Labour Party UK: No welfare for you!

[Valaran]

Well I would have to politely disagree. We never treated politicians pre Thatcher as the scum of the earth, and produced many capable leaders (I think Attlee was great personally). If you treat the office as something worthy of respect, then (eventually) you may get people who respect it more and who deserve it more. This is not foolproof by any means, but I still think it is a better way.

Yeh, but back then they treated eachother like scum so it all worked out

True that, and we never stopped making cutting political remarks or satirizing them

[Tlik]

This is somewhat true.
Labour is just useless.
Liberal is spineless.
And Tory is psychotic.

Why is it the only competent party is the evil one? What the fuck guys.

No offence but while I don't agree with them, the Tories aren't evil or psychotic. I think personally you exaggerating these parties a lot. From any non-UK perspective these 3 are all liberal centrist groups (I am a brit but I travel a lot), and democracy certainly hasn't unraveled. A place where democracy has disintegrated would be Iraq, and the tories are communists compared to the American Tea Party (they just passed Gay marriage and tolerate even the idea of an NHS)


Plus, none of these are bad compared to a certain purple party... (UKIP are real enemies here)

The thing with comparing the Tories to the Tea Party is that the Tea Party is heavily invested in religion, while the Conservatives accept religion in a very British way, which is to assume that most British vicars are atheists anyway, which allows them to be much more forthright in allowing things like Gay Marriage.

However, purely in terms of welfare and the state, Tories and the Tea Party share essentially the same fundamental belief, which is that the state should have a purely bureaucratic function. For example, pure Thatcherism (which is supported by much of the Tory party as an ideal, if not a pragmatic goal) would state that there should be no welfare, and that the poor should either work, or be cared for by charity, in turn paid for by private citizens. This isn't necessarily a bad ideal, it's just that it doesn't work, because private citizens don't give enough to charity. Likewise, there is an assumption that a state-owned system is probably a bad system, hence why we see areas of education and the NHS being slowly privatised, and the Royal Mail being sold off into private hands.

Of course, the biggest difference between the two parties is that the Tories will still talk to Labour and the Lib Dems, and in times of crisis (such as, say, the situation in Iraq) there is much less bickering, and a lot more cooperation. Even in other areas, where a big enough fuss is kicked up, compromise will kick in.

[Greater-London]

I don't have a problem with this in theory however I would lower the level of qualifications needed to get welfare benefit. Perhaps make it unavailable to those who don't have a GCSE grade in Maths and English Language.

Two subjects that are pretty crucial no matter what you do and providing you are properly taught their is no reason why even someone who has little or no academic aptitude be able to pass.

There are plenty of people who are deluded as to how competitive the job market is and whilst A levels may not won't help them in their chosen career, plenty of young people who left school at 16 ARE underqualaifed.

[Avoxlia]

Obviously the Labour Party had caved into the pressure from the public to take a hardline approach to vulnerable groups like young people who rely on welfare. The people who be affected the most be from more disadvantaged backgrounds, especially low income families and the 'underclsss', i.e. where everyone in the family is on benefits. If they want them young people to get jobs they should force employers to take them on as apprentices, as currently many employers are free to discriminate job applicants based on age or whatever.

[Valaran]

No offence but while I don't agree with them, the Tories aren't evil or psychotic. I think personally you exaggerating these parties a lot. From any non-UK perspective these 3 are all liberal centrist groups (I am a brit but I travel a lot), and democracy certainly hasn't unraveled. A place where democracy has disintegrated would be Iraq, and the tories are communists compared to the American Tea Party (they just passed Gay marriage and tolerate even the idea of an NHS)


Plus, none of these are bad compared to a certain purple party... (UKIP are real enemies here)

The thing with comparing the Tories to the Tea Party is that the Tea Party is heavily invested in religion, while the Conservatives accept religion in a very British way, which is to assume that most British vicars are atheists anyway, which allows them to be much more forthright in allowing things like Gay Marriage.

However, purely in terms of welfare and the state, Tories and the Tea Party share essentially the same fundamental belief, which is that the state should have a purely bureaucratic function. For example, pure Thatcherism (which is supported by much of the Tory party as an ideal, if not a pragmatic goal) would state that there should be no welfare, and that the poor should either work, or be cared for by charity, in turn paid for by private citizens. This isn't necessarily a bad ideal, it's just that it doesn't work, because private citizens don't give enough to charity. Likewise, there is an assumption that a state-owned system is probably a bad system, hence why we see areas of education and the NHS being slowly privatised, and the Royal Mail being sold off into private hands.

Of course, the biggest difference between the two parties is that the Tories will still talk to Labour and the Lib Dems, and in times of crisis (such as, say, the situation in Iraq) there is much less bickering, and a lot more cooperation. Even in other areas, where a big enough fuss is kicked up, compromise will kick in.

I do agree on the latter section, they do compromise (unlike the Tea Party), and that is a very good point. I also agree on the religious aspect.

But I must disagree on the state aspect. The Tories, like labor actually encompass a wide range of views, and many would be horrified at the thought of abandoning the NHS entirely, or not having public education, etc. so I doubt that they would believe the state only having a purely bureaucratic function.

They likely do agree with the Tea Party on welfare, but I would stress that is one of the few agreements with them and the Tea Party; mostly they have different views (often due the religion factor which you mentioned).

Don't forget Disraeli's (partial) invention of the whole One nation idea, that the party should rule for all the people (and not just those who voted for it). While that is not the same Tory party, I would still find that applicable to aspects of the Tories and their polices.

[Tlik]

The labour welfare nazi (A newly created position that replaced "Party leader" ever since they shat the bed and decided that their core vote isn't the left wing, but right wing hystericals who hate welfare) has decided that there shouldn't be any job seekers allowance for anyone who doesn't have at least an A level or equivalent, and anyone who falls below this threshhold must return to education instead.

Wtf? And who's gonna pay for that education?

Furthermore, this seems to take an extremely rosey view of our education system. At 18-21 being the target demographic, it'll be impossible for college places to be found for all the people who suddenly need to go enroll and then skip classes in order to obtain their welfare.
I know of 3 people personally who would have been screwed by this shenanigan, who worked when they left school at 16 up until 19 or 20 before being out of work for one or two years, then returned to work.
They have no interest in further education, their careers are based on skill and experience.

I don't see why these people should deserve less help by the society than, let's say, someone whose family bought his way to an A level through private education and tutoring. If anything, these people should be encouraged to resume eventually their studies WHILE working, with an extensive and cost-free program of evening courses for working students.

What do you think NSG?

And here I thought that Red Ed was, well, red. Or at least pink-ish. Now looks like Labour is turning to ultrablairism.

It's actually A-level or equivalent, which includes a large number of vocational studies. It's actually a lot rarer to drop out of school nowadays without doing an apprenticeship, or doing a diploma course, even if one doesn't obtain actual A levels, and so this measure probably won't change a lot of things there.

What this does mean, though, is that, under a Labour government, people will actually be allowed to undertake training whilst on benefits, something that they're not able to do currently. The idea is that by giving people free training, particularly people in this age bracket who have already failed one type of education, they'll be able to get back on their feet more easily, without having to accept the first zero-hour, low-wage (or, under Tory leadership, volunteer) job that comes their way.

[Mollary]

Oh for God sakes, more pandering towards the votes that we wouldn't win anyway. This ruined my breakfast when I heard. I mean, do they think there is some magical job fairy that gives jobs to people who want to work? Surely it would just be more productive to create more jobs instead of punishing those for not taking jobs that don't exist.

[Tlik]

The thing with comparing the Tories to the Tea Party is that the Tea Party is heavily invested in religion, while the Conservatives accept religion in a very British way, which is to assume that most British vicars are atheists anyway, which allows them to be much more forthright in allowing things like Gay Marriage.

However, purely in terms of welfare and the state, Tories and the Tea Party share essentially the same fundamental belief, which is that the state should have a purely bureaucratic function. For example, pure Thatcherism (which is supported by much of the Tory party as an ideal, if not a pragmatic goal) would state that there should be no welfare, and that the poor should either work, or be cared for by charity, in turn paid for by private citizens. This isn't necessarily a bad ideal, it's just that it doesn't work, because private citizens don't give enough to charity. Likewise, there is an assumption that a state-owned system is probably a bad system, hence why we see areas of education and the NHS being slowly privatised, and the Royal Mail being sold off into private hands.

Of course, the biggest difference between the two parties is that the Tories will still talk to Labour and the Lib Dems, and in times of crisis (such as, say, the situation in Iraq) there is much less bickering, and a lot more cooperation. Even in other areas, where a big enough fuss is kicked up, compromise will kick in.

I do agree on the latter section, they do have compromise, and that is a very good point.
But I must disagree on the state aspect. The Tories, like labor actually encompass a wide range of views, and many would be horrified at the thought of abandoning the NHS entirely, or not having public education, etc. so I doubt that they would believe the state only having a purely bureaucratic function. They likely do agree with the Tea Party welfare, but I would stress that is one of the few agreements with them and the Tea Party; mostly they have different views (often due the religion factor which you mentioned)
Don't forget Disraeli's (partial) invention of the whole One nation idea, that the party should rule for all the people (and not just those who voted for it). While that is not the same Tory party, I would still find that applicable to aspects of the Tories and their polices.

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.

[Greater-London]

If they want them young people to get jobs they should force employers to take them on as apprenticeships as many employers are free to discriminate job applicants based on age or whatever.

Completely untrue, If your not hired and its due to discrimination against your age you can take your employer to court, also age discrimination is far more common the other way around in the labour market.

If you want young people to work then you need to give them the skills and more importantly the experience (so many lack both).

[Tlik]

Oh for God sakes, more pandering towards the votes that we wouldn't win anyway. This ruined my breakfast when I heard. I mean, do they think there is some magical job fairy that gives jobs to people who want to work? Surely it would just be more productive to create more jobs instead of punishing those for not taking jobs that don't exist.

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*!

[Mollary]

If they want them young people to get jobs they should force employers to take them on as apprenticeships as many employers are free to discriminate job applicants based on age or whatever.

Completely untrue, If your not hired and its due to discrimination against your age you can take your employer to court, also age discrimination is far more common the other way around in the labour market.

If you want young people to work then you need to give them the skills and more importantly the experience (so many lack both).

I'd argue that they need to create some jobs too, that way they can utilise their skills and experience.

[Valaran]

I do agree on the latter section, they do have compromise, and that is a very good point.
But I must disagree on the state aspect. The Tories, like labor actually encompass a wide range of views, and many would be horrified at the thought of abandoning the NHS entirely, or not having public education, etc. so I doubt that they would believe the state only having a purely bureaucratic function. They likely do agree with the Tea Party welfare, but I would stress that is one of the few agreements with them and the Tea Party; mostly they have different views (often due the religion factor which you mentioned)
Don't forget Disraeli's (partial) invention of the whole One nation idea, that the party should rule for all the people (and not just those who voted for it). While that is not the same Tory party, I would still find that applicable to aspects of the Tories and their polices.

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 )

[Mollary]

Oh for God sakes, more pandering towards the votes that we wouldn't win anyway. This ruined my breakfast when I heard. I mean, do they think there is some magical job fairy that gives jobs to people who want to work? Surely it would just be more productive to create more jobs instead of punishing those for not taking jobs that don't exist.

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?

[Avoxlia]

If they want them young people to get jobs they should force employers to take them on as apprentices as many employers are free to discriminate job applicants based on age or whatever.

Completely untrue, If your not hired and its due to discrimination against your age you can take your employer to court, also age discrimination is far more common the other way around in the labour market.

If you want young people to work then you need to give them the skills and more importantly the experience (so many lack both).

That's what I said really, give more people apprenticeships as college education is not for everyone. Although I did benefit from studying accountancy at my local college. I just finished my last exam so hopefully I get my certificate to increase my job prospects.

[Camelza]

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.

[Valaran]

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.

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

And yeah, the Lib Dems need to stand for something other than the EU

[Greater-London]

I'd argue that they need to create some jobs too, that way they can utilise their skills and experience.

For sure, build more new towns to deal with our growing population.

[Avoxlia]

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.

I think a new centre-left party should be formed.

[Valaran]

I'd argue that they need to create some jobs too, that way they can utilise their skills and experience.

For sure, build more new towns to deal with our growing population.

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

[Greater-London]

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

And yeah, the Lib Dems need to stand for something other than the EU

It was dead even before earlier; Clause IV was dropped in practice after the second world war Labour since then has not been a Socialist party.

The Liberal Democrats stand for lots of things, minus the whole EU thing theirs actually a lot to be said about them in terms of policy. The problem is that they have framed themselves as the "Party of Moderate" or something that will tone down the nutters in the Labour or Conservative party.

Liberalism is an ideology in its own right and not a dillutent and they shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[Ostroeuropa]

If the liberals went full centrist but balls to the wall crazy liberal on social policies i'd vote for them in a heartbeat and encourage others to do the same.

[Mollary]

If the liberals went full centrist but balls to the wall crazy liberal on social policies i'd vote for them in a heartbeat and encourage others to do the same.

I'd probably switch parties at that point and try and get their economic side more to the old SDP side of the party.

But yeah, Labour's leadership isn't doing very well. Hopefully the reforms will allow the grassroots left-wing element of the party to gain more influence.

[Valaran]

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

And yeah, the Lib Dems need to stand for something other than the EU

It was dead even before earlier; Clause IV was dropped in practice after the second world war Labour since then has not been a Socialist party.

The Liberal Democrats stand for lots of things, minus the whole EU thing theirs actually a lot to be said about them in terms of policy. The problem is that they have framed themselves as the "Party of Moderate" or something that will tone down the nutters in the Labour or Conservative party.

Liberalism is an ideology in its own right and not a dillutent and they shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Exactly I know that they do stand for other stuff, but they almost try and hide it (by comparison). I agree with their polices the most, but because they don't properly campaign for them as much.... so unless they do, tactical voting might be the order of the day.
I should add, I am not the biggest fan of clause IV though so it wasn't that bad it was dropped (personally)

[Greater-London]

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?

[Camelza]

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.

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.