Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What is Labour for?
Topic Started: Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM (3,075 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]

Quote:
 
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.


LINK

It has to be asked, what are Labour for if it is going to match the Tory budget programme? They now promise to stick to current Coalition plans so what are the offering? Maybe they think they can offer an experienced Management Team that can stimulate the economy and hold a tighter grip on State spending? Makes one want to laugh. Let's get real, without a programme of increases in State expenditure coupled with a programme of social engineering to make us fit their mould there is absolutely no point in Labour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 31 2015, 06:22 PM
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 05:36 PM

A lot of the Labour party and some here would rather have someone unemployed than in work at a low salary. To me it says so much about them.

Substantiate, please.
I have have not seen any evidence of it

perhaps you should look at the NMW they brought in and the nigh on 2 million that are still unemployed because no one dares remove the NMW
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 31 2015, 07:31 PM
The first imperative of the State has nothing to do with serving the people ........
....... it is the 'control the media'.

They used to ban books, burn them ..... now they own the publishers.

substantiate please, I have not seen any evidence of either
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Buccaneer
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 05:07 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 04:53 PM
How much would you want a low skilled worker to get
Enough so their employer does not have to be subsidised by the government so they can pay low wages.
Quack quack
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
No government could have blocked that immigration, the best they could have done was to slow it down. Those EU members who wanted to come to the UK would have come regardless of the colour of the government.

NL were not a bust, anyone with an iota of objectivity would have understood by now that the bust was international.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.
How could they have STOPPED the immigration ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 1 2015, 12:19 AM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.
How could they have STOPPED the immigration ?
By sticking two fingers up the the EU, however, they did not WANT to stop immigration but actively encouraged it, surely you can see the difference.....13000 per annum? yeah right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.
Well your lot have done nothing about immigration either, despite Scameron's weasel words about reducing it to the 'tens of thousands'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 01:06 AM
C-too
Feb 1 2015, 12:19 AM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.
How could they have STOPPED the immigration ?
By sticking two fingers up the the EU, however, they did not WANT to stop immigration but actively encouraged it, surely you can see the difference.....13000 per annum? yeah right.
I was hoping you'd start to share some of the blame with the business community who absolutely love imported labour and frequently lobby Westminster for it's continuance, but alas you've yet to make that connection!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 03:45 PM
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 03:38 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 02:47 PM
Unlike yourself who seems to want everyone on government handouts
I want nothing of the kind RJD, I have made myself VERY clear about that.
I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts.
Yes you have made that clear several times, RJD was taking your defence of those on benefits too far.

But a question: you say "I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts." So if someone could be either Out of Work or Working for Peanuts which would you prefer them to be in?

Steve it has been well established that Mr Smurf believes that if an Employer cannot offer the Living Wage then the unemployed people should refuse the job and struggle by on JSA. I have tested him on this over the tears and his position is well established, as a consequence I do not believe I overstate. He has never ever shown any interest in any policy directed towards assisting the unemployed get into work, quite the opposite.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Feb 1 2015, 12:51 PM
Steve it has been well established that Mr Smurf believes that if an Employer cannot offer the Living Wage then the unemployed people should refuse the job and struggle by on JSA.
No it hasn't RJD, only in your warped perception. It may have escaped your attention but anyone refusing an employment regulations compliant job offer, gets their JSA sanctioned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust,
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.

First off, these immigrants Labour imported are not permitted to vote in the GE until given citizenship - so gerrymandering it wasn't.
And you ignore that this coalition hasn't reduced the numbers, so by your reasoning are trying to import voters.

But my reason for replying to this silly post is to again remind - that a number of Tory grandees have admitted Mrs T got it wrong, that the 'Nasty Party' label stuck, and the party needed to change, to be more inclusive.
Of course this new caring Conservatism only lasted until they formed government.

Edited by Affa, Feb 1 2015, 01:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Feb 1 2015, 12:55 PM
RJD
Feb 1 2015, 12:51 PM
Steve it has been well established that Mr Smurf believes that if an Employer cannot offer the Living Wage then the unemployed people should refuse the job and struggle by on JSA.
No it hasn't RJD, only in your warped perception. It may have escaped your attention but anyone refusing an employment regulations compliant job offer, gets their JSA sanctioned.
Yes it is well established both here and at the last place. You have never ever supported any initiative that helps with job creation, your only interest, some would say an obsession, is welfare benefits and how these can me maximised in terms of claimants and amounts. Thank goodness that Joe public does not swallow your bilge and understands that there is tough competition for jobs in this increasingly globalised economy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 1 2015, 01:19 PM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust,
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.



It wasn't Labour who opened the flood gates..It was John Major who signed the Maastricht treaty in 1991!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Feb 1 2015, 04:32 PM
Yes it is well established both here and at the last place. You have never ever supported any initiative that helps with job creation, your only interest, some would say an obsession, is welfare benefits and how these can me maximised in terms of claimants and amounts. Thank goodness that Joe public does not swallow your bilge and understands that there is tough competition for jobs in this increasingly globalised economy.
RJD, I support any initiative that supports job creation, when someone comes up with one I will support it.
My "obsession" as you call it, is to get as many people who are able to work into to work, and to stop the current practice of declaring people "fit for work" when they are not.
Iain Duncan Smith thus far has killed more disabled people than he has found work. (I will not back down or apologise for that.)
The Telegraph editorial staff, and the Daily Mail editorial staff tried to censor me from stating that, but they were unable to refute it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
PS: RJD, I support any initiative that supports job creation, when someone comes up with one I will support it.
I guess I will be long dead before that comes to pass.

PS: My "obsession" as you call it, is to get as many people who are able to work into to work, and to stop the current practice of declaring people "fit for work" when they are not.

You are not qualified to judge. The State judges and appoints those it wishes to exercise this on their behalf and in doing such builds in a process to correct mistakes.

PS: Iain Duncan Smith thus far has killed more disabled people than he has found work. (I will not back down or apologise for that.)

Who cares if you will not back down? It is highly unlikely that you are capable of seeing reason. As I said you demonstrate all the traits of being manically obsessed with the matter and as a consequence are incapable of viewing the bigger picture.

PS: The Telegraph editorial staff, and the Daily Mail editorial staff tried to censor me from stating that, but they were unable to refute it.

I take that as another symbol of your obsession. I doubt that either of those Newspapers gives a sh1t about someone as inconsequential as your good self. You are to them probably no more than the irritant that you are to us here with your daily rantings and desire to high-jack every thread with your nonsense. For goodness sake get a grip, if you cannot then get out there and use your time with some charity work. Your daily dose of bile here is not persuading anyone of anything other than that you have an obsessive character.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Feb 1 2015, 05:16 PM
For goodness sake get a grip, if you cannot then get out there and use your time with some charity work.
RJD, I suggest you do some charity work, if you did you would find out how wrong you are.
As for myself and charity, I have only just finished dealing with a case that was caused directly by the cuts to legal aid.
As a result I know far more about two peoples personal details than I want to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I believe that it was Harold WILSON, who said, " The Labour Party is a 'moral' crusade or it is nothing".

It is now NOTHING, it has abandoned & betrayed the white-working class of this country.

It has no 'CRUSADE', it has no 'MORALITY', it is a 'SUBVERSIVE' 'fifth column', that has sucking up to greedy capitalist businessmen as it's PRIME MOTIVATION.

It's sickening to see\hear Andy BURNHAM attempting to convince the electorate, that, if they will vote for them, they will 'save' the NHS.

You couldn't make it up, the fact that they are running away from their actions when in office in respect of the NHS, has he already forgotten PFI?

The FACT is, the 'old' 'Labour Party' no longer exist, the existing party is 'Labour' in name only.

It's 'values' are regressive to most working people, it will never utter the words, 'working class', poor 'white' working class 'MALES', 'pensioners' or 'disabled' & it refers to the 'underclass' as a 'problem' not to be mentioned.

Yet, it will 'happily' talk about, 'MIDDLE-CLASS', positive contributions by 'MIGRANTS', 'GAYS', 'EAST EUROPEANS', 'WOMEN' or 'MUSLIMS'.

It will happily talk about raising the 'sweet-money' AKA the Guaranteed Minimum Wage by a few pence per hour, whilst happily ignore massive increases in rents to tenants,in favour of it's 'MIDDLE-CLASS' BUY-TO-LET-LANDLORDS, funded by TAXPAYERS MONEY.

It knows that the poor gain NOTHING from tax rate\allowance changes, it knows that does not equate to rising INCOMES\WAGES for either pensioners\workers on low pay, but, because the 'MIDDLE-CLASS' benefit from the policy, he says precisely NOTHING about it.

It's impossible to conclude any 'rant' on MILLIBAND or the 'Labour Party', they are as equally lying & deceitful as CAMERON'S 'TORIES'.

The 'FLOOD -GATES' OF MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION WILL PROCEED APACE SHOULD THEY GET IN AGAIN.
INFLATION will race ahead & interest rates will rise to counter their uncontrolled spending after the first year.

The damage will be terminal, as the 5 year parliament that CAMERON introduced, will come back & bite the Tories hard.
As a result, the Tories will destroy the NHS& the welfare state on ever being re-elected again.

The electorate are well & truly SCREWED no matter who or what they vote for.

When they next lose office, 'Labour' will be forced to adopt 'CLAUSE 4' again, or the electorate will NEVER,EVER elect them to office again, this is because their current 'ideology' will forbid them from controlling the necessary resources for the state to function, it's also TORY hypocrisy that says, control is better in 'private' hands, YET, it wields control & corruptly receives taxpayers money that it then distributes to 'private' companies when in office.

The 'REALITY' is, this country is run by two diametrically opposed ideologies that are hypocritical & non-functional without the TAXPAYER funding their insane fantasies.

Edited by Nonsense, Feb 1 2015, 07:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Eh?
Someone poke you in the eye? !poke!
Edited by Affa, Feb 1 2015, 07:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Clause 4 Labour is as dead as the dodo. The fiascoes of British Coal, British Steel, British Leyland and the like made any clause 4 party unelectable

There's a place for a party that really cares about the bottom 25% of the country. But caring means putting their needs above your own dogma and Labour always struggles with that.

If only they hadn't got the two Eds in charge I'd vote for them
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Feb 1 2015, 10:56 AM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 01:06 AM
C-too
Feb 1 2015, 12:19 AM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
How could they have STOPPED the immigration ?
By sticking two fingers up the the EU, however, they did not WANT to stop immigration but actively encouraged it, surely you can see the difference.....13000 per annum? yeah right.
I was hoping you'd start to share some of the blame with the business community who absolutely love imported labour and frequently lobby Westminster for it's continuance, but alas you've yet to make that connection!
Well, here is one chap who has serious reservations regard Red Ed and his policies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11382303/Boots-boss-Ed-Miliband-would-be-a-catastrophe-for-Britain.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 08:34 PM
Well, here is one chap who has serious reservations regard Red Ed and his policies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11382303/Boots-boss-Ed-Miliband-would-be-a-catastrophe-for-Britain.html
It is in the Telegraph with no comments allowed. Plus the "Boots Boss" pays no UK tax, so is somewhat incentivised for there not to be a New Labour government.
Edited by papasmurf, Feb 1 2015, 08:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Feb 1 2015, 08:41 PM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 08:34 PM
Well, here is one chap who has serious reservations regard Red Ed and his policies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11382303/Boots-boss-Ed-Miliband-would-be-a-catastrophe-for-Britain.html
It is in the Telegraph with no comments allowed. Plus the "Boots Boss" pays no UK tax, so is somewhat incentivised for there not to be a New Labour government.
It was also broadcast on the BBC and no doubt will be in every broadsheet tomorrow, you are not in the telegraph now old chap, you are in a debating forum.....so debate and leave the messenger out of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Its the interpretation fairness that confuses the issues. Some seem to think that fairness is to take from one group to give to another.
The nutshell is just full of empty rhetoric empty
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Feb 1 2015, 11:17 PM
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Its the interpretation fairness that confuses the issues. Some seem to think that fairness is to take from one group to give to another.
The nutshell is just full of empty rhetoric empty

Not to labour the point but 'fairness' isn't too difficult to define.
Basically it is the balance of reward for contribution made, and the antitheses of exploitation.
It is the idea of a fair trade where both participants feel they have made a good deal, a fair exchange.

It isn't fair if one gains more at the other's expense.

No man is an island, and there is no wealth, no wealthy people, without some sort of use of or participation of numerous other players involved in the process. Society is the font of wealth, without which there is no business, no profit, and no wealthy people.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 01:06 AM
C-too
Feb 1 2015, 12:19 AM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 12:02 AM
The Buccaneer
Jan 31 2015, 11:08 PM
This isn't a new question, it's been around since before Gromit. The fact is that NuLab is a total bust, and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !

Anything else afterwards is just even more insulting to the indiginous population, and those more recent immigrants who also want limits to be observed.
" and it just gets worse with their inability to apologise for unlimited immigration on the basis that those people would vote for them !"

Here I must differ, several Labour grandees who were previous cabinet ministers have admitted that they "got it wrong" on immigration, they are now backbenchers, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it is a shame that they did not have any foresight just like Enoch Powell had.
How could they have STOPPED the immigration ?
By sticking two fingers up the the EU, however, they did not WANT to stop immigration but actively encouraged it, surely you can see the difference.....13000 per annum? yeah right.
No government can just stick two fingers up to the EU that is a bit of pure fantasy derived from you imagining what you would like to do.

It has already been pointed out that no government could have stopped the immigration, the best that could have been done and perhaps should have done was what France and Germany did, i.e. slow the influx over a longer period of time.

If the UK leaves the EU it will have to leave completely, any toying about will still leave us vulnerable to immigration. And a complete withdrawal will be so expensive and damaging the average working man will suffer. Loss of jobs, loss of income to the government, brain drain style of emigration, and so on.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 08:34 PM
Tigger
Feb 1 2015, 10:56 AM
Rich
Feb 1 2015, 01:06 AM
C-too
Feb 1 2015, 12:19 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
By sticking two fingers up the the EU, however, they did not WANT to stop immigration but actively encouraged it, surely you can see the difference.....13000 per annum? yeah right.
I was hoping you'd start to share some of the blame with the business community who absolutely love imported labour and frequently lobby Westminster for it's continuance, but alas you've yet to make that connection!
Well, here is one chap who has serious reservations regard Red Ed and his policies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11382303/Boots-boss-Ed-Miliband-would-be-a-catastrophe-for-Britain.html
The Telegraph !!! It seems you know no better than to be influenced by that Tory rag.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Feb 1 2015, 11:17 PM
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Its the interpretation fairness that confuses the issues. Some seem to think that fairness is to take from one group to give to another.
The nutshell is just full of empty rhetoric empty
Well that exactly what the incompetent Tories do. Take from the poorest in society to give to the rich.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Feb 2 2015, 08:00 AM
Tytoalba
Feb 1 2015, 11:17 PM
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Its the interpretation fairness that confuses the issues. Some seem to think that fairness is to take from one group to give to another.
The nutshell is just full of empty rhetoric empty
Well that exactly what the incompetent Tories do. Take from the poorest in society to give to the rich.
Absolute tripe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Feb 2 2015, 08:00 AM
Tytoalba
Feb 1 2015, 11:17 PM
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Its the interpretation fairness that confuses the issues. Some seem to think that fairness is to take from one group to give to another.
The nutshell is just full of empty rhetoric empty
Well that exactly what the incompetent Tories do. Take from the poorest in society to give to the rich.
Well the rich did get a tax cut while the low paid are £300 pound a year worse off than in 2008.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 2 2015, 12:06 AM
Tytoalba
Feb 1 2015, 11:17 PM
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Its the interpretation fairness that confuses the issues. Some seem to think that fairness is to take from one group to give to another.
The nutshell is just full of empty rhetoric empty

Not to labour the point but 'fairness' isn't too difficult to define.
Basically it is the balance of reward for contribution made, and the antitheses of exploitation.
It is the idea of a fair trade where both participants feel they have made a good deal, a fair exchange.

It isn't fair if one gains more at the other's expense.

No man is an island, and there is no wealth, no wealthy people, without some sort of use of or participation of numerous other players involved in the process. Society is the font of wealth, without which there is no business, no profit, and no wealthy people.

Not sure that is so, I suggest you are describing equality

It is fair as long as one does not gain more than than the other by deception, threat or monopoly.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 2 2015, 10:20 AM
Affa
Feb 2 2015, 12:06 AM
Tytoalba
Feb 1 2015, 11:17 PM
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Its the interpretation fairness that confuses the issues. Some seem to think that fairness is to take from one group to give to another.
The nutshell is just full of empty rhetoric empty

Not to labour the point but 'fairness' isn't too difficult to define.
Basically it is the balance of reward for contribution made, and the antitheses of exploitation.
It is the idea of a fair trade where both participants feel they have made a good deal, a fair exchange.

It isn't fair if one gains more at the other's expense.

No man is an island, and there is no wealth, no wealthy people, without some sort of use of or participation of numerous other players involved in the process. Society is the font of wealth, without which there is no business, no profit, and no wealthy people.

Not sure that is so, I suggest you are describing equality

It is fair as long as one does not gain more than than the other by deception, threat or monopoly.



By that definition our entire political system is unfair!



As to the OP however, what are any of the parties for?, do any of them actually stand for the country in its entirety?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Feb 2 2015, 10:51 AM
Steve K
Feb 2 2015, 10:20 AM
Affa
Feb 2 2015, 12:06 AM
Tytoalba
Feb 1 2015, 11:17 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Not to labour the point but 'fairness' isn't too difficult to define.
Basically it is the balance of reward for contribution made, and the antitheses of exploitation.
It is the idea of a fair trade where both participants feel they have made a good deal, a fair exchange.

It isn't fair if one gains more at the other's expense.

No man is an island, and there is no wealth, no wealthy people, without some sort of use of or participation of numerous other players involved in the process. Society is the font of wealth, without which there is no business, no profit, and no wealthy people.

Not sure that is so, I suggest you are describing equality

It is fair as long as one does not gain more than than the other by deception, threat or monopoly.



By that definition our entire political system is unfair!



As to the OP however, what are any of the parties for?, do any of them actually stand for the country in its entirety?
If we go out or a meal together , or on holiday together, fairness Is each paying for their own bill.
If a richer one is present , no one expects them to pick up the bill for all, unless in a generous mood and volunteers to do so . The others cannot decide that he/she should pay, just because he has more.
Even if they have had a large bonus the others would not think it right that they should do so.

Some people are born less intelligent, or with physical deformities, , or are born into poverty elsewhere in the world, so quite obviously that is not equal or fair to all. Life cannot be fair.
Fairness is a concept that varies from person to person, and is not interpreted fairly at all, for self interest will always cloud judgements. One could claim that everyone should pay equally for their needs provided by the government, pay the same percentage of income tax, just as we do with VAT for the things we purchase.
I think that those on the left of politics have a greater problem in understanding the meaning of fairness. That generally means taking more than giving. The fact is that everyone's circumstances are different, and we need to be more objective in how we think.
Morality is a different issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Labour party appears to be there for exactly the same reasons the other parties are there, to protect the vested interests of those it believes will vote for it (most of the public sector).
You cannot blame them for this but you can disregard as flowery BS those who say that labour is interested in fairness. They may by default make the country fairer, but this is as a side effect to them looking out for their clients.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 1 2015, 07:56 PM
Clause 4 Labour is as dead as the dodo. The fiascoes of British Coal, British Steel, British Leyland and the like made any clause 4 party unelectable

There's a place for a party that really cares about the bottom 25% of the country. But caring means putting their needs above your own dogma and Labour always struggles with that.

If only they hadn't got the two Eds in charge I'd vote for them
Steve K

" Clause 4 Labour is as dead as the dodo".

Yes, it's 'dead', but, it IS a 'problem' for any 'social' political party, that 'Labour' pretends to be.

The reason is simple & is especially pertinent to the future of the NHS.

'Clause 4' wasn't just some socialist dogma, it's effect was\is to enable the state to command\manage resources that are TAXPAYER funded, like the NHS.

Without Clause 4, the 'Labour' government of the future can NEVER decide the NHS policy, this is the case now, where BURNHAM is fighting against the past action's(abolition of Clause 4)the creeping\'stealthy' privatisation of the NHS, is a DIRECT consequence of the abolition of Clause 4.

BURNHAM is publicly declaring that he\Labour are going to move the NHS in another direction, well, think again BURNHAM, we are not all stupid, the direction is 'privatisation' & involving the 'private' sector more deeply in the NHS, is more 'privatisation' by 'stealth'.

When the TTIF is concluded by agreement, the American takeover\control of the NHS will be complete, in other words, the historical fraud of 'taxpayer' owned will be exposed as the 'MYTH' that Labour has perpetuated against the people since 1948.

Even now, Labour is promising to continue with it's 'stealthy' privatisation of the NHS.

Once they brought in PFI, they gave the green light to privatisation in full & the death knell for the myth of public 'ownership'.

I can think of no reason whatsoever to vote for Labour, in FACT, I never have & I hate the Tories in equal measure.
Edited by Nonsense, Feb 2 2015, 04:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Feb 1 2015, 05:44 PM
RJD
Feb 1 2015, 05:16 PM
For goodness sake get a grip, if you cannot then get out there and use your time with some charity work.
RJD, I suggest you do some charity work, if you did you would find out how wrong you are.
As for myself and charity, I have only just finished dealing with a case that was caused directly by the cuts to legal aid.
As a result I know far more about two peoples personal details than I want to.
You spend so much of your time looking to feed your obsession here that it is very difficult to believe that you have any time left over to help those whose cause you think you support. In fact I don't believe that you do anything in a direct manner and are more likely to be an observer of others who make the effort. You obviously have little or nowt of use to do so why not devote 8 hours a day helping others?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Feb 2 2015, 12:28 PM
Steve K
Feb 1 2015, 07:56 PM
Clause 4 Labour is as dead as the dodo. The fiascoes of British Coal, British Steel, British Leyland and the like made any clause 4 party unelectable

There's a place for a party that really cares about the bottom 25% of the country. But caring means putting their needs above your own dogma and Labour always struggles with that.

If only they hadn't got the two Eds in charge I'd vote for them
Steve K

" Clause 4 Labour is as dead as the dodo".

Yes, it's 'dead', but, it IS a 'problem' for any 'social' political party, that 'Labour' pretends to be.

The reason is simple & is especially pertinent to the future of the NHS.

'Clause 4' wasn't just some socialist dogma, it's effect was\is to enable the state to command\manage resources that are TAXPAYER funded, like the NHS.

Without Clause 4, the 'Labour' government of the future can NEVER decide the NHS policy, this is the case now, where BURNHAM is fighting against the past action's(abolition of Clause 4)the creeping\'stealthy' privatisation of the NHS, is a DIRECT consequence of the abolition of Clause 4.

When the TTIF is concluded by agreement, the American takeover\control of the NHS will be complete, in other words, the historical fraud of 'taxpayer' owned will be exposed as the 'MYTH' that Labour has perpetuated against the people since 1948.

Even now, Labour is promising to continue with it's 'stealthy' privatisation of the NHS.

Once they brought in PFI, they gave the green light to privatisation in full & the death knell for the myth of public 'ownership'.

I can think of no reason whatsoever to vote for Labour, in FACT, I never have & I hate the Tories in equal measure.
The Germans and French do not appear to be clamouring for the State to take full control of their Health Services. I wonder why?
At the moment the NHS only subcontracts ~7% of it's procedures, unless one has a weird imagination or a different meaning for the words I do not see how this can be construed to be "privatisation" front door, back door or any door. I think Joe Public is interested in what works and no longer gives a sh1t about the politically;y inspired dogmas. I believe Joe Public is very comfortable with the concept that the NHS should subcontract if it can save money that can be used for other NHS purposes. Yep that is exactly what they are doing, so what's the beef?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Feb 2 2015, 11:25 AM

I think that those on the left of politics have a greater problem in understanding the meaning of fairness.
It is the Conservatives who have no idea what fairness is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
"The Germans and French do not appear to be clamouring for the State to take full control of their Health Services. I wonder why?
At the moment the NHS only subcontracts ~7% of it's procedures, unless one has a weird imagination or a different meaning for the words I do not see how this can be construed to be "privatisation" front door, back door or any door. I think Joe Public is interested in what works and no longer gives a sh1t about the politically;y inspired dogmas. I believe Joe Public is very comfortable with the concept that the NHS should subcontract if it can save money that can be used for other NHS purposes. Yep that is exactly what they are doing, so what's the beef"?

The reasons the NHS is in such a parlous state, it is in such a state & I have used it since 1948 are many\varied.

Primarily, the NHS has been used as a political 'football' ever since it's inception, it has never been free to find it's own solutions to it's problems & where there were no 'problems' the politicians created them.

Early on, the NHS was administered more or less locally, independent from the dead-hand of central government.

This was a very good model that provided much additional 'voluntary' funding, public support, plus other assistance for it's services, mainly through the efforts of women's groups, for which I pay my respects to.

Unfortunately, the NHS, which started off in a similar way to the precursor of the 'Welfare State', has not, as many will assume, been a 'victim' of it's own success, rather, it is failing for many more reasons.

Firstly, the TORIES under Thatcher, vastly increased the 'management' structure & bureaucratic levels in the NHS.

This was followed under BLAIR, by the restructuring of management\ administration, these became much more remote & dis-connected to the daily running of wards, departments, hospital's & hospital groups within districts or regions.

Again, the country's population has increased by some 6 MILLION through uncontrolled mass-migration, this has enormously increased demands on the NHS WITHOUT A PROPORTIONAL INCREASE IN IT'S FUNDING FOR SUCH DEMAND.

The NHS has also been overwhelmed by increased demands of people, of a younger generation, whose lifestyles have contributed in large measure to the current state of the NHS.

For those of you, like me, who may have experienced health care in this country before the NHS was founded, would know the real cost of treatment\care from that period, but also, more crucially indeed, the NHS was not created to COUNTER THE EFFECTS OF THE LIFESTYLE CHOICES THAT CAUSE OBESITY,UNWANTED PREGNANCIES, DRUG ADDITION,SMOKING,ALCOHOL ADDICTION OR LIVER DISEASE & OF COURSE 'GAY' MALADIES.

These things above should be paid for 'PRIVATELY' NOT BY THE NHS.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO CONFIDENCE IN ANY POLITICAL PARTY, TO HANDLE THE NHS, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY\SHOULD FUNCTION IN A 'NORMAL' WAY IN SOCIETY & MOST CERTAINLY NOT BY ANDY BURNHAM OR CAMERON.


"I believe Joe Public is very comfortable with the concept that the NHS should subcontract if it can save money that can be used for other NHS purposes. Yep that is exactly what they are doing, so what's the beef"?


There is no 'beef', you are quite simply, WRONG in your assertion's, there is no 'ideology' about NHS provision, it was set up & ran by TAXPAYERS money, for the benefit of your so-called, 'Joe Public', the 'TAXPAYER'.
The public do not want 'privatisation' in the NHS or the corruption that follows from RANCID TORY 'CONTRACTS' GIVEN OUT TO AMERICAN COMPANIES THAT HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE HEALTH OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC.

IF YOU THINK BETTER, ASK CONSUMERS WHAT THEY THINK OF AMERICAN OWNERSHIP OF CADBURY'S,A 'BRITISH' COMPANY IN THE PROCESS OF DESTRUCTION BY 'AMERICAN' CAPITALIST.
ASK THE CEO OF BP, WHAT HE THINKS OF AMERICA IN RESPECT OF IT'S TREATMENT OF BP OVER 'DEEP HORIZON'.

This country has over the last two -half decades been put up for 'auction' to the asset-strippers of the world, it's being picked dry by them & by immigrants.

Edited by Nonsense, Feb 2 2015, 05:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply