Labour Party UK: No welfare for you!

[Tlik]

Or, I don't know, educating them so that they can get a wider range of more-skilled and higher-paid jobs than they could before this system was put in place.

Which is what this plan is actually doing.

I mean, that would be *crazy*!

So refusing them benefits will work to do that? How is this going to help people get jobs when there still aren't the jobs?

This is being spun as a plan to cut benefits to people who don't have the training to get jobs, and refuse to take training to get jobs. This is really just window-dressing, the more fundamental change is that people who are on Jobseeker's Allowance can now get state-funded training to allow them to get new jobs. Currently, people who are on benefits are prevented from training while looking for work, so this is actually just a change in those rules that allows people to train and look for work at the same time.

Hopefully, this would help young people to find jobs that under the current system they would not have the training to do.

[Valaran]

And not just ones in the southeast as well. The north has been neglected.

Ideally yes, however you need to be careful, we don't have want to have ghost towns and cities where people don't move because the works all gone.

I'm not sure how feasible this is but perhaps we could have regional levels of corporation tax? or give exemptions to buissnesses in areas of high unemployment?

Well people have been grappling with this for some time with only partial success, but I think it would have to be gradual long term approach (education, infrastructure, etc). And this is coming from a Londoner.

It can work, like at the Nissan Plant in Sunderland and in Manchester, but generally it has been unsuccessful.

[SD_Film Artists]

Perhaps Labour will spin this as "paid training" rather than welfare cuts.

[Tlik]

Let's hope the libdems grow a spine and start being more of a centrist radical liberal party rather than just EU's biggest fanboys and fangirls.
Labour's flag of red is officially dead.

Did you read the articles? This isn't about cutting welfare, that's just a red herring to make the party look more harsh on welfare. This is about allowing people to train while working. Which they aren't able to do. This is about helping people on welfare find better jobs than they would normally be able to, not Tory-esque attacks on an imaginary benefits culture.

[Tlik]

True, that's why I tried to suggest a fundamental difference between their ideals, and what they will actually do. The Tory party under the leadership it has now would probably still say that it is still fundamentally Thatcherist, but, with pressure from back-benchers and other parties, I would doubt they would achieve a full measure of idealised Thatcherism.

Yeah, fair enough, although I would flip that: Cameron & his clique/coterie aren't fully Thatcherist, but are under pressure from other backbenchers who are, and they align their polices accordingly.


(you make some excellent points I should add )

Thanks! You make some excellent points as well.

[Mollary]

So refusing them benefits will work to do that? How is this going to help people get jobs when there still aren't the jobs?

This is being spun as a plan to cut benefits to people who don't have the training to get jobs, and refuse to take training to get jobs. This is really just window-dressing, the more fundamental change is that people who are on Jobseeker's Allowance can now get state-funded training to allow them to get new jobs. Currently, people who are on benefits are prevented from training while looking for work, so this is actually just a change in those rules that allows people to train and look for work at the same time.

Hopefully, this would help young people to find jobs that under the current system they would not have the training to do.

What about the people who are unskilled? Not everyone can take a skilled job, that's just not feasible. This will prevent them from taking out jobseeker's allowance.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well New Labour mean that they weren't really red for some time.... (not that I actually mind that, but still)

Old New Labour wasn't that bad, but the abomination that resulted from it and is the current Labour party is just a shameful reminder of how much can an organisation of people betray its ideals.

Not really.

Old Labor won. They created the welfare state and such.

Then crazy leftists decided we needed to destroy capitalism and such and started destroying the economy with strikes over loads of petty shit, and institutionalizing power with "Old Labour" against "New Labour." in terms of the labourforce. I.E, unions entrenching power to prevent new markets and new workers and such.
The unions became middle class.

The result of this is that lots of the working class and underclass people turned to the tories who promised to destroy the unions and open the way to total economic freedom and such.
And then Thatcher started to destroy the welfare state.

She was in power for so long that the Labour party decided WE MUST STOP THE TORIES AT ANY COST TO SAVE THE WELFARE STATE!!!
And started putting empty suits in charge of the party who had no ideals. All style no substance wankers.
The entire point of the party, the entire unifying principle, turned into "Stop the Tories."
That is STILL it's entire organizing principle.
To the point where it's BECOMING the tories in order to destroy the tories.

At no point were the ideals of the party betrayed as such.
They simply changed priorities.
If you ask most labour voters, they won't tell you they vote labour because yay labour, it's to stop the tories.

Thatcher absolutely traumatized this country to the point that the "Party of Power" is one based entirely around keeping her successors out.

[Greater-London]

What about the people who are unskilled? Not everyone can take a skilled job, that's just not feasible. This will prevent them from taking out jobseeker's allowance.

Not everyone can take a skilled job but MOST people can improve their skills, especially those who are yet to achieve an A Level or equivalent between 18 - 21. If you are that age and you feel like having qualifications won't be useful at any point in your career then the system has clearly failed you and destroy your confidence.

[Valaran]

Yeah, fair enough, although I would flip that: Cameron & his clique/coterie aren't fully Thatcherist, but are under pressure from other backbenchers who are, and they align their polices accordingly.


(you make some excellent points I should add )

Thanks! You make some excellent points as well.

No worries, I feel that intelligence and a well composed argument (certainly better than my somewhat random comments anyway) is often slightly underrated, even on NS, so it was really nice to see it being done so well.

And It didn't hurt that I also agreed with most of your points; I was only nitpicking them to be honest...

[Alizeria]

I am genuinely surprised that so many people seem to oppose this. It's actually the sort of policy that could make me seriously consider voting Labour.

[Tlik]

This is being spun as a plan to cut benefits to people who don't have the training to get jobs, and refuse to take training to get jobs. This is really just window-dressing, the more fundamental change is that people who are on Jobseeker's Allowance can now get state-funded training to allow them to get new jobs. Currently, people who are on benefits are prevented from training while looking for work, so this is actually just a change in those rules that allows people to train and look for work at the same time.

Hopefully, this would help young people to find jobs that under the current system they would not have the training to do.

What about the people who are unskilled? Not everyone can take a skilled job, that's just not feasible. This will prevent them from taking out jobseeker's allowance.

A-level equivalent training isn't just A-levels and the eventual path to higher education. Apprenticeships and diplomas - courses that cover everything from cooking in restaurants, through car maintenance and mechanics, to hairdressing skills - would all be covered by this scheme. I mean, you can't expect everyone to have certain skills, but as a country we aren't short of skilled job vacancies. On the other hand, we have a large number of entirely unskilled workers, and not enough unskilled jobs to go round. This scheme attempts to allow those two to even out slightly.

[Mollary]

What about the people who are unskilled? Not everyone can take a skilled job, that's just not feasible. This will prevent them from taking out jobseeker's allowance.

Not everyone can take a skilled job but MOST people can improve their skills, especially those who are yet to achieve an A Level or equivalent between 18 - 21. If you are that age and you feel like having qualifications won't be useful at any point in your career then the system has clearly failed you and destroy your confidence.

Most people can, not everyone can achieve an A level or equivalent though, at least, not to a decent level; I know some who certainly can't, and this is at a school that is in a wealthy rural area and is rated as Good, what about those in areas more prone to that sort of thing? I don't think if someone can't achieve A level or equivalent that the system has failed them, the system has limited resources and time to influence them.

[Tlik]

Thanks! You make some excellent points as well.

No worries, I feel that intelligence and a well composed argument (certainly better than my somewhat random comments anyway) is often slightly underrated, even on NS, so it was really nice to see it being done so well.

And It didn't hurt that I also agreed with most of your points; I was only nitpicking them to be honest...

You're quite right! Devil's advocate arguments are usually good fun because they make you think more about your argument. After all, there's flaws in every point, and it's good to know what they are, and why they don't matter in this circumstance or that. So thanks, for making me understand the Tories that little bit more!

[Valaran]

I am genuinely surprised that so many people seem to oppose this. It's actually the sort of policy that could make me seriously consider voting Labour.

So you are saying that attacking the welfare state would make people vote for labor? But bearing in mind that most labor voters are center-left or center, attacking a left wing policy that they themselves set up is somewhat counterproductive, no?

After all they can't be more Tory the Tories on this, so those voters will likely stay Tory anyways. Thus all it does is alienate their own core vote (and betray their ideals - lets not forget that part) without gaining anything really.

[Valaran]

No worries, I feel that intelligence and a well composed argument (certainly better than my somewhat random comments anyway) is often slightly underrated, even on NS, so it was really nice to see it being done so well.

And It didn't hurt that I also agreed with most of your points; I was only nitpicking them to be honest...

You're quite right! Devil's advocate arguments are usually good fun because they make you think more about your argument. After all, there's flaws in every point, and it's good to know what they are, and why they don't matter in this circumstance or that. So thanks, for making me understand the Tories that little bit more!

No worries, you made me understand them more as well

[Camelza]

Old New Labour wasn't that bad, but the abomination that resulted from it and is the current Labour party is just a shameful reminder of how much can an organisation of people betray its ideals.

Not really.

Old Labor won. They created the welfare state and such.

Then crazy leftists decided we needed to destroy capitalism and such and started destroying the economy with strikes over loads of petty shit, and institutionalizing power with "Old Labour" against "New Labour." in terms of the labourforce. I.E, unions entrenching power to prevent new markets and new workers and such.
The unions became middle class.

The result of this is that lots of the working class and underclass people turned to the tories who promised to destroy the unions and open the way to total economic freedom and such.
And then Thatcher started to destroy the welfare state.

She was in power for so long that the Labour party decided WE MUST STOP THE TORIES AT ANY COST TO SAVE THE WELFARE STATE!!!
And started putting empty suits in charge of the party who had no ideals. All style no substance wankers.
The entire point of the party, the entire unifying principle, turned into "Stop the Tories."
That is STILL it's entire organizing principle.
To the point where it's BECOMING the tories in order to destroy the tories.

At no point were the ideals of the party betrayed as such.
They simply changed priorities.
If you ask most labour voters, they won't tell you they vote labour because yay labour, it's to stop the tories.

Thatcher absolutely traumatized this country to the point that the "Party of Power" is one based entirely around keeping her successors out.

It may was confusing as a statement, but by Old New Labour I meant the New labour of the 90s.
While I agree with what you say that modern labour is practically turning into a form of soft tories(if they aren't already), Labour has turned so much further to the right that it cannot be considered the party of the working class even in a vague definition of the term, that's why I said Labour "betrayed" its ideals.

[Tlik]

I am genuinely surprised that so many people seem to oppose this. It's actually the sort of policy that could make me seriously consider voting Labour.

Attacking the welfare state would make people vote for labor. But bearing in mind that most labor voters are center-left or center, attacking a left wing policy that they themselves set up is somewhat counterproductive, no?

After all they can't be more Tory the Tories on this, so those voters will likely stay Troy anyways, so all it does is alienate their own core vote (and betray their ideals lets not forget that part) without gaining anything really.

Well, like I said, this is a left-wing* policy in disguise as a right-wing policy. What's saddening is that Labour expects it's core vote to just vote for them regardless, while still courting the center-right. I've said this before, but as the Tories move ever-rightward as Lib Dem influence wanes, I firmly believe Labour should be moving left just to give the left-wing loonies something to shout about. A charismatic leader would go a long way to improving Labour, but in the absence of one of those, some charismatic policies would help.

* I say left-wing, it's only just that, but it's fundamentally about helping the unemployed, which I guess is a left-wing ideal.

[Valaran]

Attacking the welfare state would make people vote for labor. But bearing in mind that most labor voters are center-left or center, attacking a left wing policy that they themselves set up is somewhat counterproductive, no?

After all they can't be more Tory the Tories on this, so those voters will likely stay Troy anyways, so all it does is alienate their own core vote (and betray their ideals lets not forget that part) without gaining anything really.

Well, like I said, this is a left-wing* policy in disguise as a right-wing policy. What's saddening is that Labour expects it's core vote to just vote for them regardless, while still courting the center-right. I've said this before, but as the Tories move ever-rightward as Lib Dem influence wanes, I firmly believe Labour should be moving left just to give the left-wing loonies something to shout about. A charismatic leader would go a long way to improving Labour, but in the absence of one of those, some charismatic policies would help.

* I say left-wing, it's only just that, but it's fundamentally about helping the unemployed, which I guess is a left-wing ideal.

Fair enough. Personally, I am actually not sure where Labour should go, all I know is that at the current moment I am somewhat alienated from it. I feel it just doesn't actually have that much sense of a direction, just a mix of individual polices, some of which I like and many of which I don't.

But I do fervently hope the Tories would be more Lib Dem than UKIP, and that Labor does find its feet somewhere. Though to be honest, anything apart from UKIP at this stage seems good, right wing or left wing.

[Greater-London]

Most people can, not everyone can achieve an A level or equivalent though, at least, not to a decent level; I know some who certainly can't, and this is at a school that is in a wealthy rural area and is rated as Good, what about those in areas more prone to that sort of thing? I don't think if someone can't achieve A level or equivalent that the system has failed them, the system has limited resources and time to influence them.

Of course they can there are a multitude of Diplomas, BTEC'S, Access to Learning programmes ETC that people can do not all of them are academically challenging. Even if you don't excel at whatever further education it can only help you. Even if only MOST people could do it then you have a system that doesn't work for a few people but benefits most others - this is an improvement.

If you feel like you can't do that or don't have the skills or aptitude to do that then the system has failed you because not only has it not given you skills it makes you feel like you can't achieve them. You pointed out lack of resources and time to help people, that just demonstrates how the system has failed many.

[Greater-London]

It may was confusing as a statement, but by Old New Labour I meant the New labour of the 90s.
While I agree with what you say that modern labour is practically turning into a form of soft tories(if they aren't already), Labour has turned so much further to the right that it cannot be considered the party of the working class even in a vague definition of the term, that's why I said Labour "betrayed" its ideals.

Whilst Labour has taken a turn to the right I think its greatly understated the amount the Conservatives have shifted to the left under David Cameron - certainly on social issues. Many grass roots Conservatives have made their opinions perfectly clear; they don't see the Conservatives as a proper conservative party anymore.

Both have lurched from their perspective wings to the Center neither of them are especially right or left wing compared to Europe and the rest of the Western World. They are only arguably "right" in an academic understanding.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It may was confusing as a statement, but by Old New Labour I meant the New labour of the 90s.
While I agree with what you say that modern labour is practically turning into a form of soft tories(if they aren't already), Labour has turned so much further to the right that it cannot be considered the party of the working class even in a vague definition of the term, that's why I said Labour "betrayed" its ideals.

Whilst Labour has taken a turn to the right I think its greatly understated the amount the Conservatives have shifted to the left under David Cameron - certainly on social issues. Many grass roots Conservatives have made their opinions perfectly clear; they don't see the Conservatives as a proper conservative party anymore.

Both have lurched from their perspective wings to the Center neither of them are especially right or left wing compared to Europe and the rest of the Western World. They are only arguably "right" in an academic understanding.

Quite right. There's quite a big misconception resulting from the tribal nature of the media where rightist papers seem to depict labour as covert comrades whose bushy Marx-style beards are ready to pop out at any time and hoover up the entirety of business investment funds and who can't pop out for a pint of milk without several billion being lost on bureauracy; leftist papers seem to think the tories are monocle-wearing toffs in dinner jackets riding atop a camel whose humps have been replaced with ivory towers.

[Valaran]

Whilst Labour has taken a turn to the right I think its greatly understated the amount the Conservatives have shifted to the left under David Cameron - certainly on social issues. Many grass roots Conservatives have made their opinions perfectly clear; they don't see the Conservatives as a proper conservative party anymore.

Both have lurched from their perspective wings to the Center neither of them are especially right or left wing compared to Europe and the rest of the Western World. They are only arguably "right" in an academic understanding.

Quite right. There's quite a big misconception resulting from the tribal nature of the media where rightist papers seem to depict labour as covert comrades whose bushy Marx-style beards are ready to pop out at any time and hoover up the entirety of business investment funds and who can't pop out for a pint of milk without several billion being lost on bureauracy; leftist papers seem to think the tories are monocle-wearing toffs in dinner jackets riding atop a camel whose humps have been replaced with ivory towers.

You don't mean misconceptions like these, perchance?

Because, you know, Ed is kinda like Stalin, right? (It must be true, I read it in the regular tome of wisdom that is the Daily Mail)

[Allet Klar Chefs]

I'm sure there are people in the party who'll say "it's the Labour Party, not the Indolence Party", but I dunno about all this.

[Camelza]

Whilst Labour has taken a turn to the right I think its greatly understated the amount the Conservatives have shifted to the left under David Cameron - certainly on social issues. Many grass roots Conservatives have made their opinions perfectly clear; they don't see the Conservatives as a proper conservative party anymore.

Both have lurched from their perspective wings to the Center neither of them are especially right or left wing compared to Europe and the rest of the Western World. They are only arguably "right" in an academic understanding.

Quite right. There's quite a big misconception resulting from the tribal nature of the media where rightist papers seem to depict labour as covert comrades whose bushy Marx-style beards are ready to pop out at any time and hoover up the entirety of business investment funds and who can't pop out for a pint of milk without several billion being lost on bureauracy; leftist papers seem to think the tories are monocle-wearing toffs in dinner jackets riding atop a camel whose humps have been replaced with ivory towers.

Aye, that's true, people tend to overreact about their opponents. But that's been done since the first political debate about whether they should hunt mammoths, or sabre cats.

(Image)

That made me chuckle.

[Valaran]

Quite right. There's quite a big misconception resulting from the tribal nature of the media where rightist papers seem to depict labour as covert comrades whose bushy Marx-style beards are ready to pop out at any time and hoover up the entirety of business investment funds and who can't pop out for a pint of milk without several billion being lost on bureauracy; leftist papers seem to think the tories are monocle-wearing toffs in dinner jackets riding atop a camel whose humps have been replaced with ivory towers.

Aye, that's true, people tend to overreact about their opponents. But that's been done since the first political about whether they should hunt mammoths, or sabre cats.

(Image)

That made me chuckle.

The Times cartoons are hit and miss, but when they get it right, it can be quite funny
Plus, its pretty easy to satirize the Daily Mail.