| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| According to the New Statesman | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 6 2014, 09:51 AM (250 Views) | |
| RJD | Nov 6 2014, 09:51 AM Post #1 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to the Bible of the left, which now has also come out with the Gruaniad to find Miolliband's Labour wanting:
No doubt he learned about the inevitable failure of capitalism on his Marxist father's knee and has been waiting for such. He will have to wait longer as capitalism is flexible it adapts and does so very quickly. People ask why Milliband is not in touch with his core voters? The truth is that these are not in the form he would wish, they need more social engineering to fit his model of what is acceptable. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 6 2014, 11:24 AM Post #2 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Capitalism failed the moment the poorest in the West were told to have less so the rich could bailout the broken financial system. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| ACH1967 | Nov 6 2014, 12:18 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don’t think it became broken just apparent how it really works. The real triumph of capitalism is that this happened and there aren’t riots. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Nov 6 2014, 02:05 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Social Engineering ...... like the 'Right to buy scheme'? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 7 2014, 05:17 PM Post #5 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Is that social engineering or just the sale of assets? |
![]() |
|
| jaguar | Nov 7 2014, 05:21 PM Post #6 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
His leadership was savaged by the New Statesman, the left-wing magazine that backed him for the top job in 2010, which branded him an "old-style Hampstead socialist" who does not understand the "lower middle class or material aspiration". Labour's leadership crisis has been a long time coming. Since taking the top job in his party, Ed Miliband has had trouble convincing anyone to take him seriously. As his poll lead and personal approval ratings leave Ed facing the prospect of throwing away an election that was his for the taking, is the Labour Party looking at its worst leader of all time. |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Nov 7 2014, 05:38 PM Post #7 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tony Blair in collusion with the majority of the Labour Party destroyed the traditional Labour Party in order to get elected by the fickle English electorate. Since New Labour does not champion the cause of the English working class, there is a need for a new political party to take up the legacy of Harold Wilson. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 7 2014, 05:42 PM Post #8 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
- Dan Hodges It now obvious that only by replacing Milliband will Labour improve it's electoral chances. As I said at the start it was a mistake to allow Brown's two henchmen who were complicit with Labour's economic failure to become leaders of the Party. Today I think Cooper would scare Cameron the most. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 7 2014, 05:50 PM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
Each side has done their own share of social engineering but Thatcher's version was the start of a mixed economy style of capitalism turning into neoliberalist one. Just as Reagan's was. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 7 2014, 06:02 PM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
You show all the signs of a buffoon. The legacy of Wilson,Heath and Callaghan was incompetence, weakness and eventually Thatcher . The voters were neither fickle or totally English. The electorate didnt want another Thatcher ( or Major) regime and Blair knew British politics would never return to old Labour . Blair promised a benign capitalism . |
|
|
| RJD | Nov 7 2014, 06:12 PM Post #11 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Blair would promise anything that bought votes, he was an utterly ruthless garner of votes without one iota of conviction. He knew how to win elections, but his political nemesis was Brown who appeared on a mission to ensure that Blair failed at any cost. Balls will do the same to Milliband given half a chance, but I suspect he already is looking for a new posting outside of Westminster. Maybe his brother can do some Merchant bank networking. |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Nov 7 2014, 06:16 PM Post #12 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, RJD, you have Blair pegged. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 7 2014, 06:18 PM Post #13 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's only because the CCTV centres are more secure than our nuclear bunkers ever were. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 7 2014, 06:20 PM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^ Dumb insolence, par for the course though. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 7 2014, 06:31 PM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
Indeed. If Blair was around in the 60s he would have had a more Socialist agenda no doubt . Brown had a brilliant mind but was a charmless bully. Nevertheless the public wanted rid of the ' barrow boy' tories and was promised a fairer society and a NL that was not beholding to the unions. They didnt get it. |
|
|
| C-too | Nov 7 2014, 06:44 PM Post #16 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A purely bigoted anti-NL comment. Regardless of what you think about the way Blair did things, he most definitely did more for working people than any previous PM since Attlee. NL's "third way" was a breath air, and probably the only really acceptable political foundation that could unite the country. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 7 2014, 07:02 PM Post #17 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not often I am in 100% agreement with RJD, but I am here. Blair was... ...well, I'm not allowed to use those words without risking being banned. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 7 2014, 07:05 PM Post #18 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Rubbish. Blair's / New Labour's immigration policy alone was the biggest betrayal of the working people of this country ever. In due course New Labour will go down in history as more damaging to the Working Class than Thatcher. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 7 2014, 07:11 PM Post #19 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Feel free..... |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Nov 8 2014, 08:30 AM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Didn't particularly like Blair, but totally agree. The current administration has done nothing at all for the so-called working classes or for that matter no one else apart from an elite that is wrecking the UK. |
![]() |
|
| Stan Still | Nov 8 2014, 09:34 AM Post #21 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree labour will go down in history for all the wrong reasons, but if it had not been for Thatcher Old Labour would have heaped more damage on UK PLC, Thatcher inherited a poisoned chalice from Labour the UK was falling apart, and the Unions were out of control creating more damage, many do not like the stark truth and fact but the voters backed the Tories not the Unions or Labour. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 8 2014, 10:52 AM Post #22 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A purely bigoted anti reality comment designed as always to white-wash over the truth that the last lot did more harm to the UK than most and will be recognised in history as the worst Gov. since WW2. Even worse than Heath and he was a disaster. Get real C2 it is people like you with your BS perspective on history that is holding Labour back. Instead of white-washing Labour should have cleared the decks in 2010, put the two Eds out to grass, apologised for past mistakes and moved on with fresh blood. Instead we have the two Eds who are seen by Joe Public to have learned nothing from the recent past as a reminder to voters that we could get the same medicine again. Best you understand why it is that the two posh boys are light years ahead in the polls that the two Eds on matters relating in trust with the economy. You have brought this on your own heads with your obfuscation and white-wash. Grow up and move on as the game is not over. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 8 2014, 10:56 AM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Stop making them then,RJD. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 8 2014, 10:56 AM Post #24 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Even today after all of the analysis some of the Old Guard still believe that the solution was for Mrs T to sit down with the Trade Union Bosses and between them sort out a solution to satisfy everyone. Some people are incapable of learning and only delude themselves. As Mrs T quite rightly said "there is no alternative"! |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 8 2014, 10:58 AM Post #25 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is a debating forum Mr Smurf so the onus is on you to put up your evidence and substantiate your claim. Best you do this with your own words as I have long avoided your wild goose links. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 8 2014, 11:50 AM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know that RJD, you appear not to. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 8 2014, 11:55 AM Post #27 |
|
Deleted User
|
The trade unions must take responsibility for their own downfall and Thatcher did have the voters backing but she was never was concerned with the welfare of the people who voted for her. She virtually destroyed trade unions( except in the public sector) and created a weak and frightened public without a common voice with influence or power. |
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 8 2014, 12:08 PM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Couldn't agree more PS. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Nov 8 2014, 02:56 PM Post #29 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 8 2014, 03:49 PM Post #30 |
|
Deleted User
|
It didnt unite the country did it? sheesh
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 8 2014, 03:52 PM Post #31 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Understandable as neither you or Mr Smurf believe in substantiating any of your claims with anything approaching substance. You just spew your bile and Mr S his wild goose links. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 8 2014, 03:57 PM Post #32 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have yet to see you back up your contentions at all RJD. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 8 2014, 03:59 PM Post #33 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You must be blind? Name one where you have not seen any substantiation. But first ensure it is my claim and not the Usual Red Nag crap. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 8 2014, 04:00 PM Post #34 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Time out is annoying. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 8 2014, 04:02 PM Post #35 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Name just ONE instance where you have used EVIDENCE to back up one of your contentions RJD, and I don't mean newspaper articles. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Nov 8 2014, 04:10 PM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
RJD even you must realise by now the benefits sanctions regime is having dire consequences when due to the Oakley Review https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335144/jsa-sanctions-independent-review.pdf The Work and Pensions Committee are carrying out an investigation into benefits sanctions:- http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news/benefit-sanctions-launch/ 06 November 2014 . The Work and Pensions Committee has decided to conduct an inquiry into benefit sanctions policy. This inquiry will consider aspects of sanctions policy which were outside the remit of the Oakley Review. Terms of reference for the inquiry Submissions of no more than 3,000 words are invited from interested organisations and individuals. The Committee is particularly interested in: Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) sanctions, including: whether the current ESA sanctions regime is appropriate and proportionate for jobseekers with ill health and disabilities; and the reasons for recent sharp increases in the number of ESA sanctions Whether particular groups of ESA and JSA claimants (by impairment type; age; gender etc.) are proportionately more likely to be sanctioned than others To follow up the Committee's recommendation for a full independent review, to investigate the purpose, effects and efficacy of benefit sanctions, and to consider the issues such a review would need to take into account, including What are the current sanctions regimes trying to achieve and what evidence is there that they work? - To what extent are sanctions justified solely as a means of ensuring that unemployed benefit claimants fulfil the conditions of benefit entitlement? - What evidence is there that benefit sanctions also encourage claimants to engage more actively in job-seeking and ultimately move into employment? How could this be measured? - What are the wider implications of sanctions in terms of their impacts on claimants? What are the alternatives to the current sanctions regimes? For example: - How might the current system of financial sanctions be altered to make it more appropriate or effective? - Is there a case for non-financial sanctions? - What form could non-financial sanctions take? - Are there examples of good practice from other countries? Submissions do not need to address all of these points. The deadline for submitting evidence is Friday 12 December. How to submit your evidence The personal information you supply will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the purposes of attributing the evidence you submit and contacting you as necessary in connection with its processing. Each submission should be no more than 3,000 words in length, be in Word format with as little use of colour or logos as possible, and have numbered paragraphs If you need to send a paper copy please send it to: The Clerk, Work and Pensions Committee, House of Commons, 1st Floor, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NB Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to, in which case a web link to the published work should be included. Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. It is the Committee’s decision whether or not to accept a submission as formal written evidence. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence. Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases. Further guidance on submitting evidence to Select Committees (PDF, 2.46MB) (PDF PDF 2.46 MB)Opens in a new window is available on the parliamentary website. Further information About Parliament: Select Committees Visit Parliament: watch committees Terms of reference for the inquiry Submissions of no more than 3,000 words are invited from interested organisations and individuals. The Committee is particularly interested in: Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) sanctions, including: whether the current ESA sanctions regime is appropriate and proportionate for jobseekers with ill health and disabilities; and the reasons for recent sharp increases in the number of ESA sanctions Whether particular groups of ESA and JSA claimants (by impairment type; age; gender etc.) are proportionately more likely to be sanctioned than others To follow up the Committee's recommendation for a full independent review, to investigate the purpose, effects and efficacy of benefit sanctions, and to consider the issues such a review would need to take into account, including What are the current sanctions regimes trying to achieve and what evidence is there that they work? - To what extent are sanctions justified solely as a means of ensuring that unemployed benefit claimants fulfil the conditions of benefit entitlement? - What evidence is there that benefit sanctions also encourage claimants to engage more actively in job-seeking and ultimately move into employment? How could this be measured? - What are the wider implications of sanctions in terms of their impacts on claimants? What are the alternatives to the current sanctions regimes? For example: - How might the current system of financial sanctions be altered to make it more appropriate or effective? - Is there a case for non-financial sanctions? - What form could non-financial sanctions take? - Are there examples of good practice from other countries? Submissions do not need to address all of these points. The deadline for submitting evidence is Friday 12 December. How to submit your evidence The personal information you supply will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the purposes of attributing the evidence you submit and contacting you as necessary in connection with its processing. Each submission should be no more than 3,000 words in length, be in Word format with as little use of colour or logos as possible, and have numbered paragraphs If you need to send a paper copy please send it to: The Clerk, Work and Pensions Committee, House of Commons, 1st Floor, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NB Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to, in which case a web link to the published work should be included. Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. It is the Committee’s decision whether or not to accept a submission as formal written evidence. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence. Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases. Further guidance on submitting evidence to Select Committees (PDF, 2.46MB) (PDF PDF 2.46 MB)Opens in a new window is available on the parliamentary website. Further information About Parliament: Select Committees Visit Parliament: watch committees |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Nov 8 2014, 04:36 PM Post #37 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Haven't you realised he just doesn't do substantive debate based on evidence. Yet hypocritically expects others to provide it. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Nov 8 2014, 04:48 PM Post #38 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The immigration would not have been a problem but for the international financial meltdown, remember, there were less than a million unemployed in 2006. His third way, "For The Many Not The Few" was a breath of fresh air in British politics. Unfortunately he was undone by the meltdown. Not his fault. So you should not give life to a misinterpretation of Blair in office. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Nov 8 2014, 04:50 PM Post #39 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It didn't give us 17 years of high/mass unemployment either. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 8 2014, 04:55 PM Post #40 |
|
Deleted User
|
He didnt give a lot of things..including the only really acceptable political foundation that could unite the country...because it didnt . Anything else he didnt give us? |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



7:32 PM Jul 11