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

(Marlon Brando, The Wild One, 1953)

This movie appears to give the message that for most people who rebel, it’s just a pose without any purpose. When one of the women at the bar asks Brando what he’s rebelling against, he responds “What do you got?” These guys certainly have no motivation to rebel, other than the fact there’s something to rebel against.

ghost whistler wrote:If labour are really so piss poor as to not even be able to ideologically oppose the tories why vote for them; nothing will change!

It's the same situation as with the Royal Mail bonanza. The government gives away the RM and their city mates coin it in. Labour could have promised to renationalise it, putting a dampener on the whole mess. THey would not even do that. Useless corporate toady Chuka Umuna, another city spiv, would not do it. What's the point ffs? Why do you believe these people?

The only person that is taking a pathetic view on this is yourself you have us on the forum we have told you to contact the Labour party or wait until Labours Manifesto comes out that will give you all the answers you seem to want "Or Do You Want Answers" IMHO you are just looking to cause trouble in fact you could make trouble in an empty house

According to Kerry McCarthy Labour hasn't decided whether or not to oppose TTIP. This kind of silly indecisions is exactly what's wrong with them.

Redflag wrote:The only person that is taking a pathetic view on this is yourself you have us on the forum we have told you to contact the Labour party or wait until Labours Manifesto comes out that will give you all the answers you seem to want "Or Do You Want Answers" IMHO you are just looking to cause trouble in fact you could make trouble in an empty house

So you just ignore all the things Labour has said and done? I mention that the voted to support IDS' emergency workfare legislation and that they are also pushing workfare and instead of addressing this you attack me?

Ghost whistler - of late in particular, this is not the place to ask questions about the Labour Party which suggest that they need to explain just what they would do in power.

Had Miliband put up a better show and actually effectively opposed and highlighted Tory crimes ( not least in the matter of  the attacks on the poor and disabled) Labour would have every chance of sailing to victory. The fact that their followers realise that Cameron could well return triumphant to Downing Street leads to all sorts of tensions and panic which generates irritation combined with frustration at the prospect of another five Tory-infested years.

Unfortunately, while it proves easy to talk up their electoral chances and to dish out a few bits of mild abuse to doubters on here, that will not translate into convincing the wider voting public to give Milly a chance. In short, unless Labour can convince those who have  matters to resolve - such as you - they are dead in the water - or, at least, gasping desperately for air as they sink into another period of 'opposition'...

ghost whistler wrote:-
I agree that Labour has gone out of its way to make itself unelectable

How can Labour be “unelectable” when it's been ahead in almost every opinion poll for over 3 years?  

Phil Hornby didn’t say that Labour was unelectable, in fact he wrote:-

they are the only real alternative to five more years of misery for so many people.

What he did say was that Labour needed more time to be “fit for power”, although I’m sure he doesn’t think the present incumbents are fit to run a whelk stall.

There is a theory doing the rounds that neither Labour nor the Tories want to win this year’s election. It is based on the notion that another severe economic crisis is just around the corner, possibly a knock-on from eurozone difficulties, but also fuelled by the housing bubble which Osborne has been creating. No doubt whoever is in power when the excrement hits the fan will get the blame for it, as Labour did in 2008.

I don’t subscribe to the theory. Labour Party activists have already spoken to over four million voters as part of the ‘Labour Doorstep’ campaign, so I don’t believe they don’t want to win the election. The Tories always want power and are ruthless in their determination to get it. They have amassed a war chest of £78 million, which is more than they’ll be allowed to spend, but no doubt some of it will be in reserve in case there’s a second election after an inconclusive result in May. They will make promises they have no intention of keeping, and tell us they have “no plans” to increase VAT and that the NHS is “safe in their hands”. Yet at the same time, they have gone out of their way to alienate just about every section of society apart from the mega rich and pensioners, promising more savage cuts and no end to austerity, so you do wonder……

Some people try to make comparisons with the 1992 election (though usually omitting to mention that the Tories lost 40 seats on that occasion, something they can’t afford to do now). That was the last time the pollsters got things seriously wrong, and since then they have all improved their methodology. The common wisdom is that the Tories survived because of the relentless campaign against Labour by ‘The Sun’ (which then had a much bigger circulation), Tory promises to “cut taxes year on year” (before they went on to increase taxes more than any previous government in peacetime), a ‘shy Tory syndrome’ (where voters didn’t admit their support for 'the nasty party' to pollsters) and Neil Kinnock’s dreadful behaviour at that triumphalist Sheffield rally. John Major was also boosted by the successful outcome of the first Gulf War the year before, and the pollsters now believe that the Tories had been ahead the whole time.

I remember feeling despair after the 1992 election, thinking if the Tories could survive in a recession and after thirteen years in office, they’d be in power for ever. However, as it turned out, it was a very good election to lose. Only five months later, we had ‘Black Wednesday’ - the inevitable result of Thatcher taking the UK into the European exchange rate mechanism with the pound fixed at too high a rate - and the incompetence of Norman Lamont and his adviser David Cameron. You can imagine how the Tories would have screamed “it’s all Labour’s fault” if Neil Kinnock had been PM by then.

I’m not saying I want Labour to lose this election, nothing could be further from the truth. For the sake of the poor, the sick and the disabled, that evil monster Duncan Smith and his nasty sidekick McVey must be kicked out of office and preferably put on trial for abusing human rights. The NHS would be unrecognisable after five more years of these gangsters, and there would probably be no part of the state which isn’t in private hands (as Francis Maude told us just before announcing his retirement as an MP). Phil Hornby wrote: “Things will be so bad in 2015-2020 that the Tories deserve to have to shoulder all the criticism which will come their way as sure as night follows day”. I just don’t think the least fortunate in our society can wait that long.

Ivan wrote:I just don’t think the least fortunate in our society can wait that long.

Why then have Labour supported the Tories on workfare and welfare?

Phil Hornby wrote:Had Miliband put up a better show and actually effectively opposed and highlighted Tory crimes ( not least in the matter of  the attacks on the poor and disabled) Labour would have every chance of sailing to victory.

The reason for Labours agreeing with the Tory cuts is because if they did not agree the Tories would use it against Labour in there nasty smearing campaign, saying we told you that Labour does not care about the deficit all Labour are going to do is borrow and spend its way through there term.    As you know from the beginning PH the majority of people would believe them as they have done in the past like it was Labours fault for the banking financial crash 2007/08.

I think if the people of the UK give Ed Miliband a fair chance they I think are in for a nice surprise.

I suppose we might feel flattered that so much energy is expended upon telling us how mistaken we are.

I think it was four years ago this month that MSN told us that their UK discussion boards would be closing in 48 hours. Those of us who wanted to continue posting together migrated to the first and ill-fated Cutting Edge forum with ProBoards, coming here in October 2011 thanks to witchfinder.

This forum has always been a place where messages which don’t break the laws on racism, homophobia and copyright, and which conform to our basic house rules, can be posted. It is somewhere that left-wing views which are unlikely to get displayed on sites like ‘Mail Online’ (as I know from experience) are welcome. The forum is also useful for writing articles and then posting links to them on Twitter, which greatly increases their readership. But above all, I hoped it could be a place where those on the left with different opinions could come together and discuss them amicably. Tories have come and gone and were welcome to air their views, as long as they abided by the rules like everyone else, but personally I’m bored with countering their same tired old lies over and over again. I dream of a united left, of people who want to move in the same direction whilst being prepared to compromise, so that they can take as many others as possible with them. And a united left would be unstoppable by the Tories and their cousins in UKIP.

Well said Ivan there is a load of good sense in your post its a pity some people ignore good advice, thank you witchfinder for giving us cutting edge

oftenwrong wrote:I suppose we might feel flattered that so much energy is expended upon telling us how mistaken we are.

That is the problem OW, some people do not know there ASS from there ELBOW or trying to tell there granny how to suck eggs

I don't see the point in the abusing of those who simply ask pertinent questions, or who believe that Labour could and should have done better. If it was the Tories behaving like that we would all be saying that it was because they were running scared.

So why here...?

The people that support the Labour party PH can only take so much with nearly 5 years of Tory blatant Lies about the Labour party someone is bound to snap, the Tories have told every LIE in the book about Labour party and none of it true sorry but it makes my blood boil. I know that the Labour party is full of human beings capable of making mistakes just like anybody else, so I am not saying that the Labour party did not make mistakes because Yes they did get some things wrong.

Redflag wrote:The people that support the Labour party PH can only take so much with nearly 5 years of Tory blatant Lies about the Labour party someone is bound to snap, the Tories have told every LIE in the book about Labour party and none of it true sorry but it makes my blood boil.

Are you saying that the things I have said are Tory lies?

There was some rent-a-quote Tory apologist on Radio 4 yesterday saying that the middle-east IS crisis in Syria and Iraq was an inherited problem.

Inherited from whom? Moses and the Israelites?

What is the point of continually bringing up the Tories? Noone is going to support them, this discussion is about Labour. Still noone has addressed any of the issues I have raised in respect of Labour's failings and it's complete failure to present the alternative to the Tories austerity. Miliband just looks weaker and weaker by the hour. I'm seriously beginning to doubt he will become PM because he simply hasn't the presence or the charisma and isn't appealing to people.

You are right, ghost whistler - and that is your crime.

What you say here is what so many people are thinking throughout the country. The effect of that will be seen in May and then the Labour Party and its supporters will be left looking for scapegoats, arguing amongst themselves and issuing forth harsh words about those who dared to doubt the viability of the party in seeking election.

Expecting the Labour Party to win a majority - or even the most seats - is like backing the England cricket team to win the current World Cup tournament.

Having said all that, there is a large part of me which is glad that Miliband will not have to face all the problems and anguish which is to come, as the true horrors of the past five years' policies unfold. Cameron has been the architect of the cruelty and he should be the recipient of the criticism as people finally realise just what he has created...

There is nothing new in human discourse. The phrase "don't shoot the messenger" dates back to 1598 in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part II. Even earlier, "no one loves the messenger who brings bad news" was Antigone by Sophocles (written in or before 442 BC).

Still noone has addressed any of the issues I have raised

Well, you're just asking us -and rubbishing everything we say - why not ask someone else?

Phil. It’s not a “crime” to criticise Labour on this forum, and I’ve done it myself, most notably over the Iraq war and the lack of support for industrial action by public sector workers with genuine grievances. Maybe it’s defeatism that upsets some people here, coupled with a lack of realism as to the compromises necessary if a party has to appeal to 35-40% of the electorate to be successful.

In the unlikely event that Cameron forms another government (not one opinion poll has ever suggested that he will come anywhere near getting a majority, and who will be left to join another coalition with him?), what makes you so sure that Labour Party members will start squabbling with each other? After the party’s second worst result since ‘The Daily Mail’ stitched it up with the Zinoviev letter in 1924, it has held together, thanks in no small measure to Ed Miliband and despite the best efforts of the Tory press to simulate crises. Labour has more members than any other party in the UK and, according to the overwhelming majority of opinion polls in the last three years, it is the most popular party, if only by a small margin. And while the Tories have far more money to splash around with adverts on billboards and on Facebook, Labour is much better organised on the ground.

I assume you think there will be a 'swingback' (as the pollsters call it) to the Tories before polling day, but there isn’t any sign of it yet. Despite all the fiddled employment figures and the lies about how well the economy is doing, most people aren’t feeling better off, and the Tories have gone out of their way to alienate almost everyone except pensioners and the rich.

You and I are well aware that some people still don’t realise the damage done and problems created by Thatcher in over eleven years in power, so what guarantee is there that more of the public will see Cameron for what he is if he stays in office? Five more years of the Tories would be catastrophic for the poorest people in society, for workers who would be stripped of what few rights they have left, and for the NHS. I’m sure you’re right about England’s cricketers’ chances in the current World Cup (it would be better if they saved us further embarrassment and came home now), but I have to hope that you’re wrong about what will happen in May. Only time will tell.

I've read the last two pages of posts here and all i can conclude is 'what does it matter'?

Let's face facts - if the Labour party do win the election (unlikely) they'll do little more than tinker at the edges of neo-liberal tory policies......they simply haven't got the nerve, desire, or will to make the radical changes necessary to address what any right thinking person knows is the root of our problems (and the route to eventual total economic collapse), ie: the ever continuous rise in inequality of not only financial reward but also of opportunity.

The only thing that will alter the course this country is taking is if the Unions galvanise, stop financially supporting the present Labour party they founded - but have been betrayed by, and  form a 'real' Labour party anew that will revitalise British politics. Let's not forget that it was the unions who were the roots of the real Labour movement that oversaw REAL positive changes such as the NHS. comprehensive education, and the narrowing of inequality from 1945-1979. Since 1979 inequality has been on the rise again.

So nice chap that some of you seem to think Ed Miliband might be, he is simply giving you the choice of the lesser of two evils......and in my book that is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Ivan wrote:Phil. It’s not a “crime” to criticise Labour on this forum, and I’ve done it myself, most notably over the Iraq war and the lack of support for industrial action by public sector workers with genuine grievances. Maybe it’s defeatism that upsets some people here, coupled with a lack of realism as to the compromises necessary if a party has to appeal to 35-40% of the electorate to be successful.

And that is the problem right there: compromise.

There is no need to compromise. THis is not a poor country! We don't need austerity and we certainly don't need a Labour party that, under Blair, turned it's back on its socialist roots only to be tamed by the Tories. That's what they are: tamed. They have allowed themselves, during these five years, to be played as scapegoats. They have done nothing to counter the right wing rhetoric that holds them accountable for the failures of the banks and has allowed itself to be regarded as fiscally irresponsible. They sit there silenly in the debate like scolded children with nothing to say. It's embarassing! When they do speak it's only to pledge the same things as the tories, but with a heaveier heart or a more sugary coating. They want to axe the Bedroom Tax, but they introduced the idea in the first place! NO wonder they are seen as lacking credibility.

The most likely outcome in May is a hung parliament. It is entirely possible that Labour will have the majority within that, but then what? A minority government will collapse in months. They have failed over 5 years to present the alternative and that is their biggest mistake and it will cost us dearly.

boatlady wrote:Still noone has addressed any of the issues I have raised

Well, you're just asking us -and rubbishing everything we say - why not ask someone else?

The reason for that boatlady is its is not the answers they want to hear.

The only thing that will alter the course this country is taking is if the Unions galvanise, stop financially supporting the present Labour party they founded - but have been betrayed by, and  form a 'real' Labour party anew that will revitalise British politics.

sickchip. Good to see you here again.

We already have a new party which fits your criteria – the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC). After a cursory glance at its policies, I can’t see anything with which I disagree, although I’m not sure that you can lift the siege of Gaza without getting involved in military action:-

http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy

So how does this new party with good, progressive policies, co-founded by the late Bob Crow, fare in elections? In the 2010 general election it fielded 37 candidates, who between them received 11,913 votes, an average of 322 each. (For comparison, the 27 Monster Raving Loony Party candidates averaged 278 votes each.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

I’m sure Cameron and his gangsters would be more than happy if a substantial number of people on the left effectively waste their votes on a small party with good policies (but no chance whatsoever of even getting one MP elected); I won’t be one of them.

The late Tony Benn told us long ago that “Labour is not a socialist party, it is a party with socialists in it.” He also endorsed Ed Miliband’s leadership of the party, saying: “I voted for Ed as leader and I have known him for many years. When he was a student he came to work for me as a volunteer in my offices at Parliament. I have always had a very high regard for him. He is a man of principle – a man who says what he believes in and will stand by it.” That will do for me.

http://www.bigissue.com/features/interviews/3202/tony-benn-interview-labour-suffered-greatly-through-tony-blair

Some people just need a cuddle.

ghost whistler wrote:-
They want to axe the bedroom tax, but they introduced the idea in the first place! No wonder they are seen as lacking credibility.

Wrong. The bedroom tax was invented by Thatcher’s regime. Restrictions on entitlement to housing benefit, based on the size of the accommodation occupied, were first applied by the Tories to claimants living in privately rented housing – see Schedule 3 of the Rent Officers (Additional Function) Order 1989.

In 2008, Labour introduced the Local Housing Allowance (LHA), which aimed to limit the amount of housing benefit paid to private landlords. The idea was to stop landlords charging higher rents in the knowledge that this escalating cost would be met through housing benefit.

LHA only affected new cases from the date that the policy was implemented. The Tory bedroom tax applied to all existing social housing tenants, regardless of how long they had been resident, as well as new claimants.

As LHA only affected new tenants, the number of disabled people affected by the policy on the day of its introduction was zero. When Iain Duncan Smith introduced the bedroom tax, 660,000 people were affected by the policy, 420,000 of whom were disabled, and all of them began to receive immediate demands for payment of previously met rent shortfalls.

http://notpaying.tumblr.com/post/55537295011/how-the-bedroom-tax-differs-from-the-local-housing

If they wanted to stop landlords charging higher rents then why didn't they just cap rents?

And why aren't they promising to do so now?

I don't want to hear 'compromise'. I want to hear policies that will stop the rot of neoliberal capitlism that is destroying our society.

Again and agian I have mentioned Labour's capitulation to IDS' welfare reforms and noone has anything to say on this other than ad hominem attacks?

And there is nothing much worse than being attacked in Latin...

I don't think I've made any ad hominem attacks in this discussion. But I have noticed that it's not just Owen Paterson's badgers who keep moving the goalposts.

Ivan wrote:I don't think I've made any ad hominem attacks in this discussion. But I have noticed that it's not just Owen Paterson's badgers who keep moving the goalposts.

How have I moved the goalpost?

Did I say you personally had made an ad hominem?

oftenwrong wrote:I suppose we might feel flattered that so much energy is expended upon telling us how mistaken we are.

Some people have the cheek to tell us that we are mistaken about the Labour party OW, what do they know SFA not unless they are desperate to get all Labour voters to vote Ukip or for one of the other slimey parties who in all are just after power and to get there snouts in the trough of taxpayer money.

So many axes, and so many people grinding them, Redflag!

And again, you have not explained why Labour vote in favour of policies that harm this country.

Why have they supported IDS? Why have they supported more cuts? Why are they opposed to renationalisation? Why are they in favour of fracking?

Is this more 'compromise'? Is this because they can't do anything? If that's the case what's teh point of voting for them then?

Voting choices are a personal decision and I think people are explaining why they think they will vote Labour (if they will)

In relation to the fact that the party has made little attempt to make a 'splash' in the press - I guess I'm assuming the reasons are twofold - one, the media as a whole is more interested in describing how weird Miliband looks eating a sandwich than in reporting on successful interventions on PMQ's, interesting policy statements or anything of that sort. The second reason, the party has been quite clear and open about is, the Labour party are interested in having face-to-face conversations with as many people in the country as possible, that's the main thrust of canvassing and the main method chosen for getting the message out - it involves listening to voters and trying to formulate policy on the basis of what concerns the man and woman in the street. This isn't going to make headlines, but may result in a government that is able actually to respond to what is important to the electorate, rather than making up dodgy legislation on the back of a fag packet without considering how it will impact voters. That's my understanding of the Labour strategy for the election - local constituency parties have a monthly quota of contacts to make and information gleaned from these contacts is fed back to enable shadow cabinet ministers to know where to make personal appearances and what policy decisions may attract voters.

In relation to how the party chooses to vote on measures before the Commons - I honestly don't know why some decisions about voting have been made - I'm not a politician, and I don't really understand how to function in an environment like the Commons - I quite seriously suggest to you that if you want to understand why the Labour party in parliament have voted a particular way on any topic, you need to ask them - you can contact Ed Miliband, or your local Labour MP if you have one, the Labour candidate standing in your constituency or even a Labour councillor.
You can write, phone, email or seek a face-to-face meeting - I'm sure you will receive an answer, and if you do not feel it meets your need you can ask for further illustration.

What you vote is of course your own decision - if you are not convinced by Labour, there are many other parties that may be more to your liking.
I do, however, feel that unless most people who are unhappy with the current government do vote Labour we are going to end up with another Tory government - they will form a coalition with UKIP or the SNP, or the LibDems again - and they will be able to push through legislation that will destroy the NHS, dismantle yet more of our public services and further reduce social security benefits - I don't want that and I suspect you don't either

You are, again, avoiding my question.

Perhaps you work for jolly Jack Straw!

As i said, GW - I don't know the answer to your question.

Boatlady he/she does not really want answers they just want to come on here and harp on about the Labour party & MPs, several of us have tried to answer the questions they have asked just to have it thrown back in our faces. I think they are hoping to put us all off voting Labour in May and change our vote to Ukip NOT A HOPE IN HELL.

Redflag wrote:Boatlady he/she does not really want answers they just want to come on here and harp on about the Labour party & MPs, several of us have tried to answer the questions they have asked just to have it thrown back in our faces. I think they are hoping to put us all off voting Labour in May and change our vote to Ukip NOT A HOPE IN HELL.

Don't put words in my mouth. Who do you think you are?

ghost whistler wrote:

Redflag wrote:Boatlady he/she does not really want answers they just want to come on here and harp on about the Labour party & MPs, several of us have tried to answer the questions they have asked just to have it thrown back in our faces.    I think they are hoping to put us all off voting Labour in May and change our vote to Ukip NOT A HOPE IN HELL.

Don't put words in my mouth. Who do you think you are?

A better person than you GW, and I got that from jolly Mr Rifkin