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

And there was me thinking I must be the only one...!

Generals have a reputation for always fighting the LAST war, because that's all they know about.

Labour might be very sensible to begin fighting the next election when it's due, and something is known of the conditions under which it might be fought.

"One Nation" shouts Ed", "No more universal benefits" shouts Ed. Well one of them is wrong isn't he?

One Nation" shouts Ed", "No more universal benefits" shouts Ed. Well one of them is wrong isn't he?

I'm not sure the two positions are mutually exclusive - I thought the idea of 'One Nation' was something about everyone having enough of what they need for a dignified and civilised life - and as everone needs a different amount from the State, maybe giving less to some makes some sense?

Having said which, I'm not sure I think it's really smart politically to be thinking along the lines of reducing ANY pensioners' benefits at this stage (but then, I'm a pensioner - I would say that)

It makes sense to me too boatlady, but then again I've not been shouting "one nation" to anybody. Let's not forget he also wants regional differences to be taken into account. As I recall it, he was totally against that (along with the unions) last year when it was mentioned, what a difference a speech held in Canary Wharf can make.

Once you remember there are no real differences between the 3 main parties, politics becomes easy.

You hang in there as a pensioner, I'll be joining you relatively shortly.

there are no real differences between the 3 main parties

.....whereas UKIP, led by a public school toff who worked in the City, has policies which are so very different from the rabid right of the Tory Party, I suppose?

Does it take you long to think up this "shyte"?

They're simply a protest group according you Ivan, therefore nothing to worry about. Nearly forgot, they're beginning to gain votes from Labour now and that's not nice is it?

tlttf. There nothing nice about UKIP supporters, as you do your best to demonstrate.

Do you have any evidence of more than a handful of politically illiterate Labour voters defecting to UKIP, or have you just been reading the tea leaves again? Do you seriously imagine that real Labour supporters would want anything to do with an outfit of gobby pub bores, racists and misogynists who are to the right of the Tory Party?

Farage and Nuttall are not much better Ivan, while I was in Eastleigh Farage and Nuttall were never out of J.D.Weatherspoons I went in to eat rather go to the burger joints and they were always in with pint in hand and that happened every night I was in having my evening meal.

tlttf wrote:They're simply a protest group according you Ivan, therefore nothing to worry about. Nearly forgot, they're beginning to gain votes from Labour now and that's not nice is it?

I doubt that UKIP is taking many voters from Labour tittf because all UKIP are is second hand Tories, and with this shower of blue Tories and there Ideology of cuttting wages benefits for those in REAL need while giving the highest paid tax breaks, although there are plenty of Tory MPs willing to stand on a joint ticket with UKIP so this tells me that the Tories are a more suitable bedfellow for the Tories.

Where should the Labour Party position itself?

At the opposite end of the spectrum to the posturing UKIP.

I'm surprised that anyone could hear what either man said during PMQs today. Five hundred MPs all talking at once made a football crowd sound relaxed. Cameron's technique is to have a speech ready, which he will deliver whatever question is put. His attack on Labour's disclosure that the withdrawn Child Benefit for high earners will not be replaced, underlines how necessary it is for Ed Miliband to keep the Tories guessing for a bit longer.

bobby wrote:After many weeks of no Prime ministers question time on the telly, I thought Ed Milibands performance today was not his best. If we are not wanting to look forward to another Tory/? Government after the 2015 General Election he really needs to up his game.

Herr Cameron as usual would not answer a direct question, but as is usual for him simply spouted out a load of lies from the Standard book of Tory bullshit. Why don’t Labour punish him every time he lies, because if they don’t, the public will think that what he says is the truth.

The gloves need to come off as there is now less than two years to get the Tory led coalition bastards well and truly discredited, and quite frankly if we get more of what I saw today, that aint going to happen any time soon.

Thank you bobby you have said what has been the same question I have been asking for months,if you remember at the beginning the Tories drip fed the public that the debt was all down to the Labour party borrowing, omitting to say that most of the borrowing was down to "Bailing Out the Banks" after their spendrift night out at the CASINO.

So Ed Miliband and you Labour MPs get your finger out or there will not be a Parliament for you to get elected to.

Breaking News...

Daily Mail critical of Labour Party

Sun rises in East again...

Phil Hornby wrote:Breaking News...

Daily Mail critical of Labour Party

Sun rises in East again...

In other words PH as far as the Daily Fail same old same old

‘The Daily Mail’ trash, which was deleted because its poster refuses time and again to adhere to our rules, mocked Labour’s so-called ‘U-turn’ on child benefit. I wonder what the ‘paper’ (for want of a better word) has made of Cameron’s U-turns on a VAT increase, no top-down reorganisation of the NHS, no cuts to Sure Start, the selling off of forests and plain cigarette packaging (the last of which was no doubt conveniently dropped because it conflicts with the business interests of Cameron’s henchman, Lynton Crosby)? The link below is to a list of many more of Cameron’s U-turns, but I doubt if a ‘Daily Mail’ sycophant would get up at 6am to rush here to share it with us:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/31/coalition-u-turns-full-list

There’s nothing new or particularly newsworthy about a political party opposing a policy but not pledging to reverse it. At the time, a party can say “we wouldn’t do that”, but when they get into power the issue may not be high on their list of priorities. The Tories opposed the creation of the NHS in 1948, but when they took office in 1951 (despite winning fewer votes than Labour), they didn’t scrap it. The Tories opposed the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but they’re still there. The Tories opposed the introduction of the minimum wage, and although they seek to undermine it with programmes like ‘Workfare’, it’s still in place. So Labour’s plan not to restore child benefit to the wealthy is something of a non-story, and it doesn’t leave Ed Miliband in “disarray”, as that pathetic excuse for a newspaper, which never has any regard for the truth, is claiming.

It's all becoming clear.......the Labour party are right behind the coalition on welfare cuts.

So......

So examine the alternatives, sickchip.

The obvious one would be increased taxation. Would you vote for that? It's an excellent device for feeding the Poor at the expense of the Rich. In theory.

Why don't Labour, the Tories, and the Lib-Dems just congeal into one stinking coalition...........and shatter the electorates illusion that voting makes one iota of difference to the agenda of our government - no matter who that is.

What kind of democracy is it that allows you to choose A) neo-liberalism B) neo-liberalism, or C) neo-liberalism.

What do you want for tea? Beans, beans, or beans?

sickchip wrote:It's all becoming clear.......the Labour party are right behind the coalition on welfare cuts.

So......

The welfare cuts that Labour would bring in sickchip would effect the people earning over £60,000 per year, at the moment the Tory gov't believe in not paying family allowance to people earning over £60,000 BUT where the man of the family earns say £55,000 and his wife earns £40,000 giving them a total family income of £95,00 THEY STILL GET FAMILY ALLOWANCE from this gov't so do not class Labour the same as the bloody nasty Tories.

Red,

The Labour party will keep the 'bedroom' tax, housing benefit cuts etc........in fact they won't abandon any welfare cuts the current lot have introduced.

sickchip wrote:Red,

The Labour party will keep the 'bedroom' tax, housing benefit cuts etc........in fact they won't abandon any welfare cuts the current lot have introduced.

Do you know this for a fact sickchip ? if they did they would lose all Labour members and voters and would end up a party of the past with no chance of ever getting into gov't again I do not think they would dare risk that, maybe you are dwelling on Blairs time in office too much.

Vote Labour and get "Exactly the same".

Miliband hints at Labour plan to extend the retirement age

June 7, 2013, 4:59am

ED MILIBAND yesterday suggested Labour would extend the retirement age, as he detailed how he would seek to control welfare spending.

“On pensions, we know we have a rising elderly population and a rising budget,” he told an audience in docklands. “The way to make this sustainable is to increase the number of people in the working population supporting our elderly. And therefore to show a willingness to adjust the retirement age.”


Yep Dave (sorry I meant Ed) reckons we have an money crisis, he must have been talking to his previous bosses?

http://www.cityam.com/article/miliband-hints-labour-plan-extend-retirement-age

I think the raising of the retirement age began under the last Labour government - the plan was to introduce it gradually over several years. The current administration speeded up the process, but I think there is a broad consensus that with rising life expectancy it's reasonable to raise the state pension age.

Where I think it could be fairer is to acknowledge that some occupations 'age' working people faster than others, and to maybe be a bit more flexible about out of work benefits for people in their 50's and above who may just not be fit for their usual occupation any more, and who may not be able or willing to retrain.

Alongside that could be greater availability of educational opportunities (and funding) for 50+ for those who do feel able to explore the possibility of retraining.

The system as it is, is, and has always been unfair.
To quote an example from a case I know - a man who left school at 16 and has always been employed at minimum wage in a manual blue collar job is now 57 and will have to work another 10 years before he gets his State Pension - a total working life of 51 years. A woman who left school at 18, went straight to University, obtained a post-graduate qualification then started work in her mid 20's qualifies for the full State Pension at 61 - after only 36 years at work, in a better working environment, with better pay and conditions, and with an occupational pension to look forward to. Now that's unfair.

Sort of in agreement boatlady, what stopped the man from moving up the ladder and gaining qualifications as he grew older?

Worth looking at the link just to see the reality of difference between labour and tories, great graphs.

Billy Bragg may not like it, but the Conservatives are the new workers’ party

Ed Miliband argued this morning that the Labour party ought to be more focused on people working. ‘The clue’s in the name,’ he said. The irony is that Labour gave up on working people some time ago, and used the boom to keep five million Brits on out-of-work benefit while foreign-born workers accounted for 99.9% of the rise in employment. The Conservatives, with their revolutionary Universal Credit, want to make work pay – and save lives rather than save money.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/looking-for-the-new-workers-party-vote-conservative/

Whenever the Toffs find themselves in charge, they make a policy of frightening the disadvantaged. Labour should automatically benefit from the backlash of Public Opinion.

tlttf. I thought it must be April 1 when I read your latest offering. If you must quote the likes of Fraser Nelson (a), you are required to acknowledge the fact (you haven’t mentioned him at all) and (b), you should either put his words in speech marks or italics rather than attempt to pass them off as your own.

I feel sorry for you if you think a pile of lies from Nelson, or Guido Fawkes, or ‘The Daily Mail’ constitute facts. Foreign-born workers do not “account for 99.9% of the rise in employment”, that’s a downright lie. The Tories “don’t want to save lives”, they want to scrap health and safety laws, and IDS’s policies have resulted in the deaths of dozens of people. Nelson can’t even read his own graphs; 5 million people “weren’t kept on benefits during the boom”, the figure fell below that level in 2001. And if you really think that the party of Bullingdon toffs, which cut taxes for the rich and services for the poor, has the interests of the working class at heart, then you must have fairies at the bottom of your garden.

I’m sure if you looked around you could find a forum for creative writing and sharing extracts from comics, but the intention of this one is to pursue sensible discussions with reasoned arguments.

Ivan, surely the link shows his name?

You've missed my posts on the Economics Thread and the European one too, keep going son your letting the side down.

what stopped the man from moving up the ladder and gaining qualifications as he grew older?

Many factors - and anyway SOMEONE has to be at the bottom of the ladder, else it's not a ladder

Once again I agree boatlady, surely the bottom of the ladder is where the young come in and gain either qualifications or experience to begin the move up. Perhaps you've nailed the problem. Kids either expect to start with a good wage because they have no choice (left home). It all falls back into the argument that parents have kids, they should look after them until they can look after themselves and not expect the state to care for them.

Ivan, surely the link shows his name?

No:-
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/looking-for-the-new-workers-party-vote-conservative/

In any case, that misses the point. You must separate your "thoughts" (for want of a better word) from those of people you quote. Not to do so amounts to plagiarism, which is illegal.

You've missed my posts on the Economics Thread and the European one too

What are you trying to suggest? That I don't have the right to answer your posts on a discussion forum? (Do try and learn the difference between a thread, for one topic started by one person, and a board, where threads on similar topics are displayed.)

keep going son

I'm not your son, so don't patronise me. If I'd been your son, no doubt I'd be reading 'The Daily Mail' and believing the junk that it prints. Lucky escape for me then.

tlttf wrote:Worth looking at the link just to see the reality of difference between labour and tories, great graphs.

Billy Bragg may not like it, but the Conservatives are the new workers’ party

Ed Miliband argued this morning that the Labour party ought to be more focused on people working. ‘The clue’s in the name,’ he said. The irony is that Labour gave up on working people some time ago, and used the boom to keep five million Brits on out-of-work benefit while foreign-born workers accounted for 99.9% of the rise in employment. The Conservatives, with their revolutionary Universal Credit, want to make work pay – and save lives rather than save money.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/looking-for-the-new-workers-party-vote-conservative/

The day the Tories become the party of the workers tittf will be the "DAY NELSON GETS HIS EYE BACK"

A serious bit of journalism.

Labour needs to up its game
Tuesday 11 June 2013
by Jeremy Corbyn

We've seen strange echoes of the run-up to the 1997 election from the Labour leadership lately.

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls tells Newsnight he would maintain Tory Chancellor George Osborne's spending plans for 2015-16. Then he extols the virtures of "tough fiscal rules" and "big and painful choices" as a way of dealing with the deficit.

Gordon Brown said as much back in the 1990s, in very different economic circumstances. The Labour government that followed decided public spending on infrastructure was best funnelled through private finance initiative (PFI) schemes - which we are all paying for now. Indeed, our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying for these schemes.


http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/134033

When governments make decisions, they are normally reluctant to see those decisions reversed, simply because a fickle electorate has decided to change horses. Accordingly, laws are made in such a manner that they would be very difficult/expensive to unpick. The following administration has to choose between throwing good money after bad or accepting things as they are.

In the latter case it is conventional to blame everything on "what they inherited". As you have probably noticed.

tlttf. PFIs started under the Tories in 1993, but no doubt that's too inconvenient a fact for you to mention. They're continuing now.

Spare us all the shit about our grandchildren etc. For nearly three hundred years, each generation has been paying the debts of the previous one, going back as far as the Napoleonic Wars. The most recent generation was paying for our post-WW2 loan from the USA until very recently. And those grandchildren you like to mention have benefited from the schools and hospitals which were repaired with PFI loans by Labour after many years of Tory neglect.

http://t.co/wbX1PbjUSz
Interesting link to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation - raises some questions people might want to ask about current social trends.

Personally, I was very encouraged by the success of social inclusion policy under the last government and think the current lot's 'laissez faire', small government approach will inevitably lead to the formation of poverty 'ghettos' and an end to social mobility

Ivan wrote:tlttf. PFIs started under the Tories in 1993, but no doubt that's too inconvenient a fact for you to mention. They're continuing now.

Spare us all the shit about our grandchildren etc. For nearly three hundred years, each generation has been paying the debts of the previous one, going back as far as the Napoleonic Wars. The most recent generation was paying for our post-WW2 loan from the USA until very recently. And those grandchildren you like to mention have benefited from the schools and hospitals which were repaired with PFI loans by Labour after many years of Tory neglect.

Ivan tittf will not believe your post because the facts and figures do not come from a right wing rag, if I remember correctly our WW2 loan was paid off by Tony Blairs Labour gov't and that was at the same time dealing with the neglect of 18years of Thatchers Tory gov't having to pour money into Our great NHS and Schools that the Tories had neglected.