Labour: Who do they represent?

[Major Sinic]

What Cameron is concerned about with the "Death Duty" plan, [10% on ones estate on demise] one of the options considered for dealing with the increasing amounts necessary to fund care in old age, is that his wealthy suburban supporters would be paying a larger amount than people like myself with a small bungalow and savings, which says a lot about Tory grass roots and front bench concern when dealing with mounting costs of the elderly in care. They would rather keep all their wealth for their already well off offspring than help to solve an almost insurmountable financial problem by surrendering 10% of their estate for the common good.

It would now appear that you accept that Cameron is not guilty of 'meaningless unsubstantiated fear mongering' as you claimed in your post no 44. By the same token you must also accept that the partisan comment by Joan Bakewell that Camerons claim was a 'grotesque lie' was also incorrect.

So in a few short days you have gone from denying the very existence of the 'Labour Death Tax' to thinking it is a wonderful idea.

This tax would hit virtually every bereaved family in the country, not just the wealthmakers who create private sector jobs for the majority of the population, and who you seem to hate so much. It is yet another stealth tax, the vast majority of which will be wasted on another raft of public sector bureaucracy thus ensuring that the elderly see precious little benefit from it.

I note that you fail to explain why it is only now, with less than 90 days to a general election, that Labour are addressing this problem, having disregarded it for the twelve years they have been in government. But you don't really need to! Anyone with more than a few grey cells know that it is once again a cynical and transparent attempt by Labour to buy votes, in much the same way as their newly discovered commitment to electoral reform.

[Expounder]

It would now appear that you accept that Cameron is not guilty of 'meaningless unsubstantiated fear mongering' as you claimed in your post no 44. By the same token you must also accept that the partisan comment by Joan Bakewell that Camerons claim was a 'grotesque lie' was also incorrect

So in a few short days you have gone from denying the very existence of the 'Labour Death Tax' to thinking it is a wonderful idea.

Now you are taking a leaf out of Cameron's book and are misrepresenting me I did not deny it's existence as an idea. What I said if you care to read my post was that it is one was of the options under discussion. I wasn't aware of the full details until learned about them today. Having found out what it entailed I found it an option I could personally prescribe to. It would mean a loss of 10% of my estate in duty which is a small price to pay for future care of the elderly who live long enough and need it. The difference between you and me is that I don't want to take my estate to the grave, and my family who have all known hard times wouldn't begrudge a contribution of my estate towards care of the elderly.

You would obviously like to continue with the present unacceptable arrangement, or exempt the wealthy from contributing anything, and let the lower ones down the ladder shoulder the burden as they have have always done.

Anyhow this is one OPTION being floated,along with others, and nothing set in stone. Maybe with all of your protestations about a "death tax" you have some better ideas on how compassionate care for the elderly could be achieved without any more investment being made. I'm prepared to make a small sacrifice but it appears you are not, Remember it's only a small portion of tax from wealthly estates, and we can't spend it when we're dead. I would seem that poorer people are more generous minded than tight fisted money bags Tories.

This tax would hit virtually every bereaved family in the country, not just the wealth makers who create private sector jobs for the majority of the population, and who you seem to hate so much. It is yet another stealth tax, the vast majority of which will be wasted on another raft of public sector bureaucracy thus ensuring that the elderly see precious little benefit from it

I note that you fail to explain why it is only now, with less than 90 days to a general election, that Labour are addressing this problem, having disregarded it for the twelve years they have been in government. But you don't really need to! Anyone with more than a few grey cells know that it is once again a cynical and transparent attempt by Labour to buy votes, in much the same way as their newly discovered commitment to electoral reform.

And you fail to explain why opportunist Cameron decided to scuttle even floating an Idea which would go some way to solving the problem of defusing a problem which is facing any government. More so as he hasn't come up with any constructive alternative, and rubbished an idea purely for political gain.

Whats your constructive alternative?

[JAMC]

The Labour movement still exists in spite of policies conducted by the government up until the walls, came tumbling down. It exists within the trade union movement and among many members on the back benches of the government.

I agree that it still exists, but I think it's a fair point to say that it won't exist for much longer. The last generation for whom trade unionism was a core part of their working life (the baby boomers) are now beginning to retire. Virtually none of the jobs created since 2000 have been in the traditionally unionised industries, and none of the entirely new industries have become unionised to any significant degree. The members of generation Y filling the new positions in the 2000's, especially those in clerical/professional sectors have not joined unions because they realise that in their post-Thatcher neutered state they provide very little additional bargaining power or additional volume to their political voice.

The decline of unionism amongst my generation will I fear be another factor that accelerates the repealing of social and economic advancements made in the 20th century, steering the 21st very much in the direction of the 19th.

It still exists in spite of Thatchers attempts to destroy it, whose anti trade union ideology will be carried out to the conclusion she wanted by Cameron et al.

As explained above, all Cameron & co currently have to do to see the death of the unions is wait for the baby boomers to retire.

While Labour did change too much in order to get elected and errors were made, it's economic record wasn't all bad.

Labour's post 1997 record is dire. In the 2000's the Labour administration presided over the largest rise in inequality since the war, as well as failing to do anything about the banking and housing bubbles that popped at the end of the decade. Frankly against that backdrop any positive statistics cannot be viewed as anything other than clutching at straws.

I am an old fashioned socialist which I'm sure you are not, and am convinced the roots of the Labour movement still exist.

Well, I was born in 1984 - a week before the miner's strike started in fact - so I suppose I'll never qualify as a true old school socialist. I believe however that being born into and grown up in an era in which Thatcherism has been the exclusively dominant ideology (of all parties, including new labour) has given me a good perspective on the damage that it has inflicted on our society (what there is left of it), in particular my generation have faired very poorly out of it.

I just get the impression that your tactic is aimed at total negative carping,intended or not, it will help to put Cameron and his city slickers into office where they will finish the job Thatcher started.

The thought that occurs is that perhaps this is for the best in the long run. I doubt that the labour movement will continue in any recognisable format into subsequent generations unless the conditions that fuelled it's popularity are prevalent once again. You have to remember that my generation has never had to work 18 hour shifts or leave school at 14 to support the familly. In a way it is the success of the policies introduced by the labour party of old that pulled the rug from under it. Perhaps it will take an era of market-oriented poverty for those who've lost in the great casino that is modern Britain to realise what organized labour is capable of delivering.

If you had any genuine interest in the future of the Labour movement, instead of denigrating it, you would be looking at positives rather than trying to bury it.... If you had an ounce of old labour in you, you wouldn't spout such negativity and be prepared what could be the final putsch against the Labour Movement by a reactionary Tory party.

In order for these statements to make sense I would have to equate the Labour party to the Labour movement. In all honesty I consider the current incarnation of the party to be it's absolute enemy - or at least every bit as hostile to the cause of the labour movement as the Conservatives. Frankly I'm amazed that the TUC continues to fund it. If you contemplate my assumptions it makes very little difference whether Bagpuss + cronies get in or not.

"Every way you look at this you lose."

To be honest I don't think you were even a fair weatherLabour supporter.

If you're referring to New labour, then no - I have never been a fan. I simply don't think you can compare the modern incarnation of the party to the one that formed as a reation to the atrocious conditions of the late 19th century - they are chalk and cheese. While we live in a very different country than the one that shaped the early labour party and the movement, I believe we are in danger of regressing back and losing some of the advances that were accomplished - particularly those made in the period of 1945-1965. Ironically, it's the Labour party itself that has adopted some of the most corrosive policies in this regard.

[JAMC]

Seriously, what is needed in the near future is a Leader that can galvanise the left in the party. I know history has marched on and technology has advanced to a point where the world has changed beyond all recognition since 1946, but some past values can still be rekindled to face today's problems. World events since 1945 have placed many moral and practical issues in a different perspective. The EU and globalisation to name two. There are new problems arising every decade which we face and I do appreciate that old attitudes are not necessarily always the answer.

To a great number of outsiders, myself included, it appears that the labour party no longer has a left to galvanise - although I believe there is still a left wing in Britain generally, and I don't refer to the political correctness brigade, but rather to those who believe in economic equality. Those few left-leaning MPs that remain in the labour party as run by Blair and Brown are so meek as to be utterly ineffectual, other characters of note with any kind of backbone realised that the game was up and left.

My opinion is that the reputation of the labour party as it exists today is so badly damaged and it's core Thatcherite ideology is so bereft of both ideas and support that the party itself serves no purpose other than that of it's own perpetual re-election. I believe that in order for our democracy to become even moderately representative once again (it's never been truly representative) the current debacle headed by Brown must implode. The very best outcome I can imagine for the long term would be a disasterous defeat at the next election, followed by a profound split cleaving the party into two distinct entities - one continuing to peddle the center-right BS of the Blair/Brown years with diminishing success, and the other wishing to return to the policies of collective ownership via nationalisation. The latter is potentially something I could support.

You are correct to say that the world has advanced a great deal since 1945 - however a great deal of the advances made in scientific understanding have had the effect of accelerating material changes, not social ones. In fact the dominant characteristic of the post-1979 era speaking as someone who's lived exclusively within it, is the regression of much of the social advances that were attained in previous eras - typified by the growing return of inequality and privilidge. Social science lags a long way behind it's material cousin and one of humanity's enduring weaknesses is it's very limited ability to pass social knowledge from one generation to the next. This trait can be observed historically from the manner in which the Baby boom generation systematically dismantled the social institutions put in place by the preceeding inter-war generation.

[JAMC]

If you're expecting salvation from the Tories and a restoration of the myth of a bye gone Britain forget it. They will be faced with the same problems as this government is faced with, no holds barred terrorism.

Any government that fails to deal with Britain's looming social fracture is in for a far bigger shock - islamic terrorism will look like a storm in a teacup if the underlying issues faced by the alienated (but so far obedient) segments of British society aren't addressed comprehensively in the next two decades. The emergent plethora of social stresses have the potential to produce a very ugly, violent future.

The age of so called innocence has gone, and terrorism has been elevated a higher level with brain washed naive youth and women being used as human bombs by manipulating religious maniacs.

The age of innocence never existed. People look back on the 50's as a time of peaceful tranquility - it was very different. Rationing, H-bomb paranoia, teddy-boys fighting in the streets. Any 'innocence' that was experienced was done so by a sheltered generation that grew up after their parents had made unimaginable sacrifices in WW2. The age of ignorance would perhaps be more apt.

The world is a more dangerous place than it's ever been...

Nonsense. At one point in the early 60's we were a single button-press away from global nuclear armageddon. One radical loony with a weedkiller/icing sugar combo strapped to his back will no doubt cause damage, but don't pretend that the level of danger is unprecidented because it just isn't.

and we can blame the treatment of the Palestinians from the end of WW2 as the root cause of this development. As "all roads led to Rome" almost every modern conflict and terrorism has it's roots in the middle east and be traced back to the the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians whose land is still being stolen in the name of religion, and is still tearing the world apart.

I agree that the unresolved Palestinian situation is a continual source of conflict between the Islamic and Judeo/Christian spheres of influence. Resolving this would go a long way towards restoring stability to the world generally.

[JAMC]

What Cameron is concerned about with the "Death Duty" plan, [10% on ones estate on demise] one of the options considered for dealing with the increasing amounts necessary to fund care in old age, is that his wealthy suburban supporters would be paying a larger amount than people like myself with a small bungalow and savings, which says a lot about Tory grass roots and front bench concern when dealing with mounting costs of the elderly in care. They would rather keep all their wealth for their already well off offspring than help to solve an almost insurmountable financial problem by surrendering 10% of their estate for the common good.

I am one of the many retired who would along with my socially conscious family who would gladly part with 10% of my estate upon my demise to help fund such a scheme which would take a great deal of pressure off the rest of society most of which have enough to do just to survive the ravages of life.

My personal view is that the link between pensions and earnings should be restored, but also that the retirement age should be tied to life expectancy.

[uncon]

I think the country needs experiance now,not George Osborne.

Interesting you mention Osbourne. I do admit that he has no experience...or responsibility for what is going on. The current prime minister (ex chancellor 'a stop to boom and bust' ) and the chancellor that the PM wanted to get rid of has a lot of experience...particularly in the area of spending. They were left money in the coffers and spent it. Then they spent a little more, and then when they were in debt, they spent a little more so we all believed everything was alright, and then when the bill came in they said it would be ok if we spent more.

Every leading economist and the bank of England has repeatedly told them that they have to deal with the problem, and they announce spending plans....actually that is a lie...number 10 announces spending plans and 11 has to fanny around trying to make it happen while in the meantime the entire country loses any credit or credibility.

Forget Osbournes youth and look at Cable who has a very good trust rating in the city - labour is ****ing this up! Both these men have more backing than a government whose civil service has seen fit to break confidentiality and speak out against as the worst they have experienced.

[JacquesMagique]

Every leading economist ... has repeatedly told them that they have to deal with the problem, and they announce spending plans

On the contrary..

Forget cuts and keep spending, Brown told - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize and praises Gordon Brown - Telegraph

Paul Krugman claims Tory policies would make recession worse: Nobel prizewinner attacks David Cameron's economic policies | Politics | guardian.co.uk

[Midas]

On the contrary..

Forget cuts and keep spending, Brown told - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize and praises Gordon Brown - Telegraph

Paul Krugman claims Tory policies would make recession worse: Nobel prizewinner attacks David Cameron's economic policies | Politics | guardian.co.uk

The trouble with listening to many of the leading economists is that they have a vested interest in pleasing their political masters for the very simple reason that a significant number of them are academically based and therefore receive their funding (indirectly) from the government itself. I'd far rather listen to all those business leaders who have a far more accurate and immediate assessment of the practical effects of various economic policies and the way they affect the everyday lives of the all concerned.

See also - BBC News - Economists urge swift action to reduce budget deficit - "The government must act more quickly to cut Britain's huge budget deficit, a group of economists has said. In a letter to the Sunday Times, the 20 experts say the lack of a credible plan threatens to push up interest rates and undermine the recovery".

[Expounder]

My personal view is that the link between pensions and earnings should be restored, but also that the retirement age should be tied to life expectancy.

I agree with the first point, the second is more problematic. In any case once a older retirement age was arrived at, there would still be the problem of pensioners living into their dotage some who will require supervised long term care which will need funding.

[Major Sinic]

Now you are taking a leaf out of Cameron's book and are misrepresenting me I did not deny it's existence as an idea. What I said if you care to read my post was that it is one was of the options under discussion. I wasn't aware of the full details until learned about them today. Having found out what it entailed I found it an option I could personally prescribe to. It would mean a loss of 10% of my estate in duty which is a small price to pay for future care of the elderly who live long enough and need it. The difference between you and me is that I don't want to take my estate to the grave, and my family who have all known hard times wouldn't begrudge a contribution of my estate towards care of the elderly.

You would obviously like to continue with the present unacceptable arrangement, or exempt the wealthy from contributing anything, and let the lower ones down the ladder shoulder the burden as they have have always done.

Anyhow this is one OPTION being floated,along with others, and nothing set in stone. Maybe with all of your protestations about a "death tax" you have some better ideas on how compassionate care for the elderly could be achieved without any more investment being made. I'm prepared to make a small sacrifice but it appears you are not, Remember it's only a small portion of tax from wealthly estates, and we can't spend it when we're dead. I would seem that poorer people are more generous minded than tight fisted money bags Tories.

And you fail to explain why opportunist Cameron decided to scuttle even floating an Idea which would go some way to solving the problem of defusing a problem which is facing any government. More so as he hasn't come up with any constructive alternative, and rubbished an idea purely for political gain.

Whats your constructive alternative?

You do me a disservice. We agree on the objective, just not on the way of achieving it.

In twelve years I have watched the Labour government steadily increasing taxes on all sectors of society. I have witnessed them pouring these taxes into tens of thousands of non-jobs and wasting it in myriad other ways. Twelve years on the gulf between rich and poor is wider than ever, and few have seen any worthwhile improvement in any essential services. Why should this initiative be any different? Just more Labour spin and waste! With competent economic management there would be no need to tax us once we are on the other side of the grave!

[Expounder]

To a great number of outsiders, myself included, it appears that the labour party no longer has a left to galvanise - although I believe there is still a left wing in Britain generally, and I don't refer to the political correctness brigade, but rather to those who believe in economic equality. Those few left-leaning MPs that remain in the labour party as run by Blair and Brown are so meek as to be utterly ineffectual, other characters of note with any kind of backbone realised that the game was up and left.

My opinion is that the reputation of the labour party as it exists today is so badly damaged and it's core Thatcherite ideology is so bereft of both ideas and support that the party itself serves no purpose other than that of it's own perpetual re-election. I believe that in order for our democracy to become even moderately representative once again (it's never been truly representative) the current debacle headed by Brown must implode. The very best outcome I can imagine for the long term would be a disasterous defeat at the next election, followed by a profound split cleaving the party into two distinct entities - one continuing to peddle the center-right BS of the Blair/Brown years with diminishing success, and the other wishing to return to the policies of collective ownership via nationalisation. The latter is potentially something I could support.

You are correct to say that the world has advanced a great deal since 1945 - however a great deal of the advances made in scientific understanding have had the effect of accelerating material changes, not social ones. In fact the dominant characteristic of the post-1979 era speaking as someone who's lived exclusively within it, is the regression of much of the social advances that were attained in previous eras - typified by the growing return of inequality and privilidge. Social science lags a long way behind it's material cousin and one of humanity's enduring weaknesses is it's very limited ability to pass social knowledge from one generation to the next. This trait can be observed historically from the manner in which the Baby boom generation systematically dismantled the social institutions put in place by the preceeding inter-war generation.

I have met this argument before, you see a necessity for the destruction [dismantling] of whats left the of the Labour movement and your theoretical pie in the sky pure socialist phoenix rising from the ashes . Meanwhile the ruling establishment hammers the last nail in the coffin enacting laws to ensure this doesnt happen. If the Labour movement or whats left of it is decimated and scattered all there would be left are pockets of ineffective socialist debating societies " One of which you would claim membership.

I've been there and worn the T. shirt in my early years, and don't subscribe to your theory of a socialist rebirth of the kind you propose. I suspect you subscribe to one of the fringe groups and will eventually expire discussing the theory of non existent pure socialism.

[Expounder]

You do me a disservice. We agree on the objective, just not on the way of achieving it.

In twelve years I have watched the Labour government steadily increasing taxes on all sectors of society. I have witnessed them pouring these taxes into tens of thousands of non-jobs and wasting it in myriad other ways. Twelve years on the gulf between rich and poor is wider than ever, and few have seen any worthwhile improvement in any essential services. Why should this initiative be any different? Just more Labour spin and waste! With competent economic management there would be no need to tax us once we are on the other side of the grave!

What we have seen is the incompetent Tory economic management in the previous administration when they sent the country bust and this was minus a world economic collapse. All this happened with so called experienced cabinet ministers. So what makes you think their judgment will be any better today with totally inexperienced leadership?

[Major Sinic]

What we have seen is the incompetent Tory economic management in the previous administration when they sent the country bust and this was minus a world economic collapse. All this happened with so called experienced cabinet ministers. So what makes you think their judgment will be any better today with totally inexperienced leadership?

You are once again materially incorrect in your assertion. The country never went bankrupt under a Tory administration. Indeed under Maggie and Major the country enjoyed a sustained and buoyant period of growth, and was in fine economic health when it was handed over to the 'end of boom and bust' Gordon Brown. Bless your little cotton socks Expounder, but you do really, honestly, truthfully, genuinely believe this shower of corrupt, arrogant, self-serving incompetents are preferable, don't you?

What makes you think that after twelve years of monumental failure, they would do any better in a fourth term?

The country last almost went bust under Jim Callaghans Labour government, when the IMF had to come in and tell the government how to get out of the mess they had got themselves into.

A pattern is established. Labour with their frothy, head in the clouds economic policy gets us into an economic mess and the Tories, with down to earth realism, get us out of it.

[JacquesMagique]

The trouble with listening to many of the leading economists is that they have a vested interest in pleasing their political masters for the very simple reason that a significant number of them are academically based and therefore receive their funding (indirectly) from the government itself. I'd far rather listen to all those business leaders who have a far more accurate and immediate assessment of the practical effects of various economic policies and the way they affect the everyday lives of the all concerned.

So you're saying that people who have dedicated their whole life to studying economics, plough all their time into this research, make **** up just to get funding? And Krugman and Stiglitz are based in the U.S anyway..

See also - BBC News - Economists urge swift action to reduce budget deficit - "The government must act more quickly to cut Britain's huge budget deficit, a group of economists has said. In a letter to the Sunday Times, the 20 experts say the lack of a credible plan threatens to push up interest rates and undermine the recovery".

They wrote: "The exact timing of measures should be sensitive to developments in the economy, particularly the fragility of the recovery."
......
Labour peer Lord Desai, one of the signatories to the letter, said this was not about party politics.
"Right now we have got a fragile recovery but as soon as conditions allow, somebody will have to tackle the structural deficit with which we started the recession," he told the BBC.
"Obviously during a recession you have to spend extra money, the deficit has to go up, to get rid of unemployment.
"But once all that has passed us, we will have to tackle this because we can't go on borrowing money. The markets are going to get very tight because it's not just [that] we are borrowing money but everybody else is borrowing money.""

Noone is denying this, including the labour party (although I apprecuate they have been a little coy on this issue). Of course the deficit needs to be cut, but as they say it needs to be after the recovery can sustain itself. Growth is too fragile currently and swingeing cuts would pull the rug out from underneath it.

[Expounder]

You are once again materially incorrect in your assertion. The country never went bankrupt under a Tory administration. Indeed under Maggie and Major the country enjoyed a sustained and buoyant period of growth, and was in fine economic health when it was handed over to the 'end of boom and bust' Gordon Brown. Bless your little cotton socks Expounder, but you do really, honestly, truthfully, genuinely believe this shower of corrupt, arrogant, self-serving incompetents are preferable, don't you?

What makes you think that after twelve years of monumental failure, they would do any better in a fourth term?

The country last almost went bust under Jim Callaghans Labour government, when the IMF had to come in and tell the government how to get out of the mess they had got themselves into.

A pattern is established. Labour with their frothy, head in the clouds economic policy gets us into an economic mess and the Tories, with down to earth realism, get us out of it.

Black wednesday Norman Lamont....................suported by an office Junior.................Guess who? D.C.

[Major Sinic]

Black wednesday Norman Lamont....................suported by an office Junior.................Guess who? D.C.

As I said you were materially incorrect in your original statement. Your smear is noted for what it is!

[JAMC]

I agree with the first point, the second is more problematic. In any case once a older retirement age was arrived at, there would still be the problem of pensioners living into their dotage some who will require supervised long term care which will need funding.

It is a question of proportionality. People are living longer and remaining healthier into their old age - increasing the number of economically active individuals in proportion to the number that require expensive full time care will help to alleviate the financial burden you're referring to.

At the mid point of the 20th century the combined life expectancy in the UK was roughly 70 - the statutory retirement age was the same as it is now, 65. The average retiree could expect to enjoy an average retirement of 5 years. The current combined UK life expectancy is roughly 80, increasing the retirement years threefold.

Some quick sums indicate that to restore the original ratio to the present day workforce would require a statutory retirement age of approximately 73.

[JAMC]

You do me a disservice. We agree on the objective, just not on the way of achieving it.

In twelve years I have watched the Labour government steadily increasing taxes on all sectors of society. I have witnessed them pouring these taxes into tens of thousands of non-jobs and wasting it in myriad other ways. Twelve years on the gulf between rich and poor is wider than ever, and few have seen any worthwhile improvement in any essential services. Why should this initiative be any different? Just more Labour spin and waste! With competent economic management there would be no need to tax us once we are on the other side of the grave!

So your answer to the question is "competent economic management"?

Can you be slightly more specific for those of us without powers of telepathy?

[JAMC]

I have met this argument before, you see a necessity for the destruction [dismantling] of whats left the of the Labour movement and your theoretical pie in the sky pure socialist phoenix rising from the ashes.

Destruction of the labour party, not the movement - because their interests are mutually incompatable. I'm not too blinkered to realise that theory doesn't relate to practice in most cases, however you must be prepared to draw a line under a (social) experiment when it becomes clear that it's an abject failure when held up against it's original objectives and raison d'être. Continuation for it's own sake or for the sake of past glories is not a method that will yield future sucesses as it ultimately engenders a total detatchment from reality.

Meanwhile the ruling establishment hammers the last nail in the coffin enacting laws to ensure this doesnt happen. If the Labour movement or whats left of it is decimated and scattered all there would be left are pockets of ineffective socialist debating societies " One of which you would claim membership.

The only difference in outcome that the coming election offers is who gets to hold the hammer while this happens - because both new labour and the conservatives are equally committed to ensuring that the market economy they've collectively built is not threatened by demands for fairness from those subjugated into propping it up.

Laws will be passed (regardless of whether labour win or not), and sooner or later, once their effects become chronic, they will be broken en masse in a violent, anarchic frenzy. The last example of which I would consider to be the poll tax riots.

[uncon]

need too
I think we beed to talk about the fact we need to talk about

[Major Sinic]

So your answer to the question is "competent economic management"?

Can you be slightly more specific for those of us without powers of telepathy?

If I were to be specific about every area where this government has been profligate in its waste of taxpayer resources, my post would be many times longer than the longest of 'Hi Greg's' posts.

I will therefore select one area, among so many where this government has and continues to waste tax revenues, which could go towards much needed reform of support for the elderly.

The cost of quangos has increased by almost £10 billion pounds per annum, since Labour came to power, from£37b to £46.5b. Employment has increased from 95000 to 110000. Of the 700 or so quangos, 250 quango chiefs earn more than £150k per annum; most are part-time. The new Infrastructure Planning Commission is costing £1m per month and has yet to start functioning, whilst its Chairman is on £184k per annum for a four day week. The Taxpayers Alliance claim that this figure could almost double to £90b, when non-publicly accountable bodies which rely on government expenditure, but which can not be defined as quangos are taken into account. This has happened despite the fact that we are currently going through the worst economic recession since the 1930s.

Consider how much the elderly in need could be helped by the wise and efficient economic management of £10 billion per annum. Unfortunately wise and efficient economic management by a Labour government is an oxymoron.

I don't object to paying my fair share of the tax burden to finance a caring and supportive society. I am absolutely furious when my hard earned taxes are wasted by this incompetent, dishonest, self-serving, morally bankrupt government. This government is simply not fit for purpose!!

I really don't have the time or inclination to carry on, but I hope this illustrates why I believe competent economic management is the answer to providing a sustainable solution to the elderly in need rather than the introduction of yet another Labour stealth tax. You can't get much more stealthy than taxing death!!

[Expounder]

Destruction of the labour party, not the movement - because their interests are mutually incompatable. I'm not too blinkered to realise that theory doesn't relate to practice in most cases, however you must be prepared to draw a line under a (social) experiment when it becomes clear that it's an abject failure when held up against it's original objectives and raison d'être. Continuation for it's own sake or for the sake of past glories is not a method that will yield future sucesses as it ultimately engenders a total detatchment from reality.

While the Labour party formed born out of the unions had clause four enshrined into it's constitution it never was a socialist party in the purist sense,and also was never was a revolutionary party and aimed at reforms within the capitalist system which included the nationalsation of selected major industries, and workers representation, i.e. the unionisation of the work place as a balance against emloyer exploitation.
.

he only difference in outcome that the coming election offers is who gets to hold the hammer while this happens - because both new labour and the conservatives are equally committed to ensuring that the market economy they've collectively built is not threatened by demands for fairness from those subjugated into propping it up

.

I admit that New Labour's acceptance of the out of control free market has contaminated the P.L.P and has destroyed many Labour supporters confidence in it, but don't accept it's decimation as a way forward. At the moment it looks like Tories will win the G.E., the question is by how much?. The party needs as much representation in the commons as possible one, to expose the worst excesses of a Tory government and to put its own house in order under pressure of the grass roots who have enough ammunition from the past to force changes.

Laws will be passed (regardless of whether labour win or not), and sooner or later, once their effects become chronic, they will be broken en mass in a violent, anarchic frenzy. The last example of which I would consider to be the poll tax riots.

I can't foresee the violent anarchy and frenzy you refer to, the poll tax was an extreme example of taxation gone mad, launched by someone some mad enough to introduce it. People saw it as a final insult of all the impositions imposed on them by a rabid Tory government.

I don't see any sense of any left thinking people jumping on the anti labour bandwagon, which gives aid an comfort to the Tories, and encourages wavering Labour voters by virtue of the fact that some of the criticism is coming mainly from the far left who have an axe to grind with Labour in or out of office. If we are to lose, I prefer to see a stand up fight and if necessary an orderly retreat maintaining as large a number of seats as possible because, I can't see the conservatives with a reactionary policy remaining in office if they win for more that one term.

Sorry JAMC, I can't join you on your voyage into a socialist future as much as I would like to. I'm a pragmatist and and have lived long enough to realise that with human nature what it is and the make up of our modern society I would be flogging a dead horse.

[Expounder]

If I were to be specific about every area where this government has been profligate in its waste of taxpayer resources, my post would be many times longer than the longest of 'Hi Greg's' posts.


I don't object to paying my fair share of the tax burden to finance a caring and supportive society. I am absolutely furious when my hard earned taxes are wasted by this incompetent, dishonest, self-serving, morally bankrupt government. This government is simply not fit for purpose!!

You are actually paying the full amount of PAYE tax. Or are your taxes accessed by your accountant?.

really don't have the time or inclination to carry on, but I hope this illustrates why I believe competent economic management is the answer to providing a sustainable solution to the elderly in need rather than the introduction of yet another Labour stealth tax. You can't get much more stealthy than taxing death!!

I must be truthful, You come over as a typical I'm alright jack pull up the drawbridge selfish Tory. The are no pockets in a shroud and the dead can't take their wealth with them. After double crossing Andrew Lansley stomped out of private talks between the three parties trying to resolve the problem of future elderly care at Cameron's behest, Lansley's reputation as an honest politician was lost.

The hated current system forces any one with assets over £23,000 to fund the bill for elderly care. A 10% levy on estates when we finally depart sounds fair. Everyone gets good care and no one loses a home or inheritance. This operates like an insurance against frailty, the lucky ones who are hail and hearty and never need help in their old age.

I can see why the scare tactics and screams of "death tax" emanate from the Tory benches. Let's say an average Joe Bloggs estate is £200.000 10% is £20,000 which leaves plenty for surviving relatives. But, 10% of a £million is £100.000. As most of the leading Tories and their supporters will have far in excess of this in their estates upon their demise I can see the reason for their horror.

If this proposal is not in force Joe Bloggs ends up with sweet Fanny Adams if his elderly relative has to go into long term care, when the money from the estate runs out his relative is not welcome in a PRIVATELY run home and is shoved out into council care home in which, while they do their best to make life as comfortable as possible, are dependant on an already stretched council tax care budget which is wholly inadequate to fund proper care and which the Tories will take great pleasure in capping when in power pleading savings must be made.

With the present system Joe Bloggs ends with nothing after his elderly relatives die after working after working their whole lives and paying full tax. The silver spoon Tories don't have this problem they can pay for care and still have enough left over to live the good life. Selfish greedy b********.

[Major Sinic]

You are actually paying the full amount of PAYE tax. Or are your taxes accessed by your accountant?.

That is none of your business. You may be rest assured I pay what I am legally required to do and that is a very considerable sum.

I must be truthful, You come over as a typical I'm alright jack pull up the drawbridge selfish Tory. The are no pockets in a shroud and the dead can't take their wealth with them. After double crossing Andrew Lansley stomped out of private talks between the three parties trying to resolve the problem of future elderly care at Cameron's behest, Lansley's reputation as an honest politician was lost.

Your personal view off me is of no interest to me. Your observation about Andrew Lansley is subjective, and like most of your political views biased, jaundiced and without evidence. Why should the Tories continue a dialogue with a corrupt and morally bankrupt Labour government, on terms that they recognise are unnecessary, bureaucratic and expensive.

.

The hated current system forces any one with assets over £23,000 to fund the bill for elderly care. A 10% levy on estates when we finally depart sounds fair. Everyone gets good care and no one loses a home or inheritance. This operates like an insurance against frailty, the lucky ones who are hail and hearty and never need help in their old age.

It is wholly unnecessary. There are prospective savings from any number of areas of Labour's profligacy. I have outlined just one which you as usual choose to ignore.

I can see why the scare tactics and screams of "death tax" emanate from the Tory benches. Let's say an average Joe Bloggs estate is £200.000 10% is £20,000 which leaves plenty for surviving relatives. But, 10% of a £million is £100.000. As most of the leading Tories and their supporters will have far in excess of this in their estates upon their demise I can see the reason for their horror.

If this proposal is not in force Joe Bloggs ends up with sweet Fanny Adams if his elderly relative has to go into long term care, when the money from the estate runs out his relative is not welcome in a PRIVATELY run home and is shoved out into council care home in which, while they do their best to make life as comfortable as possible, are dependant on council tax which is wholly inadequate to fund proper care which the Tories will take great pleasure in capping when in power pleading savings must be made.

With the present system Joe Bloggs ends with nothing after his elderly relatives die after working after working their whole lives and paying full tax. The silver spoon Tories don't have this problem they can pay for care and still have enough left over to live the good life. Selfish greedy b********.

I repeat the easy solution of most Labour supporters like you is to tax and spend, tax and spend and tax and spend. This is because we have such an economically incompetent bunch currently in government they are incapable of spending wisely, which is why the country is in such a confounded mess. The other reason is that it is very easy to say 'put up taxes', when some other poor sod is picking up the bulk of the bill. With competent economic management there are fairer and more efficient solutions to a problem we both agree exists.

Just because there are people in this country who resent having their tax payments wasted, and demand value for their tax pounds does not make them selfish greedy bastards. It makes them socially responsible and they have every right to demand that their elected representatives justify themselves. So stop being so blinkered and bigoted.

[JAMC]

While the Labour party formed born out of the unions had clause four enshrined into it's constitution it never was a socialist party in the purist sense,and also was never was a revolutionary party and aimed at reforms within the capitalist system which included the nationalsation of selected major industries, and workers representation, i.e. the unionisation of the work place as a balance against emloyer exploitation.

I am in complete agreement with the original principles of the labour party as you lay them out there.
A democratic party (i.e. non-revolutionary) with the stated aim of nationalising key industries and following a policy of a mixed economy would secure my vote at the next election. Lets be honest, most of us talk in ideals but will in practice settle for something less perfect.

I admit that New Labour's acceptance of the out of control free market has contaminated the P.L.P and has destroyed many Labour supporters confidence in it, but don't accept it's decimation as a way forward.

What then according to you is the way forward? Another labour victory? Unlikely and unpalletable. A hung parliament?

The problem as I see it is that even if Labour did begin to return to the original policies that they used to have, how can you trust or respect a party that changes its core ideology in pursuit of electability? Any politician that does that (lets face it, it's most of them) is nothing more than a career schmoozer looking to feather his/her state-subsidised duck houses. Had the labour party endured the thatcher years with it's original beliefs intact, I imagine I would currently be sporting a red rose as my avatar.

At the moment it looks like Tories will win the G.E., the question is by how much?. The party needs as much representation in the commons as possible one, to expose the worst excesses of a Tory government and to put its own house in order under pressure of the grass roots who have enough ammunition from the past to force changes.

I think serious change within the labour party becomes more likely the fewer seats they end up retaining. And besides, the rallying cry of "keep the tories out!" rings a little hollow when new labour are virtually identical in terms of ideology and only moderately different in terms of policy.

I can't foresee the violent anarchy and frenzy you refer to, the poll tax was an extreme example of taxation gone mad, launched by someone some mad enough to introduce it. People saw it as a final insult of all the impositions imposed on them by a rabid Tory government.

At some point in the next 20 years someone will introduce something equally stupid, and the reation will be equally, if not more extreme. There is an increasing level of rage pent up in the under 30s, and thanks to the policies that allowed inequality (much of it age-based) to run rampant, their stake in society is extremely tenuous.

I don't see any sense of any left thinking people jumping on the anti labour bandwagon

How about... because the labour party isn't left wing any more?

Sorry JAMC, I can't join you on your voyage into a socialist future as much as I would like to. I'm a pragmatist and and have lived long enough to realise that with human nature what it is and the make up of our modern society I would be flogging a dead horse.

I believe the policies of old labour will at some point in the next two decades be taken off the top shelf, dusted off and given another go - the alternative is a complete social breakdown and disorder akin to the mayhem that gave birth to the labour movement in the first place - for all I know it may in fact come to that.

[Midas]

I am in complete agreement with the original principles of the labour party as you lay them out there.
A democratic party (i.e. non-revolutionary) with the stated aim of nationalising key industries and following a policy of a mixed economy would secure my vote at the next election. Lets be honest, most of us talk in ideals but will in practice settle for something less perfect.

Don't you think that 'democratic' and 'aim of nationalising key industries' going together represent something of an oxymoron? Nationalisation reduces consumer choice, reduces efficiency and is unfair in that it passes inflated costs on to people who never use whatever the product/service is. That's certainly not democratic!

How about... because the labour party isn't left wing any more?

Err, not left wing; how do you work that out??? OK, not quite as left wing as it used to be, but it's core policies are still socialist.

I believe the policies of old labour will at some point in the next two decades be taken off the top shelf, dusted off and given another go - the alternative is a complete social breakdown and disorder akin to the mayhem that gave birth to the labour movement in the first place - for all I know it may in fact come to that.

I'll agree with you that there may well be some form of social disorder, but certainly not for the reasons you mention. It's far more likely to be through a realisation of the damage that Labour's economic, immigration, education and other policies, like the invasions of privacy and restrictions of personal freedom, have done to the fabric of our society.

[JAMC]

Don't you think that 'democratic' and 'aim of nationalising key industries' going together represent something of an oxymoron?

No. In the loosest sense, 'Democratic' is a term that applies merely to any policy that is implemented with a clear mandate from > 50% of the population. Your question precludes that no-one, or rather the majority, would ever voluntarily vote in favour of greater common ownership of industry. However, this has happened in the past - generally at points in history when markets have failed to deliver social cohesion.

Nationalisation reduces consumer choice, reduces efficiency and is unfair in that it passes inflated costs on to people who never use whatever the product/service is. That's certainly not democratic!

1. Freedom is not defined as endless choice
2. Efficiency is secondary to outcome
3. Fairness is subjective
4. If the market produced 'fair' costs to begin with, people would not be inclined to vote for parties that offer to shift the burden of payment onto the wealthy

Err, not left wing; how do you work that out??? OK, not quite as left wing as it used to be, but it's core policies are still socialist.

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Sound like new labour to you?

I'll agree with you that there may well be some form of social disorder, but certainly not for the reasons you mention. It's far more likely to be through a realisation of the damage that Labour's economic, immigration, education and other policies, like the invasions of privacy and restrictions of personal freedom, have done to the fabric of our society.

We can only speculate I suppose. Nevertheless I think we're in agreement that there's trouble ahead unless there's some pretty big changes.

[Expounder]

That is none of your business. You may be rest assured I pay what I am legally required to do and that is a very considerable sum.

The point I was making is the submission of self certificated taxes by the wealthy are not subject to the same straight jacket scrutiny of those who PAYE. While the PAYE are screwed to the floor, the wealthy[ have the means to employ clever accountants to ensure their proportion of paid tax from earnings is fracton of the PAYEarners whose every penny is recorded by the tax office under threat of prosecution.

Your personal view off me is of no interest to me. Your observation about Andrew Lansley is subjective, and like most of your political views biased, jaundiced and without evidence. Why should the Tories continue a dialogue with a corrupt and morally bankrupt Labour government, on terms that they recognise are unnecessary, bureaucratic and expensive.

Cameron hates this idea of the Tory so called "death tax" which will have a fundamental attraction to all people with elderly parents and even those who are younger who could be eventually facing the problem of parental in house care and who will be liable to spend some or all of their parents inheritance paying up to a £1.000 per week, to profit making, privately run, care homes. When Cameron saw the outlines of the plan he told Lansley to drop it like a hot potato.
.

It is wholly unnecessary. There are prospective savings from any number of areas of Labour's profligacy. I have outlined just one which you as usual choose to ignore.

We've been here before Major the Tory idea of saving is squeeze until the pips squeak and whatever is being funded eventually collapses. Enter the private sector to the rescue.

I repeat the easy solution of most Labour supporters like you is to tax and spend, tax and spend and tax and spend. This is because we have such an economically incompetent bunch currently in government they are incapable of spending wisely, which is why the country is in such a confounded mess. The other reason is that it is very easy to say 'put up taxes', when some other poor sod is picking up the bulk of the bill. With competent economic management there are fairer and more efficient solutions to a problem we both agree exists

.

The world is in a confounded mess due to friends of the Tories, the crooked gambling financial sector,run by products of the get rich quick Thatcher generation biggest bunch the greedy B******s. whose appetites know no limits.

Just because there are people in this country who resent having their tax payments wasted, and demand value for their tax pounds does not make them selfish greedy bastards. It makes them socially responsible and they have every right to demand that their elected representatives justify themselves. So stop being so blinkered and bigoted.

The problem is Major, that the Tory demand of savings and value as I have already said ends up with dilapidated public services and putting more money into the hands of the wealthy and the privateers at the expense of us minions who suffer the consequences. My reference to "greedy b*******s wasn't personal but refers but to the whole rapacious bunch of friends who run and influence the Tory party.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22043613/

[uncon]

No. In the loosest sense, 'Democratic' is a term that applies merely to any policy that is implemented with a clear mandate from > 50% of the population. Your question precludes that no-one, or rather the majority, would ever voluntarily vote in favour of greater common ownership of industry. However, this has happened in the past - generally at points in history when markets have failed to deliver social cohesion.

1. Freedom is not defined as endless choice
2. Efficiency is secondary to outcome
3. Fairness is subjective
4. If the market produced 'fair' costs to begin with, people would not be inclined to vote for parties that offer to shift the burden of payment onto the wealthy


Sound like new labour to you?

We can only speculate I suppose. Nevertheless I think we're in agreement that there's trouble ahead unless there's some pretty big changes.

But the point you are making is?
How are you representing me?
Are you making an assumption about me? (too rich to give a **** about and too poor to make a million pound plus donation to the Labour Party)

[JacquesMagique]

Don't you think that 'democratic' and 'aim of nationalising key industries' going together represent something of an oxymoron? Nationalisation reduces consumer choice, reduces efficiency and is unfair in that it passes inflated costs on to people who never use whatever the product/service is. That's certainly not democratic!

Not too sure which understanding of democracy you are using but it's not one which I'm familiar with. Illiberal, yes, but undemocratic no (unless, of course, most people disagree with nationalisation).

Err, not left wing; how do you work that out??? OK, not quite as left wing as it used to be, but it's core policies are still socialist.

I would agree they are sort of left wing, but certainly not socialists. Consider the increase in outsourcing for things like the NHS, and the proposed privatisation of the post office, along with their embracement of neoliberal globalisation.
They remain left wing in their dedication to equality of rights, generally internationalist outlook, fairly progressive taxation system, among other things.

[Midas]

Not too sure which understanding of democracy you are using but it's not one which I'm familiar with. Illiberal, yes, but undemocratic no (unless, of course, most people disagree with nationalisation).

Agreed to by a majority of those people who are able to have a say on any topic, i.e., the electorate. When was the last time that a majority of that electorate either a/ got a chance to have their individual say on whether they wanted any industry to be nationalised (and that's after they've been fully informed of the pros and cons) or b/ even elected a government which carried out nationalisation into power with an overall numerical majority of the votes cast? If neither of those things happened, the decision to nationalise was not democratic.

[Opinionated]

Agreed to by a majority of those people who are able to have a say on any topic, i.e., the electorate. When was the last time that a majority of that electorate either a/ got a chance to have their individual say on whether they wanted any industry to be nationalised (and that's after they've been fully informed of the pros and cons) or b/ even elected a government which carried out nationalisation into power with an overall numerical majority of the votes cast? If neither of those things happened, the decision to nationalise was not democratic.

The answer to that is 1945, Nationalisation was quite clearly in the Labour Party's manifesto and Attlee's government won with just under 50% of the vote and 393 seats. Did the people know about the pros and cons? Well in one radio interview Churchill claimed they would need to form a gestapo (I know talk about poor taste) to impliment it and other social reforms so debate was pretty fierce, so yes the people knew what they were signing up to.

[Midas]

The answer to that is 1945, Nationalisation was quite clearly in the Labour Party's manifesto and Attlee's government won with just under 50% of the vote and 393 seats. Did the people know about the pros and cons? Well in one radio interview Churchill claimed they would need to form a gestapo (I know talk about poor taste) to impliment it and other social reforms so debate was pretty fierce, so yes the people knew what they were signing up to.

Fair enough, but I don't think you can equate a wartime government under totally different social conditions over 60 years ago with the situation today, when we have governments with their own self-interested agenda elected by around 30% of the electorate......

[JacquesMagique]

Agreed to by a majority of those people who are able to have a say on any topic, i.e., the electorate. When was the last time that a majority of that electorate either a/ got a chance to have their individual say on whether they wanted any industry to be nationalised (and that's after they've been fully informed of the pros and cons) or b/ even elected a government which carried out nationalisation into power with an overall numerical majority of the votes cast? If neither of those things happened, the decision to nationalise was not democratic.

Well yes but you can say that about pretty much any political decision ever made. The majority never truly grasps the pros and cons of anything.

[uncon]

Well yes but you can say that about pretty much any political decision ever made. The majority never truly grasps the pros and cons of anything.

Spot on.

Here is what interests me. We are interested in politics. We like to keep on the pulse of current events in the House.

Do we feel slightly superior because we know what happened at PMQ's or who Purnell is?


If you think that expenses are all about fraud, duck houses and moats are you really any less informed? The same people are looking up the expenses of their local mp and making an informed decision about what is best for them as are the people who spoke to their mp.

I think that we should all email our mp about something, and what they do says whether we should vote for them or not

[Midas]

I think that we should all email our mp about something, and what they do says whether we should vote for them or not

Good luck with getting a reply, and even if you do, odds are it'll simply be a standardised "aren't we a great party, come and join us" type reply which doesn't even begin to address the questions you asked! Cynical, certainly, but based on several years of using email in an attempt to get sensible answers out of anyone in politics.

[JAMC]

But the point you are making is?

I was attempting to illustrate to Midas that a policy of nationalisation is not intrinsically undemocratic if it has a clear mandate from the majority.

How are you representing me?

Not quite sure I follow, but in a truly democratic system representation of the minority in parliament would be augmented by an aspect that has been lost to modern politics - the right of individuals to change their minds about certain issues, usually as a result of new information becoming available. The bottom line is that not everyone can have their way symultaneously when views are mutually exclusive.

Are you making an assumption about me? (too rich to give a **** about and too poor to make a million pound plus donation to the Labour Party)

Unlikely considering I wasn't talking about you, or to you. Unless of course you're Midas' alter-ego?

[JAMC]

Agreed to by a majority of those people who are able to have a say on any topic, i.e., the electorate. When was the last time that a majority of that electorate either a/ got a chance to have their individual say on whether they wanted any industry to be nationalised (and that's after they've been fully informed of the pros and cons) or b/ even elected a government which carried out nationalisation into power with an overall numerical majority of the votes cast? If neither of those things happened, the decision to nationalise was not democratic.

These are principally flaws with our first-past-the-post electoral system. Applying your criteria historically means that practically every decision ever made by every government since Cromwell is illegitimate. I would of course agree that we need to fix these problems going forward, but we can't look for examples of pure democratic expression in the history of a system as warped as ours because it has only ever been made more democratic by degrees rather than fully democratic from the outset.

[JAMC]

Here is what interests me. We are interested in politics. We like to keep on the pulse of current events in the House.

Do we feel slightly superior because we know what happened at PMQ's or who Purnell is?

Thats a slippery slope. Once you assume that the general population are utterly stupid the argument for democratic governance is fundamentally undermined because if that were true it would always lead to disaster.

[DC]

Thats a slippery slope. Once you assume that the general population are utterly stupid the argument for democratic governance is fundamentally undermined because if that were true it would always lead to disaster.

But the general population (In Australia at least) is stupid when it comes to politics.

[JAMC]

But the general population (In Australia at least) is stupid when it comes to politics.

Can I assume that holding that view is the reason why you've chosen to describe yourself as "The Fascist"?

There is a distinction to be made between whether you think they're stupid, and whether they actually are stupid.