The majority of those on benefits are actually working and on low wages. Benefits subsidises the landlords with high rents and employers who pay very low wages. If for example there are decent levels of housing and a stable housing market then then the Housing Benefit bill would reduce. The bill for housing families in B+B's in London has sky rocketed under the Conservatives. The mismanagement by the Conservatives does not decrease welfare payments.
not a chance and it makes me very happy that the left sided folk never got in, if that is a snap shot of their demographic,
I wish more of them protested when their left friends were wasting anD spending their way to oblivion, causing the need for such cuts
Scum who done that yesterday filth in the bottom of shoe
NLA don't be so quick to judge you're better than that. Yes they went about it all wrong and the few that went too far and defaced war memorials have been arrested and dealt with but a lot of them just felt desperate. Imagine how desperate they must have been to have taken these measures, how bad must their lives been. Cuts, although Cameron says they're fair, do not affect everyone. Not everyone has to use the services that have been cut, not everyone has their lives in tatter but a lot of them that do had a hope that things could change, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak but now that hope has gone. Try being an unworking single dad who recently lost his wife to cancer, having 5 kids under 9 and have lost his mortgaged house due to not being able to afford the mortgage and having to live in a 3 bedroom private rented accomadation where the rent is £300 per week and after all bills he's left with £40 to feed 6 of them and that is about to be cut further. How desperate would you be?
I'm not condoning their actions but some of them probably felt they had no choice.
I reckon if I had 5 kids I'd have about £40 left each week to feed them. And I've got a job!! :-(
Never mind 40 pounds, I had to feed a family of four on negative income for six years of Labour rule. If I hadn't had the foresight, self discipline, not to mention all the sacrifices over 30 odd years, to save up for a rainy day, we would have been sleeping in cardboard boxes. Why do people today always think it's up to Government to bail them out when the going gets tough. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Saving, taking out insurance, don't live beyond your means etc. Having five kids under ten, not having adequate insurance or savings, and a mortgage, is asking for trouble and is a prime example of where society is going wrong.
Not everybody who claims benefits is a scrounging flâneur. Have never suggested otherwise
There are people who through not fault of their own - health issues,disabilities,redundancy etc - are dependent on state handouts.There are also any number of people who are not blessed with your gifts of prescience,self-discipline and sacrifice that served you so admirably when Labour contrived to ruin your life. And they will never even bother to learn such qualities so long as a Generous Government is ready and waiting to bail them out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that there aren't people who wilfully abuse the system - of course there are - but the bedrock of anycivilisation is that it cares for its weak, infirm, elderly and vulnerable.When provision is made to implement such care,it will,unfortunately, be abused by those who should be contributing to it rather than draining it. Yes indeed, and it is incumbent upon any responsible Government to ensure that Taxpayers money goes only to those that need it most, as opposed to lazy bastards.
Here's my view. And it's followed up with a question.
Everyone who has the ability to look after themselves should be provided with the means, incentive and encouragement to do so. So, that means that people should be paid a fair wage; they should be taxed at a rate proportional to their ability to make ends meet; and they should have no reason to turn down work on the basis that work doesn't pay (ie, someone should never be in a position where they are "better off" on benefits than doing a bit of extra work or more hours). If you *can* look after yourself and your family, you should.
However, there are some people who are unable to look after themselves. This includes people who are mentally or physically disabled, too young, too old, or permanently or temporarily incapacitated. These people *need* help, in the form of financial assistance. The assistance should be calculated only on their specific situation and need. But each person receiving (note: "receiving", never "earning") benefits should receive exactly the amount that is required in their circumstances.
So the question is this - why should there ever be a need for a "cap"? An arbitrary cap of £26,000 a year has been placed on those receiving benefit. But the cap makes no distinction between different individuals's specific needs.
I agree with that Chizz. Glad to see you've been converted at last.
I'm not sure on the answer of a cap. But £26k net income, is more than many earn working, so to my way of thinking, that seems more than adequate. I reckon many people on here would like a £26k net income pa, or more than £30k pa gross.
Remember that was a maximum and included rent, this will now go down to 23k. So regardless of how big the family is or where they live a maximum of about £475 per week to cover everything. As I said before some people are absolutely fine on this, some will also be well off, some however would struggle tremendously.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but in the whole of my working life, I rarely earnt more than £26K pa net.
I worked 50 hours most weeks. I saved. I paid in for a pension. I paid in for life insurance and many other insurances.
I didn't buy trainers every year, a new phone, a new TV regularly etc.
I don't have many take aways because they cost so much etc etc.
I had 2 kids, because I couldn't afford to have more and don't think it's right that everyone else should pay for me to have more kids.
Basically, I worked hard and was sensible.
Yet some people seem to think they should be entitled to more for financially contributing nothing and having more kids.
Perhaps in another 5 years, some people's views may start to change.
So you are saying, if someone received £1M pa on benefits, you consider them worse off, than those earning £15k pa, working full time.
It's impossible that any adult can believe that.
Like I say. It is this sort of twaddle, why Labour was not elected and will never be elected again, until they get rid of the deluded.
Wow! Where on Earth did you get those numbers from? Why on Earth would someone be claiming benefits of a million quid a year?
Let's back-track, it goes like this...
1. The government ascertains what a claimant *needs* to receive in terms of benefit 2. This is either paid as the single source of income to the claimant; or it is provided as a "top-up" to a claimant who is already earning a wage 3. The taxation, reward and incentive landscape needs to be such that a benefit claimant should never be disincentivised to work more by his/her additional earnings causing a net reduction in his/her income.
I am not suggesting anyone would receive £1,000,000 a year on benefits. I don't know where you might have plucked that preposterous figure from.
The benefit is solely there to ensure that the difference between what a claimant *needs* and what he *earns* is made up by the state.
If you earn £15k a year and that income does not provide you what you *need* - you will be entitled to claim benefit, even though you are employed. In the same way that the majority of claimants do today.
IMO. The reason why Labour did not win the election were a mixture of things. This included the long failure to challenge the Tory Lie / false premise that they were responsible for the global crash. The Crash was due to lack of financial regulation and over speculation. The British economy is dependent on financial services and suffered consequently because of it. Labour did not specifically spend any more than any other Post War government. They failed to challenge the Tory lie. The Tories manage to link the crash with Labour overspending. Miliband mentioned something about that in the last Question Time debate but it was too little to late against years of Tory repeated claims. Everyone knows that a lie repeated often enough gains the currency of truth.
The second thing is that Labour failed to challenge the assertion that the SNP were evil incarnate. The Tories campaigned with Labour for Scotland to be part of the Union in the referendum. Then they turned around and wound up the Scots, for their own advantage that the SNP general views were completely illegitimate. Labour should have called the Tories on that contradiction. Miliband should have been prepared to say that a hung parliament was manageable and that they would work with all others around core issues in the British interest. The SNP would have had to fallen in line behind Labour in much the same way the Lib Dems did behind the Tories as a minor party.
Instead of standing up strong to the demonisation and scare mongering of the Tories on the SNP, Miliband said no deals or that he would work with the SNP and it looked like there was something in the Tory claim. Miliband should have attacked the Tories for their possible dependence on the DUP and UKIP and the more radical right wing elements of the Conservative party. Also gone on the attack about the threat of a Tory party who want to dismantle public services. More an appeal for the centre ground. Labour could have reassured its core support and reached out to those who had doubts raised from the Conservative claim.
Lastly, I also think that Labour should have offered a referendum of EC membership. This would have cut out the ground from UKIP. The referendum offered with a clear direction that Labour wanted to be in Europe but respected the views of those people that didn't and would allow Labour candidates to campaign against EC membership if they wanted.
Labour are always pushing uphill against entrenched Tory Power and media that heavily backs the Conservatives. Labour are pretty much the away time in any contest. For Labour to beat the Conservatives they are required to be pretty much perfect. They were clearly not and paid the price.
Personally i feel that nick cohen's piece was more spot on. The reason blair won power with a landslide was not because he moved labour to the centre, but because he was willing to change the party to fit the wants of the british people. If you are able to change your party, then maybe you can make a difference to the country. That's the reason there was so much hope and forward thinkingness in 1997, and it's something the labour party can recapture if they find something (maybe english nationalism?) that appeals to the country at large.
This is an interesting time, and an exciting one, because if labour can look seriously at their shortcomings not in their actions but their philosophies then that can only be a positive thing for british politics and the british people.
Ed Balls was in charge of deregulating the city back when Labour were in power. While I agree that there were a number of "lies" the Tories used about the economy to say that Labour did not have a hand in the financial crash is a bit too rose tinted for me.
However, the Tories and Lib Dems were also culpable for what happened, Vince Cable broadly supported measures to deregulate the city (put forward by Labour) and George Osborne opposes the EU regulations that safeguard against another crash because they could prove prohibitive to business and London as a financial centre.
The fact of the matter is that in the boom times deregulation was good for the economy and all of the political parties would support it because it would reflect badly on them to oppose something that could benefit British business. When things went bust it was this attitude that brought the house of cards crashing down because there were no safeguards in place to stop the chain of dominoes falling.
This is a very simple explanation of the crash and I'm sure there are people who can cover it in more detail. It's also my understanding so could be completely wrong.
The reason, I'm guessing, that labour didn't fight these lies is that they didn't want the reputation of their chancellor to get dragged through the mud completely. He signed on the dotted line for deregulation and would prove easy pickings for their opponents in debates.
This also isn't the sole reason for Labour losing, there are many and if they only focus on one then 2020 will be a rerun of last week.
Also needing to be catered for are the many, many people who no longer vote Labour 'because all my life I've always voted Labour'. I think this is the lifelong Labour voters' last major election and a new breed of voters are emerging. People for whom the disaster of the three day week and the divisiveness of Thatcher are a past irrelevance.
For many of the old school their Labour allegiance ranges from Foot to Callaghan via Kinnock to Blair. Surely this, over time, is a bigger change of ideals than the difference between Milliband and Cameron?
I've got a more simple theory - the people who decide the election are a core of swing voters in marginal seats who are, by and large, on the centre ground, and will vote for the party they feel is currently most competent at occupying the centre ground. Labour signalled a lurch to the left with the appointment of Ed Miliband as leader and many pundits at the time stated that they had guaranteed they were going to lose the 2015 election on that day due to the fact swing voters won't follow Labour to the left. They were right.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Chizz, could you please make the following predictions:
Charlton won't win the Championship next season Palace won't get relegated then go into administration next season. Charlton will not qualify for Europe within 3 years There will be less programme sellers on matchdays from now on
Ed Balls was in charge of deregulating the city back when Labour were in power. While I agree that there were a number of "lies" the Tories used about the economy to say that Labour did not have a hand in the financial crash is a bit too rose tinted for me.
However, the Tories and Lib Dems were also culpable for what happened, Vince Cable broadly supported measures to deregulate the city (put forward by Labour) and George Osborne opposes the EU regulations that safeguard against another crash because they could prove prohibitive to business and London as a financial centre.
The fact of the matter is that in the boom times deregulation was good for the economy and all of the political parties would support it because it would reflect badly on them to oppose something that could benefit British business. When things went bust it was this attitude that brought the house of cards crashing down because there were no safeguards in place to stop the chain of dominoes falling.
This is a very simple explanation of the crash and I'm sure there are people who can cover it in more detail. It's also my understanding so could be completely wrong.
The reason, I'm guessing, that labour didn't fight these lies is that they didn't want the reputation of their chancellor to get dragged through the mud completely. He signed on the dotted line for deregulation and would prove easy pickings for their opponents in debates.
This also isn't the sole reason for Labour losing, there are many and if they only focus on one then 2020 will be a rerun of last week.
Gordon Brown was praised by the World financial community for stopping the crisis get too out of hand. Without decisive action the whole deck of cards could have come tumbling down. Alastair Darling was also very underated. He helped steady the ship and got the economy growing. It was the Conservatives austerity that the shrunk the economy and massively increased the debt.
The Conservatives were criticising Labour for not having enough deregulation. Labour let Conservative dominate the field. It is like a football team surrendering the midfield. Any team will struggle to win.
I have never to this day understood why Labour did not challenge the Conservative lie and misdirection over the economy. It helped, along with other things to fatally undermine their challenge.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Why do people think the EU referendum will make UKIP go away?
No matter what Cameron negotiates, either theoretical or real-world, would be rejected by them, and it's likely that they would be the only major party advocating a vote to leave the EU. In a referendum, that means they would be involved in almost every debate about the matter (whether they're on the panel or not). If they are on the losing side, they might be able to use the momentum of the campaign to build a party base and membership and speak to those who voted with them. In time for the next election, they could have say 40% of the electorate sympathetic to them.
That's how the Scottish referendum worked. The SNP were on the losing side, but they were the only party there, so pro-independence campaigners & voters naturally moved towards Sturgeon. They turned 45% of the vote last year into 50% of the vote this year and swept the board - even in pro-Union cities like Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The SNP had advantages that UKIP would not have, both in terms of their existing political power, the popularity of their leaders, and the type of message they would be sending (a UKIP 'leave the EU' campaign would be different to a SNP 'leave the UK' campaign). But the referendum will give them an opportunity.
The case that UKIP have built is that nobody has been consulted since the 1970s and that the EU is responsible for a number of ills within the UK. A referendum destroys that first point and as posted by myself and others, Cameron grasped the nettle, Miliband did not.
And the development of a debate around Europe should inform the voting public about the pros and cons. Let's face it, the spotlight of publicity and real debate has taken UKIP down from 20% to 12% during this election.
So we are talking a very different set of numbers to Scotland. @se9addick made the point that the SNP were on 45% for independence and were effectively campaigning vs 55% split between three parties. What amazed me and many others is that they won in richer pro union places like Edinburgh.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
It's precisely *that* announcement to which I was referring.
How comes chizz?
You reckon next leader will be ousted quickly and Jarvis in to unite the party?
I have a feeling that Jarvis will take over from whoever takes over from Miliband. In precisely the same way (but, I hope in different circumstances) that Blair took over from Smith, who had taken over from Kinnock.
Jarvis seems to answer a lot of the questions that Miliband left unanswered. I think he'd make a formidable opponent; especially after a couple of years in the Shadow Cabinet.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
Chizz, could you please make the following predictions:
Charlton won't win the Championship next season Palace won't get relegated then go into administration next season. Charlton will not qualify for Europe within 3 years There will be less programme sellers on matchdays from now on
Thanks, we're all counting on you
You'll notice that I didn't even predict that the next General Election would be in 2020. But, right now, *if* it goes that far, I'd be more confident that Dan Jarvis will win it than anyone else.
Why do people think the EU referendum will make UKIP go away?
No matter what Cameron negotiates, either theoretical or real-world, would be rejected by them, and it's likely that they would be the only major party advocating a vote to leave the EU. In a referendum, that means they would be involved in almost every debate about the matter (whether they're on the panel or not). If they are on the losing side, they might be able to use the momentum of the campaign to build a party base and membership and speak to those who voted with them. In time for the next election, they could have say 40% of the electorate sympathetic to them.
That's how the Scottish referendum worked. The SNP were on the losing side, but they were the only party there, so pro-independence campaigners & voters naturally moved towards Sturgeon. They turned 45% of the vote last year into 50% of the vote this year and swept the board - even in pro-Union cities like Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The SNP had advantages that UKIP would not have, both in terms of their existing political power, the popularity of their leaders, and the type of message they would be sending (a UKIP 'leave the EU' campaign would be different to a SNP 'leave the UK' campaign). But the referendum will give them an opportunity.
The case that UKIP have built is that nobody has been consulted since the 1970s and that the EU is responsible for a number of ills within the UK. A referendum destroys that first point and as posted by myself and others, Cameron grasped the nettle, Miliband did not.
And the development of a debate around Europe should inform the voting public about the pros and cons. Let's face it, the spotlight of publicity and real debate has taken UKIP down from 20% to 12% during this election.
So we are talking a very different set of numbers to Scotland. @se9addick made the point that the SNP were on 45% for independence and were effectively campaigning vs 55% split between three parties. What amazed me and many others is that they won in richer pro union places like Edinburgh.
It is not that amazing. It is herd instinct. There is empirical evidence of voters chasing after the perceived "winning" side in elections, in this case SNP. Or people not wanting to stand out from the those around them.
People would not necessarily be able to articulate why they have voted other than "it felt right". It is a bit of a fallacy that all voters have looked at all of the data, read the different parties on offer, and so on. Quite a number of people vote on little more than gut instinct.
There was also a herd instinct to kick the Labour party for a perceived betrayal of Scottish politics and the country. SNP were very clever at utilising this way of thinking and played it for all its worth. I am not sure how hard their current support will be in future and they will be aware that a significant part is made up of people who would see themselves as natural Labour voters (again, herd instinct)
You can see a similar effect in UKIP vote and UKIP, like SNP, played it very cleverly. There is undoubtedly a hard cord UKIP support, but a fair number of those voting UKIP are doing it because all those around them are also voting UKIP. People, on the whole, don't want to stand out, so this just increases the herd instinct. UKIPs play of Nige being a man of the people and UKIP being the natural choice for the working man was a great piece of politicking and made use of herd instinct well for a particular cohort of voters.
Tonight's announcement makes me even more certain that the winner of the 2020 General Election (if it goes that far) will be the next Prime Minister, Dan Jarvis.
I think Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out.
Indeed. Very selfish - putting himself and his family ahead of the general good of the country.
I bet all the parties wish that they had a Nick Clegg in their ranks,
That man deserves more than what this elelection gave him,
Watched a lot of the people that are being mentioned by people on here as possible and potential leaders and not one of them comes across as having any real morale substance or ability to drag labour from its own self destructive tendency
Why do people think the EU referendum will make UKIP go away?
No matter what Cameron negotiates, either theoretical or real-world, would be rejected by them, and it's likely that they would be the only major party advocating a vote to leave the EU. In a referendum, that means they would be involved in almost every debate about the matter (whether they're on the panel or not). If they are on the losing side, they might be able to use the momentum of the campaign to build a party base and membership and speak to those who voted with them. In time for the next election, they could have say 40% of the electorate sympathetic to them.
That's how the Scottish referendum worked. The SNP were on the losing side, but they were the only party there, so pro-independence campaigners & voters naturally moved towards Sturgeon. They turned 45% of the vote last year into 50% of the vote this year and swept the board - even in pro-Union cities like Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The SNP had advantages that UKIP would not have, both in terms of their existing political power, the popularity of their leaders, and the type of message they would be sending (a UKIP 'leave the EU' campaign would be different to a SNP 'leave the UK' campaign). But the referendum will give them an opportunity.
The case that UKIP have built is that nobody has been consulted since the 1970s and that the EU is responsible for a number of ills within the UK. A referendum destroys that first point and as posted by myself and others, Cameron grasped the nettle, Miliband did not.
And the development of a debate around Europe should inform the voting public about the pros and cons. Let's face it, the spotlight of publicity and real debate has taken UKIP down from 20% to 12% during this election.
So we are talking a very different set of numbers to Scotland. @se9addick made the point that the SNP were on 45% for independence and were effectively campaigning vs 55% split between three parties. What amazed me and many others is that they won in richer pro union places like Edinburgh.
None of this answered what I said.
The SNP didnt start on 45% pro independence - they got to that point
The ex soldier is probably the only one who could do it, but it would be dependent on how much his real life experience is negated for the immoral and over powered by the union based funding that the party is reliant on,
That despicable oddius worm mandleson has even stated that the power and influence of the unions has caused the party to try to influence the British public in the poor-rich divide that is nowhere near the point needed to win an election
and in terms of the human rights act, UKIP had it as a key policy to abolish it and replace it. 4 million people voted for them.
We elected one Ukip MP. They're the first party ever to fail to win any MPs in a general election and then lose seats in the following election. I am more than happy to continue to ignore anything proposed by them .
A bit late on this one but ever since I read this I thought I'd point out a couple of things. Firstly, this isn't really a good reason to ignore the opinions of 4 million people. Secondly, Respect won zero MPs at the last General Election and then lost all their seats (since they had won a by-election in 2012) this time round, so this statement isn't even true, and there are probably quite a few examples of this throughout history with the various independent smaller parties that appear from time to time. UKIP are also the UK's largest represented party in Europe so regardless of whether you agree with their policies or not, they ought to be taken seriously.
Ed Balls was in charge of deregulating the city back when Labour were in power. While I agree that there were a number of "lies" the Tories used about the economy to say that Labour did not have a hand in the financial crash is a bit too rose tinted for me.
However, the Tories and Lib Dems were also culpable for what happened, Vince Cable broadly supported measures to deregulate the city (put forward by Labour) and George Osborne opposes the EU regulations that safeguard against another crash because they could prove prohibitive to business and London as a financial centre.
The fact of the matter is that in the boom times deregulation was good for the economy and all of the political parties would support it because it would reflect badly on them to oppose something that could benefit British business. When things went bust it was this attitude that brought the house of cards crashing down because there were no safeguards in place to stop the chain of dominoes falling.
This is a very simple explanation of the crash and I'm sure there are people who can cover it in more detail. It's also my understanding so could be completely wrong.
The reason, I'm guessing, that labour didn't fight these lies is that they didn't want the reputation of their chancellor to get dragged through the mud completely. He signed on the dotted line for deregulation and would prove easy pickings for their opponents in debates.
This also isn't the sole reason for Labour losing, there are many and if they only focus on one then 2020 will be a rerun of last week.
Gordon Brown was praised by the World financial community for stopping the crisis get too out of hand. Without decisive action the whole deck of cards could have come tumbling down. Alastair Darling was also very underated. He helped steady the ship and got the economy growing. It was the Conservatives austerity that the shrunk the economy and massively increased the debt.
The Conservatives were criticising Labour for not having enough deregulation. Labour let Conservative dominate the field. It is like a football team surrendering the midfield. Any team will struggle to win.
I have never to this day understood why Labour did not challenge the Conservative lie and misdirection over the economy. It helped, along with other things to fatally undermine their challenge.
Maybe because they are more informed than the people specularing on here and know that the claims of the conservatives are (partially at least) true??
Fiiish. I asked above but you did not respond. You said that people can become home owners if they sacrificed and saved for a deposit (when we discussed the housing association property sell offs), and you intimated becoming a home owner was within everybody's reach. Most tellingly you suggested people 'live with their parents' while they save. 10000 young people leave care each year, no social housing available, and no parents to live with. Such a person might have a modest low paid job and have to rent for £850 a month in somewhere like Catford. The person is not feckless or lazy, simply had an unfortunate start in life. How do you think the Conservative housing policy is going to make such a person a home owner with one bed flats costing in the region of £180+k in Catford? Earlier you said it could be done, maybe you could explain how.
Ed Balls was in charge of deregulating the city back when Labour were in power. While I agree that there were a number of "lies" the Tories used about the economy to say that Labour did not have a hand in the financial crash is a bit too rose tinted for me.
However, the Tories and Lib Dems were also culpable for what happened, Vince Cable broadly supported measures to deregulate the city (put forward by Labour) and George Osborne opposes the EU regulations that safeguard against another crash because they could prove prohibitive to business and London as a financial centre.
The fact of the matter is that in the boom times deregulation was good for the economy and all of the political parties would support it because it would reflect badly on them to oppose something that could benefit British business. When things went bust it was this attitude that brought the house of cards crashing down because there were no safeguards in place to stop the chain of dominoes falling.
This is a very simple explanation of the crash and I'm sure there are people who can cover it in more detail. It's also my understanding so could be completely wrong.
The reason, I'm guessing, that labour didn't fight these lies is that they didn't want the reputation of their chancellor to get dragged through the mud completely. He signed on the dotted line for deregulation and would prove easy pickings for their opponents in debates.
This also isn't the sole reason for Labour losing, there are many and if they only focus on one then 2020 will be a rerun of last week.
Gordon Brown was praised by the World financial community for stopping the crisis get too out of hand. Without decisive action the whole deck of cards could have come tumbling down. Alastair Darling was also very underated. He helped steady the ship and got the economy growing. It was the Conservatives austerity that the shrunk the economy and massively increased the debt.
The Conservatives were criticising Labour for not having enough deregulation. Labour let Conservative dominate the field. It is like a football team surrendering the midfield. Any team will struggle to win.
I have never to this day understood why Labour did not challenge the Conservative lie and misdirection over the economy. It helped, along with other things to fatally undermine their challenge.
Maybe because they are more informed than the people specularing on here and know that the claims of the conservatives are (partially at least) true??
See this is a very good point, during the election before this one, we had a thread running, that was very informative and thought out much like this one, and all the way through it, the defence was that of not holding brown and eyebrows accountable for the global financial crisis, yet there was enough questionable doubt to allow the coalition to prize control of the government, the main reason that they lost power was that the economy was failing here due to their mgmt of the purse, under the coalition the people who advise on the recovery (don't know their name) have clearly stated that there was need for cuts and austerity measures, they have also said since the measures have been in place there has been an upturn in the country and it's financial state, this can not be attributed in any way shape or form to the last labour gvmt, how can it they were not in power, over the last five years this has continued to provide, employment growth and investment from industry as the confidence is returning and if the economy continues to be managed in that way then, there is no reason to think it will reverse,
Why did labour not accept publicly and early that they were not responsible for the global collapse but failed on many levels for not reducing the level of damage we incurred,
And yet still instead the response is that brown and eyebrows had started this recovery,
It doesn't help to find the votes that many could offer,
I've got a more simple theory - the people who decide the election are a core of swing voters in marginal seats who are, by and large, on the centre ground, and will vote for the party they feel is currently most competent at occupying the centre ground. Labour signalled a lurch to the left with the appointment of Ed Miliband as leader and many pundits at the time stated that they had guaranteed they were going to lose the 2015 election on that day due to the fact swing voters won't follow Labour to the left. They were right.
I think you are bang on. The Labour Party don't need to win my vote. They need to win my colleague who is a senior guy in a charity who only ever voted Labour under Blair s leadership; he needs to see aspiration championed , and will run into the Tories arms at any sniff of class warfare. Unless they can win him over , they will never form a government. The electorate in Britain are broadly speaking centre ground ( or at least the ones that matter electorally ) and as Fiish says, to win big you have to hold the centre ground !!
Well stats are thrown about that are supposed to indicate an 'upturn', employment figures are often cited (leave aside the nature of those jobs), but there are other measures too that may not be described as an 'upturn' such as the freeze on public sector pay, the increase in VAT, the raising of pension age, the tripling of student fees, the increase in food banks, the growth of government borrowing. The so called upturn can be framed according to some statistics, but it is a downturn according to some others.
Comments
I worked 50 hours most weeks. I saved. I paid in for a pension. I paid in for life insurance and many other insurances.
I didn't buy trainers every year, a new phone, a new TV regularly etc.
I don't have many take aways because they cost so much etc etc.
I had 2 kids, because I couldn't afford to have more and don't think it's right that everyone else should pay for me to have more kids.
Basically, I worked hard and was sensible.
Yet some people seem to think they should be entitled to more for financially contributing nothing and having more kids.
Perhaps in another 5 years, some people's views may start to change.
Let's back-track, it goes like this...
1. The government ascertains what a claimant *needs* to receive in terms of benefit
2. This is either paid as the single source of income to the claimant; or it is provided as a "top-up" to a claimant who is already earning a wage
3. The taxation, reward and incentive landscape needs to be such that a benefit claimant should never be disincentivised to work more by his/her additional earnings causing a net reduction in his/her income.
I am not suggesting anyone would receive £1,000,000 a year on benefits. I don't know where you might have plucked that preposterous figure from.
The benefit is solely there to ensure that the difference between what a claimant *needs* and what he *earns* is made up by the state.
If you earn £15k a year and that income does not provide you what you *need* - you will be entitled to claim benefit, even though you are employed. In the same way that the majority of claimants do today.
Is that clear?
This is an interesting time, and an exciting one, because if labour can look seriously at their shortcomings not in their actions but their philosophies then that can only be a positive thing for british politics and the british people.
However, the Tories and Lib Dems were also culpable for what happened, Vince Cable broadly supported measures to deregulate the city (put forward by Labour) and George Osborne opposes the EU regulations that safeguard against another crash because they could prove prohibitive to business and London as a financial centre.
The fact of the matter is that in the boom times deregulation was good for the economy and all of the political parties would support it because it would reflect badly on them to oppose something that could benefit British business. When things went bust it was this attitude that brought the house of cards crashing down because there were no safeguards in place to stop the chain of dominoes falling.
This is a very simple explanation of the crash and I'm sure there are people who can cover it in more detail. It's also my understanding so could be completely wrong.
The reason, I'm guessing, that labour didn't fight these lies is that they didn't want the reputation of their chancellor to get dragged through the mud completely. He signed on the dotted line for deregulation and would prove easy pickings for their opponents in debates.
This also isn't the sole reason for Labour losing, there are many and if they only focus on one then 2020 will be a rerun of last week.
For many of the old school their Labour allegiance ranges from Foot to Callaghan via Kinnock to Blair. Surely this, over time, is a bigger change of ideals than the difference between Milliband and Cameron?
http://news.sky.com/story/1481430/dan-jarvis-rules-out-labour-leadership-bid
Charlton won't win the Championship next season
Palace won't get relegated then go into administration next season.
Charlton will not qualify for Europe within 3 years
There will be less programme sellers on matchdays from now on
Thanks, we're all counting on you
The Conservatives were criticising Labour for not having enough deregulation. Labour let Conservative dominate the field. It is like a football team surrendering the midfield. Any team will struggle to win.
I have never to this day understood why Labour did not challenge the Conservative lie and misdirection over the economy. It helped, along with other things to fatally undermine their challenge.
A referendum destroys that first point and as posted by myself and others, Cameron grasped the nettle, Miliband did not.
And the development of a debate around Europe should inform the voting public about the pros and cons. Let's face it, the spotlight of publicity and real debate has taken UKIP down from 20% to 12% during this election.
So we are talking a very different set of numbers to Scotland. @se9addick made the point that the SNP were on 45% for independence and were effectively campaigning vs 55% split between three parties. What amazed me and many others is that they won in richer pro union places like Edinburgh.
You reckon next leader will be ousted quickly and Jarvis in to unite the party?
Jarvis seems to answer a lot of the questions that Miliband left unanswered. I think he'd make a formidable opponent; especially after a couple of years in the Shadow Cabinet.
What's your prediction?
A real shame because he seemed to be a good choice.
People would not necessarily be able to articulate why they have voted other than "it felt right". It is a bit of a fallacy that all voters have looked at all of the data, read the different parties on offer, and so on. Quite a number of people vote on little more than gut instinct.
There was also a herd instinct to kick the Labour party for a perceived betrayal of Scottish politics and the country. SNP were very clever at utilising this way of thinking and played it for all its worth. I am not sure how hard their current support will be in future and they will be aware that a significant part is made up of people who would see themselves as natural Labour voters (again, herd instinct)
You can see a similar effect in UKIP vote and UKIP, like SNP, played it very cleverly. There is undoubtedly a hard cord UKIP support, but a fair number of those voting UKIP are doing it because all those around them are also voting UKIP. People, on the whole, don't want to stand out, so this just increases the herd instinct. UKIPs play of Nige being a man of the people and UKIP being the natural choice for the working man was a great piece of politicking and made use of herd instinct well for a particular cohort of voters.
That man deserves more than what this elelection gave him,
Watched a lot of the people that are being mentioned by people on here as possible and potential leaders and not one of them comes across as having any real morale substance or ability to drag labour from its own self destructive tendency
The SNP didnt start on 45% pro independence - they got to that point
That despicable oddius worm mandleson has even stated that the power and influence of the unions has caused the party to try to influence the British public in the poor-rich divide that is nowhere near the point needed to win an election
10000 young people leave care each year, no social housing available, and no parents to live with. Such a person might have a modest low paid job and have to rent for £850 a month in somewhere like Catford. The person is not feckless or lazy, simply had an unfortunate start in life. How do you think the Conservative housing policy is going to make such a person a home owner with one bed flats costing in the region of £180+k in Catford?
Earlier you said it could be done, maybe you could explain how.
See this is a very good point, during the election before this one, we had a thread running, that was very informative and thought out much like this one, and all the way through it, the defence was that of not holding brown and eyebrows accountable for the global financial crisis, yet there was enough questionable doubt to allow the coalition to prize control of the government, the main reason that they lost power was that the economy was failing here due to their mgmt of the purse, under the coalition the people who advise on the recovery (don't know their name) have clearly stated that there was need for cuts and austerity measures, they have also said since the measures have been in place there has been an upturn in the country and it's financial state, this can not be attributed in any way shape or form to the last labour gvmt, how can it they were not in power, over the last five years this has continued to provide, employment growth and investment from industry as the confidence is returning and if the economy continues to be managed in that way then, there is no reason to think it will reverse,
Why did labour not accept publicly and early that they were not responsible for the global collapse but failed on many levels for not reducing the level of damage we incurred,
And yet still instead the response is that brown and eyebrows had started this recovery,
It doesn't help to find the votes that many could offer,
The so called upturn can be framed according to some statistics, but it is a downturn according to some others.