Don't worry, Labour will return!

[SeagullRic]

Great thread with many interesting points raised. But it does suprise me as to how many people on here think it is almost criminal to have a superior class within our nation. But is this not the same in most countries throughout the world. You will always have the high/lower class system. But I cannot help feel that Labour wanted just a one class system for all............the lower class.

Having people who earn more than others isn't a problem for me, although I do believe people should be taxed much more heavily if they reach a certain point (men such as Branson and Sugar, to whom a million pounds is small change).

What I resent is the system of inheritance, by which one can be exceedingly rich based on their ancestors, whereas someone else can be left with nothing.

 

[Pantani]

I wouldn't disagree with that. But what did labour do in 13 years to chance this.

Absolutely nothing, I said this earlier. It is the great shame of the New Labour project.

Handing out money, without an incenive to work, will keep poor areas poor. Tories idea is too make people work, and if you give the poor the chance/or make them work, maybe children born in poor areas will have a better chance of bettering themselves. Maybe if children don't grow up seeing parents not working and living comfortable lives in their paid for homes, they won't copy it. Bth my parents worked, all my grandparents work, so wrking too me, is the norm. But too many children grow upin areas where wrk is alien to them, and therefore will not work, and stay "poor". Hardly the fault of the tories is it? Hardly the fault of a party who wan to encourge people into work.

I would agree that there is not a great enough incentive to work. However, I feel that minimum wage work is not well paid enough rather than the benefits paid to the unemployed are too high. Working 40 hours a week on the current minimum wage will earn you £12,064 a year. That is enough for one person to live on but if you have anyone to support you have no chance. So, is the solution to bring benefits below this level so that everyone has to work or would it better to pay people more money?

Obviously its not going to happen overnight, you need to have jobs to start with, but then again, Labour haven't exactly done much about that. Sure they'll point to bringing employment figures down, but as my example earlier, in my eyes if someone is out of work and on benifits, they are still unemployemnt, even though official figures don't show that.

The creation of jobs is difficult, however if the level of the minimum wage was raised there would be more money in the economy. This extra money would automatically create more jobs, for the services these people require.

As I said before, amazing how if Labour is the working mans party, most labour strongholds are full of high unemployment. Look at Liverpool. Its a stereotype I know, but theres it known as a work shy area, and Labour have probably 5 of their stronest seats there.

It is true that most Labour areas have high unemployment. It is also true that these areas used to be manufacturing areas. I'm not going to get in to why the manufacturing industries in this country have declined as we will just end up arguing about Thatcher which is tiresome and pointless, in my opinion. What I would say is that it is these area's past as centres of manufacturing that is more influential in their support of Labour than their current levels of unemployment.

 

[Pantani]

No, are you sure he has 14 old etonians on the front bench ?

I said thirteen on the front bench, which is what the BBC article says. I did not fully check their sources for the purposes of this thread.

I also said fourteen of our government are old etonians. Which is the thirteen that CMD has chosen plus himself.

Do you want to add anything to this debate? Or just point out inconsequential factual inaccuracies? That actually turn out to be correct.

Here is the line from the BBC article if you cannot be bothered to read to the bottom.
"In fact, when Mr Cameron unveiled his first front-bench team, it included 13 people from his old school".

 

[HH Brighton]

I wouldn't disagree with that. But what did labour do in 13 years to change this. Handing out money, without an incenive to work, will keep poor areas poor. Tories idea is too make people work, and if you give the poor the chance/or make them work, maybe children born in poor areas will have a better chance of bettering themselves. Maybe if children don't grow up seeing parents not working and living comfortable lives in their paid for homes, they won't copy it. Bth my parents worked, all my grandparents work, so wrking too me, is the norm. But too many children grow upin areas where wrk is alien to them, and therefore will not work, and stay "poor". Hardly the fault of the tories is it? Hardly the fault of a party who wan to encourge people into work.

Obviously its not going to happen overnight, you need to have jobs to start with, but then again, Labour haven't exactly done much about that. Sure they'll point to bringing employment figures down, but as my example earlier, in my eyes if someone is out of work and on benifits, they are still unemployemnt, even though official figures don't show that.

As I said before, amazing how if Labour is the working mans party, most labour strongholds are full of high unemployment. Look at Liverpool. Its a stereotype I know, but theres it known as a work shy area, and Labour have probably 5 of their stronest seats there.

Don't think I have ever read such ignorance and arrogance on one thread. Your first post sums you up mate....me me me me me !!!!

 

[simmo]

I said thirteen on the front bench, which is what the BBC article says. I did not fully check their sources for the purposes of this thread.

I also said fourteen of our government are old etonians. Which is the thirteen that CMD has chosen plus himself.

Do you want to add anything to this debate? Or just point out inconsequential factual inaccuracies? That actually turn out to be correct.

Actually I doubt that it is correct seeing as he now has 5/6 Lib Dems in his cabinet.

 

[Pantani]

Actually I doubt that it isn't correct seeing as he now has 5/6 Lib Dems in his cabinet.

Are you agreeing with me or not? No offense, but that is a bit of a clumsy sentence.

And yes, I have been guilty of similar throughout this thread.

 

[Mr Burns]

Don't think I have ever read such ignorance and arrogance on one thread. Your first post sums you up mate....me me me me me !!!!

Thank you for your input. You have brought this thread on leap and bounds

 

[User removed 4]

I said thirteen on the front bench, which is what the BBC article says. I did not fully check their sources for the purposes of this thread.

I also said fourteen of our government are old etonians. Which is the thirteen that CMD has chosen plus himself.

Do you want to add anything to this debate? Or just point out inconsequential factual inaccuracies? That actually turn out to be correct.

Here is the line from the BBC article if you cannot be bothered to read to the bottom.
"In fact, when Mr Cameron unveiled his first front-bench team, it included 13 people from his old school".

Do i want to add anything ? Yes i do, even before the alliance with the lib dems there were NOT 13 old etonians in david cameron,s front bench team.

 

[Simster]

Do i want to add anything ? Yes i do, even before the alliance with the lib dems there were NOT 13 old etonians in david cameron,s front bench team.

There were FOURTEEN at one point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-band-of-etonian-brothers-449043.html

 

[User removed 4]

There were FOURTEEN at one point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-band-of-etonian-brothers-449043.html

how old is that article simster ?

 

[simmo]

Are you agreeing with me or not? No offense, but that is a bit of a clumsy sentence.

And yes, I have been guilty of similar throughout this thread.

Sorry yes, edited the last sentence, but as others have pointed out he hasn't got 13 or so old Etonians in his cabinet/front bench etc...not that is in the slightest bit relevant to anything.

 

[Simster]

how old is that article simster ?

Three years old, bushy.

So his instinct was to surround himself by old Etonians. Would it seem churlish to consider that he only changed this in order to make himself seem more electable to the general public?

 

[User removed 4]

So his instinct was to surround himself by old Etonians. Would it seem churlish to consider that he only changed this in order to make himself seem more electable to the general public?

In a word yes.

 

[Mr Burns]

Absolutely nothing, I said this earlier. It is the great shame of the New Labour project.



I would agree that there is not a great enough incentive to work. However, I feel that minimum wage work is not well paid enough rather than the benefits paid to the unemployed are too high. Working 40 hours a week on the current minimum wage will earn you £12,064 a year. That is enough for one person to live on but if you have anyone to support you have no chance. So, is the solution to bring benefits below this level so that everyone has to work or would it better to pay people more money?



The creation of jobs is difficult, however if the level of the minimum wage was raised there would be more money in the economy. This extra money would automatically create more jobs, for the services these people require.



It is true that most Labour areas have high unemployment. It is also true that these areas used to be manufacturing areas. I'm not going to get in to why the manufacturing industries in this country have declined as we will just end up arguing about Thatcher which is tiresome and pointless, in my opinion. What I would say is that it is these area's past as centres of manufacturing that is more influential in their support of Labour than their current levels of unemployment.

I don't really agree with you on the minimum wage, I think the cost of living needs to come down, and it was Labour that allowed house prices to sore out of control to create this mess. Houses prices are out of reach of most normal workers, in you are a first time buyer, and on average wage, means you are priced out of the market, so raising wages would only push up prices, you need to bring prices down to met wages, because as Labour have shown, it certainly doesn't work the other way.

I think part of the reason for house price raises, amongst a lot of others, is state handouts. They are paying cash for people to rent houses. With a virtial nil interest rate, of course those who can afford them will buy them and rent them out at a profit, whilst paying of the capitial, and thus become richer. Again, when the tories lost power a house in Brighton that would have cost you 50k is now going to cost you 250k. This has happened under Labour, the supposed poor mans party. Your average worker, can not afford to pay a grand a month in rent. Yet the social does it more than most of us would want to know! If they didn't pay it, rent would have to come down, and reduce house prices with it. But then you can't just bring house prices down, as it will expose the banks again. Again, Labour polices allowed this too happen. And this part of the reason way the rich have got richer under Labour, as much as Labour supporters want to deny it, it is a fact. Labour allowed people to become reckless and not be responseable with their money.

In 13 years Labour have failed this country, and left it in a mess that will take at least a pariliment to clear up.

Finally its quite a change to have a sensible exchange of views on here with someone, instead of one line putdowns without meaning or discussions

 

[HH Brighton]

Thank you for your input. You have brought this thread on leap and bounds

What no new story about how you battled agaisnt the odds to get to where you are? We can't wait to hear more about you and how your keeping all your money....LOL !!

 

[Pantani]

Do i want to add anything ? Yes i do, even before the alliance with the lib dems there were NOT 13 old etonians in david cameron,s front bench team.

Sorry, it would appear that the article I quoted was implying CMD's first opposition front bench team rather than his first governmental front bench. The article was posted on the BBC site this morning, and was not particularly clear as to when this team was formed. However he has still surrounded himself with Etonians and it is still my belief that this is not right.

 

[Simster]

In a word yes.

Yeah and that's because you only do cynicism when it comes to the Labour party.

What's your man, David "sidelines" Davies doing these days?

 

[User removed 4]

Yeah and that's because you only do cynicism when it comes to the Labour party.

What's your man, David "sidelines" Davies doing these days?

He's on the sidelines , but not as 'on the sidlines' as gordon brown eh ?

 

[Mr Everyone]

I don't really agree with you on the minimum wage, I think the cost of living needs to come down, and it was Labour that allowed house prices to sore out of control to create this mess. Houses prices are out of reach of most normal workers, in you are a first time buyer, and on average wage, means you are priced out of the market, so raising wages would only push up prices, you need to bring prices down to met wages, because as Labour have shown, it certainly doesn't work the other way.

I think part of the reason for house price raises, amongst a lot of others, is state handouts. They are paying cash for people to rent houses. With a virtial nil interest rate, of course those who can afford them will buy them and rent them out at a profit, whilst paying of the capitial, and thus become richer. Again, when the tories lost power a house in Brighton that would have cost you 50k is now going to cost you 250k. This has happened under Labour, the supposed poor mans party. Your average worker, can not afford to pay a grand a month in rent. Yet the social does it more than most of us would want to know! If they didn't pay it, rent would have to come down, and reduce house prices with it. But then you can't just bring house prices down, as it will expose the banks again. Again, Labour polices allowed this too happen. And this part of the reason way the rich have got richer under Labour, as much as Labour supporters want to deny it, it is a fact. Labour allowed people to become reckless and not be responseable with their money.

In 13 years Labour have failed this country, and left it in a mess that will take at least a pariliment to clear up.

Finally its quite a change to have a sensible exchange of views on here with someone, instead of one line putdowns without meaning or discussions

Most of this middle paragraph is difficult to read, but from what sense I can make of it, most of it, if any, is correct.

The housing market is dictated by supply and demand, essentially. Due to the scandalous sell-off of social housing under Thatcher's government, the amount of council housing available to the needy has declined. It is her legacy, largely, that has contributed to the price of housing in this country.

In response to your rather unsavoury views of those unfortunately receiving benefits. Do you know how much more money the country loses by those who choose not to contribute and live as tax exiles ?

 

[DerbyGull]

I really think the minimum wage should be raised to at least £7 p/h, that would be a start. So the guy running his business has to think twice about going to that expensive restaurant twice a week and opt for somewhere cheaper, it would be 'character building' as they say. It would also wipe out the need for tax credits. There was a girl on BBC news a moment ago saying she worked F/T in a phone shop and had a kid at nursery which was payed for by tax credits, without which she'd have to quit her job. I also know a girl at my work in the same position. It is people like this who suffer the most.