. I'm talking when Labour politicians support and endorse what the government is doing, including suspending their own councillors for opposing it.

How can you defend that?

by Redflag Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:47 pm

ghost whistler wrote:It isn't willful collusion when the opposition votes in support of the government? What would you call it then?

I would call it good sense on Ed Miliband side why fight when you know you can not win, I will not repeat the numbers in the HOC as I am sick of trying to explain them to you but it seems you cannot understand it no matter how many times I explain that thanks to the likes of him LABOUR DO NOT HAVE A MAJORITY in the HOC. headbang

SEATS IN THE HOC

LABOUR 258 SEATS IN THE HOC

TORIES 303 SEATS ( before the two defections 306)

Lib-Dem seats in the HOC 57 the total of seats this Tory led gov't just add 303 + 57 you will get 360

OTHER parties have 32 seats in HOC

It is the likes of you that will give Davy boy and the Tories another term in office bringing down on the heads of the good people of the UK cuts like they have never seen before I just hope you can afford private health Insurance because the majority of the people in the |UK cannot. headbang

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:58 pm

So you are happy that labour voted to support Duncan Smith exploiting job seekers? Is that really what you're saying!?

by Redflag Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:26 pm

ghost whistler wrote:So you are happy that labour voted to support Duncan Smith exploiting job seekers? Is that really what you're saying!?

Have you ever said one thing then done another ??? It does not matter who agrees or disagrees with this Tory led gov't they will get what ever bill they want through the HOC so that it can be brouhgt into LAW LABOUR OR ANYBODY ELSE CANNOT STOP THEM UNTIL THE G.E IN MAY. headbang

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:09 pm

Yes of course it matters! That's the whole point! There's no point habing an opposition otherwise! That's the problem with Labour.

Of course I have, but then I'm just one person. I'm not a political party supposedly ideologically opposed to the very thing they end up supporting.

Labour also could have smashed the Bedroom Tax but in the end they didn't bother turning up to vote. 26 votes were needed and more than that many Labour politicians couldn't be bothered. Again, is this what you want?

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the numbers in the House of Commons. You seem to think I'm saying something different. I'm giving you instances not where Labour has voted against but lost, as you might expect, but where they have actively sided with and enabled the Tories. Can you not see how bad that is? What you are saying in effect is that "ok we'll lose this vote anyway so we might as well help the Tories get it through?"

And you think that ideology only exists because they are not in government?

by **Ivan** Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:36 pm

Labour also could have smashed the Bedroom Tax but in the end they didn't bother turning up to vote.

They couldn't have "smashed" it because the vote was not binding.

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:43 pm

So what's the point of having an opposition then? How are people meant to take them seriously if they can't even be bothered to vote?

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:37 pm

The majority of criticism of Labour is originating from a right-wing Press. I wonder why they're doing that? Could they be doing their best to prevent what they otherwise expect to be a certain change of government?

(and, if so, do they need any help from anyone else?)

by Redflag Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:30 pm

ghost whistler wrote:Yes of course it matters! That's the whole point! There's no point habing an opposition otherwise! That's the problem with Labour.

Of course I have, but then I'm just one person. I'm not a political party supposedly ideologically opposed to the very thing they end up supporting.

Labour also could have smashed the Bedroom Tax but in the end they didn't bother turning up to vote. 26 votes were needed and more than that many Labour politicians couldn't be bothered. Again, is this what you want?

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the numbers in the House of Commons. You seem to think I'm saying something different. I'm giving you instances not where Labour has voted against but lost, as you might expect, but where they have actively sided with and enabled the Tories. Can you not see how bad that is? What you are saying in effect is that "ok we'll lose this vote anyway so we might as well help the Tories get it through?"

And you think that ideology only exists because they are not in government?

How many times do I have to explain to you !!! Labour cannot smash ANYTHING the Tories have a majority gov't, so can do what ever they want even there vile and nasty Bedroom tax. If you want to blame somebody try the Lib-Dems its through them the Tories can get what ever they want through and into law since they are nothing more than Tory LAPDOGS, watch out for a few of them defecting to the Tory party.

As long as the Tories have a majority gov't Labour WILL LOSE everything they try to stop, Labour does not have to help the Tories to get something through the HOC that is the Lib-Dems job as they are a part of this nasty gov't and the Tories LAPDOG..

The only Ideology I can see is the Tory Ideology because what they are doing to all of our Public services, destroying every bit of it which does not surprise me because they do not like it just like they hate the minimum wage I have been waiting for the Tories to repeal that law over the last 5 years I wonder why they have not but give them another term and I can gaurantee the minimum wage will go. headbang

by Redflag Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:33 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The majority of criticism of Labour is originating from a right-wing Press. I wonder why they're doing that? Could they be doing their best to prevent what they otherwise expect to be a certain change of government?

(and, if so, do they need any help from anyone else?)

Whether they want or not OW they are getting help from the most unexpected quarters.

by boatlady Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:15 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The majority of criticism of Labour is originating from a right-wing Press. I wonder why they're doing that? Could they be doing their best to prevent what they otherwise expect to be a certain change of government?

(and, if so, do they need any help from anyone else?)

Good point

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:59 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The majority of criticism of Labour is originating from a right-wing Press. I wonder why they're doing that? Could they be doing their best to prevent what they otherwise expect to be a certain change of government?

(and, if so, do they need any help from anyone else?)

Well, obviously! They aren't doing it because they think Labour are great.

by boatlady Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:02 am

I think the clue might be in the name - 'RIGHT wing press'

by ghost whistler Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:59 am

You still aren't addressng the question of why Labour are actively supporting the governement's austerity agenda.

For example, what is Labour's policy on benefit sanctions? Will they axe them? Given that Labour introduced the 'sanction first' policy that now exists (vehemently exploited by the Tories naturally), do I think they will? Notsomuch.

by oftenwrong Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:53 pm

New Readers start here: In the run-up to every election since the 1980s, any Labour Party proposals have immediately been trashed by the right-wing press. The standard cry from Tory supporters has always been, "Tax and Spend!" in response to any financial initiative. From Neil Kinnock onwards, a policy of keeping their powder dry was the only sensible course of action.

Prior to the 2010 Elections, David Cameron made various manifesto promises which were either overturned or abandoned immediately upon gaining power.

Why on earth should the Miliband team offer hostages to fortune?

by Redflag Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:23 pm

ghost whistler wrote:You still aren't addressng the question of why Labour are actively supporting the governement's austerity agenda.

For example, what is Labour's policy on benefit sanctions? Will they axe them? Given that Labour introduced the 'sanction first' policy that now exists (vehemently exploited by the Tories naturally), do I think they will? Notsomuch.

I did explain why the Labour party was I would not say actively supporting the Tory policy, have you seen the way that the right wing media & the Tory party jump on the Labour party and Ed whenever they bring out a Labour policy ?? If Labour turned around and said they would be abloshing the austerity the Tories would come out and say the Labour party would get us into more debt and not bother about getting rid of the deficit and quite a lot of people would believe them as they did when the Tories said it was Labours spending that got us into the FINANCIAL CRASH when in reality it was the greedy bankers.

Some of your posts have led me to believe you believe whatever the Tories say, Labour must avoid that so they can get a majority in the HOC because they cannot depend on the Scottish Labour votes to give them a majority in the HOC, thanks to the bloody SNP who are using Tory tactics in the hope that they can (sort of) black mail who ever gets into gov't in Westminister for another Independence Referendum, they have already said they would support the Labour party but there price is Labour would have to get rid of TRIDENT so they want to tell the rest of the UK what to do or maybe they are hoping the rest of the UK will tell the gov't to cut them adrift and give them what they want Independence for Scotland. But most Scots do not want Independence ( I know I live in Scotland ) that is the reaon Salmond quit Holyrood and is now going for a seat in the HOC so he can cause trouble for the rest of the UK. Glad to see you know about what the Tories have done to the unemployment sanctions.

by ghost whistler Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:33 pm

But they are actively supporting government policy and that you and other labour supporters don't see this is a big problem.

To accuse the SNP of using tory tactics is breathtaking. Labour sided with the tories to persuade Scotland against it's own interests and as a result they are going to pay a heavy price.

With respect I think you are very naive about this, and you have not answered my question.

by ghost whistler Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:51 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Prior to the 2010 Elections, David Cameron made various manifesto promises which were either overturned or abandoned immediately upon gaining power.

Why on earth should the Miliband team offer hostages to fortune?

Are you saying that Labour are going to break all their pledges as well?

by oftenwrong Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:50 pm

When Labour form the next government will be the time for them to disclose the detail of their intentions.
In the meantime the Tory propaganda machine can be relied upon to keep churning out sufficient half-truths and false promises to provide for all circumstances.

by ghost whistler Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:07 am

oftenwrong wrote:When Labour form the next government will be the time for them to disclose the detail of their intentions.

I don't support the Tories. Criticism of the current, parlous, state of Labour is not synonymous with support for the Tories or their vile right wing media machinery. I am not interested in participating in a discussion forum where people cannot make that distinction.

That said.

Labour need to detail their intentions before people vote - as all parties should.

by **Ivan** Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:16 am

Labour need to detail their intentions before people vote

Ed Miliband’s policy pledges

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 2) - Page 15 10400807_415871645231622_2705736404001209489_n

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/ed-milibands-policy-pledges-at-a-glance/

by ghost whistler Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:19 pm

"I will raise the minimum wage"

Great, but where's the detail?

What about the welfare reforms that labour has supported that are killing people? Where is the policy addressuing that?

There's very very little there that has any real detail that is remotely progressive.

by Sponsored content