Labour: Who do they represent?

[Tete123]

Labour initially founded as a political extension of the union movement renounced their core ideology with the removal of clause 4, and have since turned their backs on their core support (unions included) and thus negate their purpose as representatives of the working classes - the question remains: who or what do they represent?

Discuss?

[JacquesMagique]

They represent a shift to a fairly populist attitude to politics, where parties try to get the widest possible interest from the electorate, without making any real commitment to anything at all. As they have an effective monopoly over "left wing" politics, they only only have to appear to be slightly more supportive of those in significant need than the conservatives in order to gain a significant proportion of votes.

[Tete123]

They represent a shift to a fairly populist attitude to politics, where parties try to get the widest possible interest from the electorate, without making any real commitment to anything at all. As they have an effective monopoly over "left wing" politics, they only only have to appear to be slightly more supportive of those in significant need than the conservatives in order to gain a significant proportion of votes.

I agree politics has become less about ideology and values and more rhetoric and soundbite, but the presence and hegemony of the left by the Labour Party has led to the convolution of British politics with no great distinction between the three main parties? Could the Lib Dems not represent the notions of social justice and equality better if it wasn't in direct competition with Labour on those issues? Could the removal of Labour instigate a return to meaningful politics! With Labour no longer representing the working class as was it's original purpose do they contribute the greatest factor to the decline in standards of our political system?

[bobby]

the question remains: who or what do they represent?

They represent all those with a personal interest in the maintenance and growth of the 'State' they have created; a long list including the Quangos, RDAs, new Government agencies and those employed by them, as well as to some extent the public sector workers whose pay and pensions they have been comparatively generous with.

However while New Labour have done what they can to increase the number of people theat might be included in the above, they are reliant on the electoral support of many others, who they no longer represent but due to the undemocratic nature of our electoral system still receive this support.

Given the nature of our political system, the convergence of the main parties was inevitable. New Labour were the first party to truly exploit this by moving right up to the dividing line as JacquesMagique has said. It is perhaps only surprising that this did not happen sooner, although maybe some credit is due to previous Labour leaders who were not willing to sacrifice ideology for power.

So, rather than blaming New Labour for the decline in standards of our political system and their move to the right for the lack of distinction between the parties, I suggest it was an inevitable consequence of the system.

Gordon Brown's current ideology and policies have had no connection to the roots of the Labour party. The Lib Dems would seem to offer the best choice, if there were any prospect of them getting into power, of those looking for more of a connection to those Labour party roots.

However, it seems unlikely that the Lib Dems will pick up many votes from these people:

Most seats are not marginal
Even less seats are marginal and involve a Lib Dem candidate
Lib Dem v Conservative marginal seats are unlikely to contain many such people
Lib Dem v Labour marginal seats such people may go for Labour in an 'anti-conservative' vote

Added to this is the issue of more traditional left-leaning Labour MPs having their voice taken away by the follow-the-leader and don't rock the boat culture.

So, I don't think the removal of Labour will instigate a return to meaningful politics when it comes to democracy for determining who is in charge of the country. I think we may well be in for some more interesting and in-depth policy debates over the coming year, but it will only be for the purpose of determining the nature and direction of the opposition.

[JacquesMagique]

I agree politics has become less about ideology and values and more rhetoric and soundbite, but the presence and hegemony of the left by the Labour Party has led to the convolution of British politics with no great distinction between the three main parties? Could the Lib Dems not represent the notions of social justice and equality better if it wasn't in direct competition with Labour on those issues? Could the removal of Labour instigate a return to meaningful politics! With Labour no longer representing the working class as was it's original purpose do they contribute the greatest factor to the decline in standards of our political system?

I agree about the lib dems, but I think unfortunately many of those who would benefit from the lib dems social justice measures are turned off by their approach to things like drugs and Europe, and are disinterested in their constitutional policy.
I think I would prefer to see a serious failure, with the lib dems coming second, than a slim labour majority and the lib dems seriously marginalised in this years elections.

[Midas]

"Labour: Who do they represent?" Simple; people who don't understand either economics or the fact that people are not all equal. OK, a little tongue in cheek, but a large element of truth in it never the less.

[JacquesMagique]

Wow that's really eloquent, a post really befitting of a moderator.

Seriously, unbelievably condascending. The conservatives aren't even that committed to markets themselves., a dedication to cutting immigration by 75%, yeah nice populist bull**** there.

You're one to talk about understanding economics.

[stewy]

"Labour: Who do they represent?" Simple; people who don't understand either economics or the fact that people are not all equal. OK, a little tongue in cheek, but a large element of truth in it never the less.

so who do the tories represent apart from the elite few( me myself and i!!)???those who wish to perpetuate the class division , if you have more money than me you are better than me??
all people are not equal but no one is better than me simply because they have a title of have more money , and this pathetic statement is exactly the reason people do not want your heroes in the nasty tory party lording it over the vast majority after the next election.
By the way , what is your expertise in economics???Maybe you should replace that clown osbourne instead of posting ont his forum if you are so vastly superior to us mere mortals in your economic understanding?!

[Major Sinic]

They represent a shift to a fairly populist attitude to politics, where parties try to get the widest possible interest from the electorate, without making any real commitment to anything at all. As they have an effective monopoly over "left wing" politics, they only only have to appear to be slightly more supportive of those in significant need than the conservatives in order to gain a significant proportion of votes.

I agree with you. While ever we have the 'first past the post' electoral system, the major parties will present as broad a church as possible, purely to maximise their share of the vote. Both Labour and Conservative Parties have moved to the centre, but retain (largely disenfranchised) support to the hard left and right. This is more relevant to Labour as there is no organised far left political structure or identity, whilst UKIP has provided a right wing alternative to the Conservatives (after a fashion) and the BNP provides an extreme right alternative for white, largely working class voters from both the left and right.

Neither of these, nor the Greens and to a lesser extent the LibDems, will ever be anything other than pressure groups until we have electoral reform

[Tete123]

so who do the tories represent apart from the elite few( me myself and i!!)???those who wish to perpetuate the class division , if you have more money than me you are better than me??
all people are not equal but no one is better than me simply because they have a title of have more money , and this pathetic statement is exactly the reason people do not want your heroes in the nasty tory party lording it over the vast majority after the next election.
By the way , what is your expertise in economics???Maybe you should replace that clown osbourne instead of posting ont his forum if you are so vastly superior to us mere mortals in your economic understanding?!

Conservative ideology actually attempts to instil a sense of personal responsibility in individuals aimed at raising aspiration and self sustenance. What's so wrong with that? Class division is perpetuated by Labour and Socialists, who seem unable to reconcile the fact that wealth doesn't equate class, therefore the council estate kid made good will be taxed at an increased level to redistribute his earnings to those less deserving, those who have not studied for years to obtain the various higher educational standards required to break free from the economical stranglehold the welfare state has on our society; have a child here is £20 per week, have a few more and we'll give you another £13.20 per child per week; why? The decision to reproduce is a personal one and I see no solid argument to continue paying out billions a year in state subsidy - it's not like the extra £20 actually makes a significant difference. The whole state benefits system is riddled with schemes and measures to ensure the population is completely state dependent from cradle until grave - but fails to move any from what constitutes poverty to something akin to self reliance.

Self preservation is human nature. When we see danger our natural reflex is to move away or shield ourselves. Why is it wrong for those with wealth to shield themselves from the attempts of a Government to remove their ability to self sustain? The state provides an education free of charge to the user; yet usually wasted. The state provides free health care at point of use; yet is abused often. The statements you make are a reflection of the exact thing Midas mentioned in his post. A Government spending more in public services than it can raise in revenue is unsustainable even in the short term - budget deficit of £186 billion anyone?

I really don't understand what the issue is with George Osbourne; Why is he a clown? Highlight something he has said or done that makes him unfit as Chancellor?

[Tete123]

I agree with you. While ever we have the 'first past the post' electoral system, the major parties will present as broad a church as possible, purely to maximise their share of the vote. Both Labour and Conservative Parties have moved to the centre, but retain (largely disenfranchised) support to the hard left and right. This is more relevant to Labour as there is no organised far left political structure or identity, whilst UKIP has provided a right wing alternative to the Conservatives (after a fashion) and the BNP provides an extreme right alternative for white, largely working class voters from both the left and right.

Neither of these, nor the Greens and to a lesser extent the LibDems, will ever be anything other than pressure groups until we have electoral reform

I fail to see how electoral reform will improve the political system. Party candidates will still campaign along broad party lines and voters will vote against the party candidate from the party they're sick of, or for the party candidate that represents the party they most closely identify with. Sure it'll let in some candidates from the smaller parties in some constituencies such as the BNP but overall the structure of the commons would look fairly similar in my opinion.

[Tete123]

Wow that's really eloquent, a post really befitting of a moderator.

Can I ask why being a moderator should prevent the freedom to express a point in a debate in which the moderator is acting as a member and not breaking any rules?

Remember moderators are not paid and thus combine their activity as a regular member with voluntarily enacting the forum rules.

[DC]

I suppose they might represent the far left who won't vote lib dems, but want to vote against the conservatives. But yes, a very populist tune, illustrated recently by their sudden change in tune on the immigration front, despite failing on the issue the entire time they've been in power. I simply think a lot of people won't vote, and those that do may be strongly inclined to consider a minority party.

[Major Sinic]

so who do the tories represent apart from the elite few( me myself and i!!)???those who wish to perpetuate the class division , if you have more money than me you are better than me??
all people are not equal but no one is better than me simply because they have a title of have more money , and this pathetic statement is exactly the reason people do not want your heroes in the nasty tory party lording it over the vast majority after the next election.
By the way , what is your expertise in economics???Maybe you should replace that clown osbourne instead of posting ont his forum if you are so vastly superior to us mere mortals in your economic understanding?!

I do think you are being a little harsh on many traditional Tory voters here Stewy. No doubt a minority will fit into your definition, but the majority are hard working members of society in just the same way that most Labour voters are. It is quite possible to be a Conservative meritocrat, enjoying the rewards of your vision and efforts, while still retaining a social conscience. It is also quite possible to have a privileged upbringing, including a private education, and still understand the problems and tribulations of the population as a whole.

I am sure that few truly believe that Gordon Brown is more in touch with Joe Public, than David Cameron - possibly even the reverse.

[stewy]

Conservative ideology actually attempts to instil a sense of personal responsibility in individuals aimed at raising aspiration and self sustenance. What's so wrong with that? Class division is perpetuated by Labour and Socialists, who seem unable to reconcile the fact that wealth doesn't equate class, therefore the council estate kid made good will be taxed at an increased level to redistribute his earnings to those less deserving, those who have not studied for years to obtain the various higher educational standards required to break free from the economical stranglehold the welfare state has on our society; have a child here is £20 per week, have a few more and we'll give you another £13.20 per child per week; why? The decision to reproduce is a personal one and I see no solid argument to continue paying out billions a year in state subsidy - it's not like the extra £20 actually makes a significant difference. The whole state benefits system is riddled with schemes and measures to ensure the population is completely state dependent from cradle until grave - but fails to move any from what constitutes poverty to something akin to self reliance.

Self preservation is human nature. When we see danger our natural reflex is to move away or shield ourselves. Why is it wrong for those with wealth to shield themselves from the attempts of a Government to remove their ability to self sustain? The state provides an education free of charge to the user; yet usually wasted. The state provides free health care at point of use; yet is abused often. The statements you make are a reflection of the exact thing Midas mentioned in his post. A Government spending more in public services than it can raise in revenue is unsustainable even in the short term - budget deficit of £186 billion anyone?

I really don't understand what the issue is with George Osbourne; Why is he a clown? Highlight something he has said or done that makes him unfit as Chancellor?

There is nothing wrong with instilling personal responsibility in individuals , or having aspirations, but that’s where myself and the tories come apart.We cannot all be at the top of the tree, and looking after those less fortunate than yourself is where the conservative ideology fails spectacularly.Nasty tories , look after number one , stuff everyone else.
As you point out, we are not all the same so therefore it goes that society must help those who are worse off.
Under the tories , the elite are slightly better off and the many worse off, and it is the opposite under labour.
Labour have made many mistakes , and for me they are not what I would wish but they will get my vote at the next election as simply they are the best of a bad bunch, the tories will be nothing more then a protest vote against labour for the vast majority.
Is midas suggesting that only those with some economic degree should be allowed to vote??A nation is not just an economy.
I agree with your point on the benefit system , but with labour at least the fundamental basis is there to try and help the poor instead of the tory consign them all to the scrapheap , beggars and leeches all!!
All countries are having similar problems throughout the world , time and time again it has been said it is not just a uniquely british or labour problem.Are you or anyone else telling me the tories will come in and wave a magic wand and cure all?? I don`t think so .
How many times over the last 30 years have we seen short term gains prized over long term prosperity??
Its alright for midas to carp from his mansion in the midlands , I vote for who I think will benefit all , not just those who will make a quick few quid and benfit only the few!!
With regards to boy george , it is not just his lack of life experience which does not instill confidence , he quite simply does not seem to be on top of economic matters that midas is so concerned about.
Cable was onto the essential point of browns 10p tax abolition long before osbourne woke up to it.
He has failed to frame any sort of debate, hold the government to account or build up any sort of narrative and then only recently.He jumps on the bandwagon of economic woes and points out the obvious?!
Remind me whats his big sell point? Oh yes cutting inheritance tax!!what a shadow chancellor, I will definetly sleep better with him at the countries helm, those sure experienced hands, waving his bulling don club magic wand.
Question ; why do the media always call on cableto give an economic assessment rather than osbourne , particularly when the lib dems are doing poor??
He comes across as a political liability to me!

[stewy]

I do think you are being a little harsh on many traditional Tory voters here Stewy. No doubt a minority will fit into your definition, but the majority are hard working members of society in just the same way that most Labour voters are. It is quite possible to be a Conservative meritocrat, enjoying the rewards of your vision and efforts, while still retaining a social conscience. It is also quite possible to have a privileged upbringing, including a private education, and still understand the problems and tribulations of the population as a whole.

I am sure that few truly believe that Gordon Brown is more in touch with Joe Public, than David Cameron - possibly even the reverse.

I agree with you major except your last sentence.no one can deny brown is universally despised, but no way is cameron seen to be more in touch with people , can`t agree.

[JacquesMagique]

Can I ask why being a moderator should prevent the freedom to express a point in a debate in which the moderator is acting as a member and not breaking any rules?

Remember moderators are not paid and thus combine their activity as a regular member with voluntarily enacting the forum rules.

It's on the verge of flaming! (Although I appreciate my response was also).
I'm not suggesting that moderators should not have a bias, but pasting rude, completely unsubstantiated drivel is not really what I would expect.

[Tete123]

There is nothing wrong with instilling personal responsibility in individuals , or having aspirations, but that’s where myself and the tories come apart.We cannot all be at the top of the tree, and looking after those less fortunate than yourself is where the conservative ideology fails spectacularly.Nasty tories , look after number one , stuff everyone else.
As you point out, we are not all the same so therefore it goes that society must help those who are worse off.
Under the tories , the elite are slightly better off and the many worse off, and it is the opposite under labour.

The elite will always be better off by virtue of their wealth or status, this as always been the case and always will be. If Labour or the Conservatives for that matter were serious about creating the conditions for a better society then we need to move away from class distinction based on inherited status and concentrate on wealth. I prefer to group people by wealth band rather than class which has no basis in modern British society. We have those who have as a main source of income state benefits, we have those on low to medium wage say £10,000 - £20,000, those earning between £20,001 - £60,000, those between £60,001 - £100,000 and those above. By arbitrary classification of 'working class' ; 'middle class' and 'upper class' we have no place it seems for differentiating between those receiving benefits and those on low incomes thus we conflate them and we instantly have a working class made up by a percentage of those not working. We should then explore why so many fall into this category. If the reason is physiological I.E they have an illness or disability that prevents work yes we should provide for them or seek to find suitable employment they can undertake - not only will they more than likely be better off financially but working will provide them with a renewed sense of self reliance often lost when disabled. I am not advocating sending millions of disabled into work for selfish reasons but each case needs individual consideration. Then we should explore the lower wage group, why are they seemingly stuck in low end jobs; is it educational or aspirational? If it's the former then we need to look into finding educational options to raise their options, this shouldn't be free of charge - they have already spent over 10 years in state education and for any number of reasons failed to attain academic or vocational recognition (just so you know I fall into this category) If it is aspirational or lack-of, then why should we consider them vulnerable or needy - they are getting from life what they contribute. In regards the two medium bands things become more difficult; the first band should be looking at options to raise their income levels. Minimum state intervention should be observed with no child allowance benefits being paid they are neither wealthy nor poverty stricken and thus expectation that this group should be self sustenance with tax breaks to encourage family unity and additional pension contributions, the upper medium earners should be completely free of all state intervention. The upper levels (above £100,001) can and do look after themselves. Decisions at the lower income levels need to be made; smoking and drinking are a personal choice and thus should only be undertaken if and when finances allow. Do not complain about feeding your kids when you smoke in excess of £30 per week etc. I advocate state benefits being issued in the form of vouchers aimed at providing the essentials required to live with very few luxuries. Gordon Brown announced yesterday that he intends providing 270,000 families with lap top computers - why? I had to save up and shop around for mine and with the added cost of software and BT/Internet connection the costs of having a home computer should be met by the family and not the state. Individuals need to consider the implications of both having children and the cost involved in maintaining and providing for them for at least 18 years. Too often I see young people of 16 or 18 having kids without a stable relationship and then relying on the state to provide accommodation and council tax payments, enhanced benefits for cost of living and child maintenance only for them to leave the kid(s) with mum and go to a club spending money that has essentially been provided by you and me to enjoy themselves and as often sleeping around thus perpetuating the cycle and adding to the burden. This has to stop and under Labour it is actively encouraged.

Labour have made many mistakes , and for me they are not what I would wish but they will get my vote at the next election as simply they are the best of a bad bunch, the tories will be nothing more then a protest vote against labour for the vast majority.

A Conservative vote will be a protest to the Labour Government, not the other way around. Floating voters opposed to Conservatism will either stay away or vote a marginal party not Labour. The mistakes - and I'm not entirely sure that they are mistakes that Labour have made have caused the main problems our society faces. I believe Labour know exactly what they're doing!

Is midas suggesting that only those with some economic degree should be allowed to vote??A nation is not just an economy.

I don't read his comments as advocating that. I see him as saying that by dumbing down the electorate through lower academic quality combined with ever increasing state spending on organisations and our reliance on those organisation and thus spending mean people are between a rock and a hard place at best or at worst completely unable to make the decision based on long term decisions of what best for us as individuals but also society as a whole.

I agree with your point on the benefit system , but with labour at least the fundamental basis is there to try and help the poor instead of the tory consign them all to the scrapheap , beggars and leeches all!!

Surely we need to ascertain whether they want to help themselves rather than just assuming that the invisible hand of nature is holding them back from realising their true potential. Millions of people are where they are by choice, Million of others need a hand to step up but they need to find the motivation from within to want to change.

All countries are having similar problems throughout the world , time and time again it has been said it is not just a uniquely british or labour problem.Are you or anyone else telling me the tories will come in and wave a magic wand and cure all?? I don`t think so .
How many times over the last 30 years have we seen short term gains prized over long term prosperity??

Yes all countries are experiencing economic issues and the problem is global. My issue and that of many Conservatives is the extent to which the UK was exposed to the very worst elements of the crisis. I also have a problem with Brown's self perception as some sort of economic genius who single handedly resolved and reversed the crisis - I don't see Obama taking the credit for bringing the US economy out of recession, he praises the spirit and determination of the US public for persevering (they still hate him for it but the point is still relevant) Brown is ego-centric, arrogant and has nothing but conceit for the British public and for no other reason, although there are many other reasons I could not place a vote for him under any circumstances. The Tories have not said they'll wave a magic wand - they've honestly appraised the situation and said things will be tough for a while but we will come out of the mire eventually.

Its alright for midas to carp from his mansion in the midlands , I vote for who I think will benefit all , not just those who will make a quick few quid and benfit only the few!!

Benefit all? So taxing certain people 50 percent seem less than beneficial to me if I earn more than the set amount. No political party can enact policy that benefits all. Labour have overseen an increase in the gap between rich and poor, social mobility is moving in the wrong direction and the economy is in a mess, no matter what they say cuts will be needed; how is this beneficial to anyone?

With regards to boy george , it is not just his lack of life experience which does not instill confidence , he quite simply does not seem to be on top of economic matters that midas is so concerned about.
Cable was onto the essential point of browns 10p tax abolition long before osbourne woke up to it.
He has failed to frame any sort of debate, hold the government to account or build up any sort of narrative and then only recently.He jumps on the bandwagon of economic woes and points out the obvious?!
Remind me whats his big sell point? Oh yes cutting inheritance tax!!what a shadow chancellor, I will definetly sleep better with him at the countries helm, those sure experienced hands, waving his bulling don club magic wand.
Question ; why do the media always call on cableto give an economic assessment rather than osbourne , particularly when the lib dems are doing poor??
He comes across as a political liability to me!

Okay I understand your points on Osbourne although it has to be said Churchill did not shine politically (although he did a lot to improve workers rights and enforced the UKs first minimum wage as a Liberal) until he was made PM in May 1940 and led us through the war successfully. Some people rise to a challenge and I hasten to add that Brown was heralded as an economic genius and look how things have turned out "I have abolished boom and bust", I'm willing to give Osbourne a chance . Cable was on the mark on some issues I'll agree but it wasn't hard to predict the looming crisis - Even I could see it coming and as a result sold my house in Jan 08. Cable has had his invincibility tarnished lately with a couple of poorly executed policy proposals and reversals - all men are flawed it would seem - just in Browns case, some more than others.

[Opinionated]

It's on the verge of flaming! (Although I appreciate my response was also).
I'm not suggesting that moderators should not have a bias, but pasting rude, completely unsubstantiated drivel is not really what I would expect.

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/a...74/referee.gif
Oh behave, I can see where this is leading so lets cut it out now shall we? Midas was being tongue in cheek and to be fair he has backed up that and other assertions many times on countless threads - feel free to dismiss it on the grounds he's a capitalist pig - I frequently do!
Now that's flaming http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce002.gif

But seriously who do Labour represent these days? Like all parties that have been in power too long they represent themselves!

[Major Sinic]

I fail to see how electoral reform will improve the political system. Party candidates will still campaign along broad party lines and voters will vote against the party candidate from the party they're sick of, or for the party candidate that represents the party they most closely identify with. Sure it'll let in some candidates from the smaller parties in some constituencies such as the BNP but overall the structure of the commons would look fairly similar in my opinion.

You may be right, but the membership of the Commons is not a reflection of votes cast. This in itself is undemocratic. If, for instance, the Liberal Democrats obtain 12% of votes cast, then in my opinion they should receive 12% of the parliamentary seats, and likewise with the fringe parties. We currently have the situation where the Tories received more overall votes in the last general election than Labour, who enjoy an overall majority of sixty seats or so.

The first past the post system means only the two major parties have any real expectation of parliamentary power, and in order to obtain that power they will broaden their appeal to as wide and gullible a target electorate as possible. This in itself encourages negative voting patterns, and the effective disenfranchisement of numerous minorities, thus people who might wish to vote Green for example, will vote Labour to keep out the Conservatives etc etc. I realise that it is unusual for a Tory such as myself, to espouse proportional representation, as it is for most Labour voters, but it is the only way that we as a nation can move towards a more representative democracy and more consensual government.

[Midas]

Wow that's really eloquent, a post really befitting of a moderator.

And you have a problem with moderators expressing views and opinions do you?

Seriously, unbelievably condascending. The conservatives aren't even that committed to markets themselves., a dedication to cutting immigration by 75%, yeah nice populist bull**** there.

Perhaps you didn't notice my "little tongue in cheek" remark? However you should take a good hard look at the financial mess that virtually every labour government makes of the economy, as well as the abysmal state that the finances of most labour-inspired nationalised industries got into before you go making any comments of your own on this subject. If people who support such a party can't see that, to me at least it speaks volumes!

I made no comment at all about conservatives nor of immigration, and for what it's worth I'm well aware of their own shortcomings, but at least they and their supporters can generally see that if you earn 10 and spend 15, you're on the fast track to being broke!

You're one to talk about understanding economics.

And you're such an expert in economics are you - tell me, exactly what experience it is that you've had, and for how many years, to enable you to criticise so knowledgeably? I quite acknowledge that I'm no expert, however 27 years at board level of running companies which export to over 40 different countries, and for more than half that time being in full charge of the company finances and having to deal with all the ins and outs of export finance, exchange controls, and the plethora of other financial and economic considerations does I think give me a little insight.

[octopus]

REFERENCE: LABOUR WHO DO THEY REPRESENT?

I can"t really think of anybody apart from criminals, yobs, lay-abouts, spongers, travellers, fake ayslum seekers and such like. Certainly not for the low paid, tax you on poverty wages, certainly not, for better off, tax you out of exsistance. Love to spend our money on things that don"t matter to the UK. I think the"ve upset just about everybody, and love to tell you how to live your life; and we haven"t forgotten their part in the exspenses row, either. I wish you luck, Gordon.

[JacquesMagique]

And you have a problem with moderators expressing views and opinions do you?

I have a problem with moderators that are rude, arrogant and condascending.

Perhaps you didn't notice my "little tongue in cheek" remark? However you should take a good hard look at the financial mess that virtually every labour government makes of the economy, as well as the abysmal state that the finances of most labour-inspired nationalised industries got into before you go making any comments of your own on this subject. If people who support such a party can't see that, to me at least it speaks volumes!

I suggest you consider the effect of previous tory governments on the level of unemployment.
I also suggest you consider the worldwide reverence among much of the economic community for what Gordon Brown has done to combat the recession. Vince Cable, a doctor in ECONOMICS and former Chief ECONOMIST for shell petroleum advocated a broadly similar approach to Gordon Brown for tackling the recession. He also supports a harder line on banking bonus culture (in contrast with you I believe). Do you know more about economics than Vince Cable?

I made no comment at all about conservatives nor of immigration, and for what it's worth I'm well aware of their own shortcomings, but at least they and their supporters can generally see that if you earn 10 and spend 15, you're on the fast track to being broke!

Good luck raising the revenue to reduce a budget deficit during a spending cut induced depression..

And you're such an expert in economics are you - tell me, exactly what experience it is that you've had, and for how many years, to enable you to criticise so knowledgeably? I quite acknowledge that I'm no expert, however 27 years at board level of running companies which export to over 40 different countries, and for more than half that time being in full charge of the company finances and having to deal with all the ins and outs of export finance, exchange controls, and the plethora of other financial and economic considerations does I think give me a little insight.

I never claimed to have all the answers myself, but for what it's worth I'm in my fifth year of formal economics study. Macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy is a speciality. Whilst I appreciate your 27 years must have indeed given you an insight into the needs of businesses and how they are effected by economic conditions, I fail to see acting as a self-interested member of the market can really give you a broader insight into macroeconomic policy.
I've previously cited my father in posts about economics. He is a very senior figure in a large multi-national retail business which operates in the UK, Ireland, Eastern Europe and the far east. I revere his, and your experience in the operation of business, but his understanding of national and international economics seems to be limited in comparison to my own.

[Midas]

I have a problem with moderators that are rude, arrogant and condascending.

You get what you give Jacques; if you go making scurrilous remarks you're likely to get them thrown back at you, plain and simple.

I suggest you consider the effect of previous tory governments on the level of unemployment.
I also suggest you consider the worldwide reverence among much of the economic community for what Gordon Brown has done to combat the recession. Vince Cable, a doctor in ECONOMICS and former Chief ECONOMIST for shell petroleum advocated a broadly similar approach to Gordon Brown for tackling the recession. He also supports a harder line on banking bonus culture (in contrast with you I believe). Do you know more about economics than Vince Cable?

Before you go making such wide generalisations about how well many theoretical and academic economists might think this government has done in fighting the recession, perhaps you'd care to look at the other side of the coin and see how many practical company leaders throughout industry and commerce see it - one unholy mess, which is why we're about the last country to even start to emerge from it, and with one of the largest per capita debts to boot!

I never claimed to have all the answers myself, but for what it's worth I'm in my fifth year of formal economics study. Macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy is a speciality. Whilst I appreciate your 27 years must have indeed given you an insight into the needs of businesses and how they are effected by economic conditions, I fail to see acting as a self-interested member of the market can really give you a broader insight into macroeconomic policy.
I've previously cited my father in posts about economics. He is a very senior figure in a large multi-national retail business which operates in the UK, Ireland, Eastern Europe and the far east. I revere his, and your experience in the operation of business, but his understanding of national and international economics seems to be limited in comparison to my own.

With all due respect Jacques, the way you write certainly give people the impression that you think you know it all and have all the answers - and it's not just me who thinks that either; perhaps that's why you get replies which you don't like! Of course you fail to see why my practical experience gives me "a broader insight", it's coming from a practical perspective of getting things done in the real world, not sitting talking endlessly about how things might or should be, and perhaps just as importantly, it's coming from a different political viewpoint to the one you seem to hold so dear.

[Opinionated]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...forum/stop.gif Calm it down gentlemen, I can see this is on the verge of getting personal, can you both argue the point please. I'd also like to point out that a mod posts on the forum in their capacity as a member, it should bare no relation to anything else.

[Marxist Nutter]

"Labour: Who do they represent?" Simple; people who don't understand either economics or the fact that people are not all equal. OK, a little tongue in cheek, but a large element of truth in it never the less.

I have to disagree the Labour party do not represent EVERYONE (including u) as 'people who don't understand ... economics' certainly includes most people in Britain - YOU very much included Midas, you arrogant...

[Opinionated]

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/a...lmodsmilie.pngThe very next post to get even remotely personally abusive in content gets an infraction. Do I make myself understood?
So we're all agreed then? Labour represent no particularly cohesive group at all anymore? Cool! Next thread!

[JacquesMagique]

Before you go making such wide generalisations about how well many theoretical and academic economists might think this government has done in fighting the recession, perhaps you'd care to look at the other side of the coin and see how many practical company leaders throughout industry and commerce see it - one unholy mess, which is why we're about the last country to even start to emerge from it, and with one of the largest per capita debts to boot!

Economists analyse trend data, they don't simply make theoretical assertions. We are not talking about philosophy academics.

With all due respect Jacques, the way you write certainly give people the impression that you think you know it all and have all the answers - and it's not just me who thinks that either;

Right back at you pal.

perhaps that's why you get replies which you don't like! Of course you fail to see why my practical experience gives me "a broader insight", it's coming from a practical perspective of getting things done in the real world, not sitting talking endlessly about how things might or should be,

Again, economic study is not simply theoretical ideas. This argument holds little weight.

and perhaps just as importantly, it's coming from a different political viewpoint to the one you seem to hold so dear.

Which political viewpoint is that? You're going to call me a socialist aren't you? HAHAHA.

[uncon]

It's on the verge of flaming! (Although I appreciate my response was also).
I'm not suggesting that moderators should not have a bias, but pasting rude, completely unsubstantiated drivel is not really what I would expect.

Seriously, if anyone here knows flaming, it is me and to me that looked like robust argument.

Now to look at the question...isn't it the wrong question?

It isn't about who any party represent, but who they SHOULD represent

[Midas]

Now to look at the question...isn't it the wrong question?

It isn't about who any party represent, but who they SHOULD represent

OK, so how do we go about defining what group of individuals any given political party should represent? Isn't that also a wrong question for the simple reason that the vast majority of people have views which aren't totally aligned to any one party? Rather they have a spread of views, some of which might be held more dearly than others, and which tip the balance in favour or against any given party. For instance UKIP might wish to represent people who think that we'd be better off out of the EU, however many of those 'out of Europe' supporters don't believe in the rest of UKIP's policies, so they vote say Liberal because that's where more of their beliefs lie; the BNP might wish to represent people who believe in tough immigration restrictions, yet again many people who also believe that wouldn't dream of joining the BNP, so they join a Conservative fringe who're also tough on immigration but have more moderate views elsewhere.

In today's world it's getting increasingly difficult to define either social or political groupings - which is of course why the two main political parties are both moving towards the centre position - and the traditional means of classification is surely becoming meaningless in many respects. What we need more than anything is a party, not necessarily a political party, who will have at its heart the concept of representing the majority of people with their spread of left/right views and implementing those policies in the best interests of both the people and the country as a whole.

[uncon]

OK, so how do we go about defining what group of individuals any given political party should represent? Isn't that also a wrong question for the simple reason that the vast majority of people have views which aren't totally aligned to any one party? Rather they have a spread of views, some of which might be held more dearly than others, and which tip the balance in favour or against any given party. For instance UKIP might wish to represent people who think that we'd be better off out of the EU, however many of those 'out of Europe' supporters don't believe in the rest of UKIP's policies, so they vote say Liberal because that's where more of their beliefs lie; the BNP might wish to represent people who believe in tough immigration restrictions, yet again many people who also believe that wouldn't dream of joining the BNP, so they join a Conservative fringe who're also tough on immigration but have more moderate views elsewhere.

In today's world it's getting increasingly difficult to define either social or political groupings - which is of course why the two main political parties are both moving towards the centre position - and the traditional means of classification is surely becoming meaningless in many respects. What we need more than anything is a party, not necessarily a political party, who will have at its heart the concept of representing the majority of people with their spread of left/right views and implementing those policies in the best interests of both the people and the country as a whole.

Exactly. You cant use that kind of reasoning for any party who wants to appeal to everyone (you picked that up too quickly Midas you sod)`

NO party has a formula for a specific class and neither should they...rich people fill labours coffers too and poor people still like conservative

[UncleVanya]

Yes, exactement mes amis. Just who does Labour, or the current incarnation of Labour (New labour) actually represent now? With all the various scandals around Parliament, and the Labour Party, the cerebral dithering of Gordon Brown as PM. One wonders just what they really are. Do they represent the Working Class like of old, or just the 'Political Classes' that run this edifice now?

There is an article in the 'Wail on Sunday' 7th February 2010, that there are suggestions that Mrs Blair (Judge Cherry) might be elevated to the Upper House of Bludgers. Just what has she done to merit such an award, excpet raking in 'mucho wonga' as a 'Uming Rites' lawyer. So if Judge Cherry is (allegedly) made a Baroness, then it presuposes that Mr T Blair Esq will also be 'kicked upstairs' or given a Knighthood at the very least for being an Ex-Prime minsiter like Sir John Major.

Maybe she and Mr, can then join all their other Psuedo-Marxist chums like the My Lords Kinnochios, My Lord Mandelsperson, My Lord Sugar, My Lord ..... (just add a name to the list.... Stuffing the Upper House with Place Persons before the Gen Election, all alleged of course) http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/smileys/smiley11.gif

Maybe Hapless Harriete and Mr Dromey will become My Liege Lord Barroness Hapless and Lord Hapless of Person..... (all alleged of course). But then when it was announced that Mr Peter was going to be elevated, there was much furore..... but he was and is...... of the Counties of Hertford and That Other Place.....!!! http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/smileys/smiley8.gif

My, my. I could do with being elevated as well.... my Leige Lord, Baron Uncle Vanya of Costa Coffee, Pickled Onions and Cheese, in ye Counties that Boudicca once lived, near to Camoludunum.... http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/smileys/smiley20.gif

I'm also a bit skint at the moment... me benefits cheques keep bouncing and being lost in the Post again..... I have mucho expense claims to put in for Duck Houses, Pies, Paties, Cheese and Moats around me flat.... http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/smileys/smiley32.gif http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/smileys/smiley24.gif

[fubar]

My what an easy question The socialist party of course or to put another way Socialist Marxism to be more exact.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Who do they represent? The indolent and idle, warmongers, those who lover of totalitarianism / state surveillance of the population /excessive police power, pro-American sycophants, those who believe in unrestained mass immigration. That probably covers the majority of their constituency.

[Expounder]

Labour initially founded as a political extension of the union movement renounced their core ideology with the removal of clause 4, and have since turned their backs on their core support (unions included) and thus negate their purpose as representatives of the working classes - the question remains: who or what do they represent?

Discuss?

Although clause 4 was dropped, the Nationalization of Northern Rock and a failed rail company proves Labour doesn't need clause 4 to nationalise when it's in the public interests to do so. Many voters including some Tory voters would like to see some of the utilities taken back into public ownership where privatisation has been a failure and are being kept afloat by the public purse.

[JAMC]

When old labour became new labour the support base of the party changed fundamentally. The old base of radical left wing trade unionists, public sector workers and good ol' fashioned socialists were pushed to the very fringes of society throughout the Thatcher years and were no longer a tennable base for a credible opposition party.

New labour's base from the mid-90's onwards consisted primarily of former voters from traditionally old labour areas that purchased their coucil houses, found that they did quite well out of it, but voted centre-left out of habit. Since 1997 new labour has managed to alienate practically everyone that falls into that category - so the answer to your question is... virtually no-one at all.

[Expounder]

When old labour became new labour the support base of the party changed fundamentally. The old base of radical left wing trade unionists, public sector workers and good ol' fashioned socialists were pushed to the very fringes of society throughout the Thatcher years and were no longer a tennable base for a credible opposition party.

New labour's base from the mid-90's onwards consisted primarily of former voters from traditionally old labour areas that purchased their coucil houses, found that they did quite well out of it, but voted centre-left out of habit. Since 1997 new labour has managed to alienate practically everyone that falls into that category - so the answer to your question is... virtually no-one at all.

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. 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.

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. While Labour did change too much in order to get elected and errors were made, it's economic record wasn't all bad.I am an old fashioned socialist which I'm sure you are not, and am convinced the roots of the Labour movement still exist.

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

[uncon]

oh come on Expounder. Where's the new Roy Jenkins? Where has labours courage gone?

[Expounder]

oh come on Expounder. Where's the new Roy Jenkins? Where has labours courage gone?

I'm afraid Roy Jenkins, [is not a good role model] Shirley Williams, David Owen, and and bucking bronco William [Roy] Rogers the gang of four, bailed out of the Labour party into oblivion and ended being up rounded up by the Liberal party, hence the Lib Dems but of course you know that.

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.

Whatever you may think of Brown he does not lack courage, a lesser man [like Cameron] would have wilted under the abuse and the barrage of personal attacks he's been subjected to by both opposition parties and 90% of the media. Whether the anti Labourites like it or not, people generally respect any man who can receive good kicking and still be standing at the end of it and come out fighting.

I feel this is one of the reasons why I think Tory fortunes have wained. The core Labour vote is recovering and if they come out in full numbers it could more than make up for the floating woolly heads who change with the wind and the scare stories of The Mail, the Express, the Telegraph, and now king maker Murdoch,s Current Bun. When you realise what is arraigned against Labour a hung parliament would be a victory.
.

[Major Sinic]

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. 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.

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. While Labour did change too much in order to get elected and errors were made, it's economic record wasn't all bad.I am an old fashioned socialist which I'm sure you are not, and am convinced the roots of the Labour movement still exist.

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

I shall ignore your usual meaningless, unsubstantiated, fear mongering anti-Tory rhetoric, and instead focus on a worthwhile part of your post.

I have never been and never will be a socialist, old fashioned or otherwise. However I do recognise that in a democracy, even one as primitive in structure as our own, it is essential that there should be representation of all political points of view. The majority of organised political representation in this country is from slightly left of centre to the extreme right. Socialists and traditional Labour voters have been effectively disenfranchised by the lurch to the centre by New Labour, and are now effectively unrepresented.

In reality the interests of the left would be best served by the creation (recreation?) of a socialist democratic party. New Labour is quite simply too broad a church, and as such can never truly represent the broad political spectrum it is desperately trying to appeal to, in order to stay in power.

However, while ever we have a first past the post electoral system, there is little future for minority parties as I suspect the BNP and UKIP will discover, so the formation of a true social democrat party is unlikely to happen. I do not believe that this is conducive to a healthy democracy.

[uncon]

Roy Jenkins did more for an equal society...an inclusive one, than any labour man since Nye and Earnest.

Shall we have a look at what a great Tory leader proposed:

Freedom of speech - demolished by Blair

Innocent until proven guilty - see above

Freedom to peaceful protest - see above

Not to be held without charge - see above

Never to allow or to collude in torture - see above.


and to think that you refuse to allow your party's achievements in lieu of it's shame....oh and lets not forget the ID cards. Churchill introduced them reluctantly for a limited time and couldn't wait to get rid of the ****ing things. Your party can't wait to introduce them. I will destroy mine and encourage everyone to do the same.

At no point has the SWP been seen as anything other than squabbling silly people rowing about the use of the word 'man' in manager until now....have a look for yourself...they are making sense because what they also said was happening is proving to be true.

When they look more reasonable than labour policy....you really need a big change - you tried being Tory and it worked for a while...try being a labour party.

[yackulb]

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

[Expounder]

Roy Jenkins did more for an equal society...an inclusive one, than any labour man since Nye and Earnest.

Shall we have a look at what a great Tory leader proposed:

Freedom of speech - demolished by Blair

Innocent until proven guilty - see above

Freedom to peaceful protest - see above

Not to be held without charge - see above

Never to allow or to collude in torture - see above.


and to think that you refuse to allow your party's achievements in lieu of it's shame....oh and lets not forget the ID cards. Churchill introduced them reluctantly for a limited time and couldn't wait to get rid of the ****ing things. Your party can't wait to introduce them. I will destroy mine and encourage everyone to do the same.

At no point has the SWP been seen as anything other than squabbling silly people rowing about the use of the word 'man' in manager until now....have a look for yourself...they are making sense because what they also said was happening is proving to be true.

When they look more reasonable than labour policy....you really need a big change - you tried being Tory and it worked for a while...try being a labour party.

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. The world has changed, globalisation the Net and terrorism blown holes in out dated security measures which many naive people refer to. 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 world is a more dangerous place than it's ever been 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.

[Expounder]

I shall ignore your usual meaningless, unsubstantiated, fear mongering anti-Tory rhetoric, and instead focus on a worthwhile part of your post.

I have never been and never will be a socialist, old fashioned or otherwise. However I do recognise that in a democracy, even one as primitive in structure as our own, it is essential that there should be representation of all political points of view. The majority of organised political representation in this country is from slightly left of centre to the extreme right. Socialists and traditional Labour voters have been effectively disenfranchised by the lurch to the centre by New Labour, and are now effectively unrepresented.

In reality the interests of the left would be best served by the creation (recreation?) of a socialist democratic party. New Labour is quite simply too broad a church, and as such can never truly represent the broad political spectrum it is desperately trying to appeal to, in order to stay in power.

However, while ever we have a first past the post electoral system, there is little future for minority parties as I suspect the BNP and UKIP will discover, so the formation of a true social democrat party is unlikely to happen. I do not believe that this is conducive to a healthy democracy.

Look no further than Cameron for meaningless unsubstantiated fear mongering than The grave stone "RIP OFF" poster "Now Gordon wants "£20.000 when you die". Andrew Lansley Tory health chief, Andy Burnham. and Also Lib Dem Norman Lamb were in talks about the financial burden of older people in care and how to stop the elderly having to sell their homes and were on the verge of signing a statement of "clearly shared principles" when Lansley pulled out. While Lansley was prepared to talk options Cameron decided there was political advantage to be had and came up with poster even Satchi and Satchi would have been proud of.

Dame Joan Bakewell Independent champion for older people denounced the Tory leader for telling "grotesque Lies" that Gordon Brown was planning a £20.000 death tax to fund it . Lansley admitted making his own decision to go into negotiations with with Labours health secretary Andy Burnham and Norman Lamb a commendable one I should have thought

Dame Joan Bakewell slammed Cameron's shameful electioneering. She said, " The £20.000 is merely one option put forward, to turn this into a poster is an insult to everybody and damages the case for older peoples care". She went on "We've had a lot of pious talk about how we must salvage parliament after the expences scandal, but the scandal is still going on- people are telling lies".

Care in old age is a problem that requires all party consensus but it appears it's just another political football like the NHS that Cameron can play with.

[Major Sinic]

Look no further than Cameron for unsubstasiated fear mongering than The grave stone "RIP OFF" poster "now Gordon wants "£20.000 when you die". Andrew Lansley tory health chief, Andy Burnham. and Also Lib Dem Norman Lamb where in talks about the financial burden of older people in care and how to stop the elderly having to sell their homes and were on the verge of signing a statement of clearly shared principles when Lansley pulled out. While Lansley was prepared to talk options Cameron decided there was political advantage to be had and came up with poster even Satchi and Satchi would have be proud of.


Dame Joan Bakewell Independant champion for older people denounced the Tory leader for telling "gotesque Lies" that Gordon Brown was planning a £20.000 death tax to fund it . Lansley admitted making his own decision to go into negationations with with Labours health secretary Andy Burnham

Why do you respond to the least important part of my response to your own? You always look for the negatives and never the positives in a debate. You do not know if or why Lansley pulled out.

If the proposed 'Labour Death Tax' is a 'grotesque lie' why has Gordon Brown refused to deny that it may/will be implemented?

[Expounder]

Sinic/LEFT];99121]Why do you respond to the least important part of my response to your own? You always look for the negatives and never the positives in a debate. You do not know if or why Lansley pulled

out.

Of the proposed 'Labour Death Tax' is a 'grotesque lie' why has Gordon Brown refused to deny that it may/will be implemented?

The subject of care in old age is a problem will face which ever party is in power and as such is imperative that a binding all party consensus on how to deal with the problem should be arrived at, it's a problem that will be forever with us. Pensioners in their dotage [and you will be one eventually] should not be kicked from pillar to post at the whim of various administrations.

They should know where they stand with the knowledge of the permanence of all party agreement free in the future from party political shenanigans so they can plan for their old age. You know as well as I do there is no easy answer to this problem and pensioners deserve better from politicians of all parties.

The "£20.000 option" was one of others floated for discussion in which Andrew Lansley took part nothing as far as I'm aware had been decided when Lansleypulled out. But, when he did Cameron could see a stick to beat Brown with because of the fact it was one of the options under discussions an opportunists heaven sent opportunity. Cameron has been called a "liar" by Dame JoanBakewell [Mirror 13.2.2010] the pensioners Independent champion and former respected broadcaster. So let honest Dave answer that charge or litigate.

And by the way Lord Harris carpet tycoon is so pleased with Cameron apart from donating "£90.000 to Cameron's leadership campaign gave him a Xmas present of goblets along with a £3.500 hamper for all his good works which will benefit his rich friends.

Mandelson accuses Tories of 'driving a wrecking ball' through elderly care deal | Mail Online

[octopus]

When I hear the Labour party or Socialism mentioned a very infamous former landmark comes to mind that I once visited: THE BERLIN WALL. Britain is becoming more, and more like the former eastern block everyday. Answer, apart from their favorite causes - THEMSELVES; like their former role models in the eastern block.

[octopus]

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

The least said about the last 13 of years expriance, the better.

[Major Sinic]

The subject of care in old age is a problem will face which ever party is in power and as such is imperative that a binding all party consensus on how to deal with the problem should be arrived at, it's a problem that will be forever with us. Pensioners in their dotage [and you will be one eventually] should not be kicked from pillar to post at the whim of various administrations.

Something that Labour has notably failed to address in over twelve years of being in government. No doubt ninety days from a general election Labour considers it a potential vote winner; a political football to be kicked between pillar and post.

They should know where they stand with the knowledge of the permanence of all party agreement free in the future from party political shenanigans so they can plan for their old age. You know as well as I do there is no easy answer to this problem and pensioners deserve better from politicians of all parties.

I can only agree.

The "£20.000 option" was one of others floated for discussion in which Andrew Lansley took part nothing as far as I'm aware had been decided when Lansleypulled out. But, when he did Cameron could see a stick to beat Brown with because of the fact it was one of the options under discussions an opportunists heaven sent opportunity. Cameron has been called a "liar" by Dame JoanBakewell [Mirror 13.2.2010] the pensioners Independent champion and former respected broadcaster. So let honest Dave answer that charge or litigate.

If political leaders litigated every time they were slandered or libeled, they would have no time left to prevaricate and dissemble. Whilst I accept that Joan Bakewell's appointment is independent in as much as it is not a political appointment, she is a long term member of the Labour Party, so it is reasonable to consider her views a little partisan. I repeat, if 'Labours Death Tax' is a grotesque lie, why does Brown refuse to deny it?

And by the way Lord Harris carpet tycoon is so pleased with Cameron apart from donating "£90.000 to Cameron's leadership campaign gave him a Xmas present of goblets along with a £3.500 hamper for all his good works which will benefit his rich friends.

Yep.these politicians do get their little freebees don't they. I recall Blair's free holidays with his mate Silvio Berlusconi. I suppose they had so much in common like their integrity, honesty and social commitment.

Mandelson accuses Tories of 'driving a wrecking ball' through elderly care deal | Mail Online

[/QUOTE]Well in the memorable words of another Mandy - Mandy Rice-Davis 'He would, wouldn't he?' (The ? is rhetorical)

[Expounder]

Something that Labour has notably failed to address in over twelve years of being in government. No doubt ninety days from a general election Labour considers it a potential vote winner; a political football to be kicked between pillar and post.
I can only agree.

If political leaders litigated every time they were slandered or libeled, they would have no time left to prevaricate and dissemble. Whilst I accept that Joan Bakewell's appointment is independent in as much as it is not a political appointment, she is a long term member of the Labour Party, so it is reasonable to consider her views a little partisan. I repeat, if 'Labours Death Tax' is a grotesque lie, why does Brown refuse to deny it?

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.