Labour Cannot Appeal to the Electorate

[soloman]

Hardly surprising when the Miliband brothers conduct a family feud in public!
How can politicians who have created such phenomenal debt for our country even dare speak to the press?

They are all totally discredited and should bow their heads in shame. The fact they don't do so demonstrates thier arrogance and intention to continue with their dreadful bad practices.

Read more:-

Labour leadership contest: David Miliband turns fire on brother Ed - Telegraph

[Scooby]

I think that the Miliband debacle is just a syptom of the self obsessed culture that has gripped Labour in recent years, many people don't like it that as soon as they were in opposition they have basically absolved themselves of any responsibility for the past ten years that have led to the point of financial ruin.
Labour has a part to play as one of the big two and it is essential, but they need to develop a sense of responsibility and less of a cult of personality, like all pliticians they need to learn to govern and not treat their position as merely that of a career step, Gordon Browns pouting and schemeing until he got the the job then the non election when he thought he could win then couldn't showed the cynicism and sense of self importance that has infected the party. Simply replacing the figurhead will not change this.

[Midas]

The title of this thread rather begs the tongue in cheek reply "Why do Labour appeal to anyone"!

[DaveUK]

The title of this thread rather begs the tongue in cheek reply "Why do Labour appeal to anyone"!

Indeed. They stopped reprisenting traditional labour supporters 15 years ago.
The current crop of former Trotskyest champagn socialist sell outs squabling over the leadership now are no better than anything the party has had for a long time.
Like successive tory leaders since 97, they are doomed to successive failiure for the foreseeable future while the coalition (tories) remind them of the mess they left.
What Miliband and the rest of the shower are fighting for, is a lengthly period at the dispatch box being humiliated every time they open their mouths.
They can't say what they stand for anymore. They abandoned traditional Labour values when John Smith took over. They expelled every traditional Labour MP and member. They vastly expanded the state way beyond what it could afford, largely to line the pockets of the already well off. They widened the gap between rich and poor. Presided over one of the greatest scandals in British history, one thats never talked about, and a policy this country will never recover from. By allowing the greedy financial markets to run riot with other poeples money, by falsely supressing interest rates at the behest of big buisness and bankers, and by allowing bankers to lend money unchecked and unregulated, Labour are guilty of depriving a whole generation of people they traditionally supported from ever owning their own home. They've taken home ownership from where it was in the 90s, in the reach of any hard working family, to where it is now, exlusively to the middle class and well off.
Generations of low to average income families to come will never experience the sucurity of owning their own home.

[Major Sinic]

Indeed. They stopped reprisenting traditional labour supporters 15 years ago.
The current crop of former Trotskyest champagn socialist sell outs squabling over the leadership now are no better than anything the party has had for a long time.
Like successive tory leaders since 97, they are doomed to successive failiure for the foreseeable future while the coalition (tories) remind them of the mess they left.
What Miliband and the rest of the shower are fighting for, is a lengthly period at the dispatch box being humiliated every time they open their mouths.
They can't say what they stand for anymore. They abandoned traditional Labour values when John Smith took over. They expelled every traditional Labour MP and member. They vastly expanded the state way beyond what it could afford, largely to line the pockets of the already well off. They widened the gap between rich and poor. Presided over one of the greatest scandals in British history, one thats never talked about, and a policy this country will never recover from. By allowing the greedy financial markets to run riot with other poeples money, by falsely supressing interest rates at the behest of big buisness and bankers, and by allowing bankers to lend money unchecked and unregulated, Labour are guilty of depriving a whole generation of people they traditionally supported from ever owning their own home. They've taken home ownership from where it was in the 90s, in the reach of any hard working family, to where it is now, exlusively to the middle class and well off.
Generations of low to average income families to come will never experience the sucurity of owning their own home.

I never thought I would find myself agreeing with you on domestic political matters, but other than one or two adjectival emphases, I do find myself in full agreement regarding this post.

[crazylilting]

I don't think labour has much to offer in the way of our national direction but that doesn't mean that they cannot appeal to some of the electorate. They had quite a lot of votes in the last election and they were dolling out the dow to win votes, so there will always be someone who wants to profit from their being in the majority.

[soloman]

The title of this thread rather begs the tongue in cheek reply "Why do Labour appeal to anyone"!

How right you are Midas!

[soloman]

I don't think labour has much to offer in the way of our national direction but that doesn't mean that they cannot appeal to some of the electorate. They had quite a lot of votes in the last election and they were dolling out the dow to win votes, so there will always be someone who wants to profit from their being in the majority.

Labour have been very successful in selling the idea that the Tories only look after the wealthy; the coalition needs to destroy that myth rapidly!

[crazylilting]

Labour have been very successful in selling the idea that the Tories only look after the wealthy; the coalition needs to destroy that myth rapidly!

How noble of them. Since the rich are a minority it is better to appeal to the masses...

Don't people realize that kind of thinking will just end up making the poor poorer in the long run?

[Opinionated]

Don't people realize that kind of thinking will just end up making the poor poorer in the long run?

How so? Surely appealing to the majority is how one wins an election, isn't the majority opinion the cornerstone of democracy?

[crazylilting]

How so? Surely appealing to the majority is how one wins an election, isn't the majority opinion the cornerstone of democracy?

I would think creating a huge debt and constantly operating in a deficit will make our pound to services ratio go down exponentially as interest works that way. I doubt our debt is interest free and if we keep borrowing more each year our interest payments will rise making our government services either poorer or the electoral poorer one of the two.

We can't tax the rich as the rich will just move to a more tax friendly place, the middle class already pays a lot and the poor will be the last frontier for tax rises or dismantling the services they get to save on spending. I would consider my self the working poor. While i've never received any benefits or subsidies from the government VAT, fuel taxes, council taxes, national insurance, MOT, TAX disk, Duty on tobacco and alcohol add up quite significantly on an annual basis. I make under £10,000 a year so when you add up all the taxes and then calculate the % of tax paid by the working poor compared to that of the rich or middle class we are hit harder. That is if we don't claim any benefits of course.

Sorry i didn't mean the percent of taxes. I meant that the working poor have less disposable income so any tax on that income makes us harder hit then the middle class and rich. Obviously the rich and middle class pay more and at a higher percent, sorry had a brain fart.

[Opinionated]

I would think creating a huge debt and constantly operating in a deficit will make our pound to services ratio go down exponentially as interest works that way. I doubt our debt is interest free and if we keep borrowing more each year our interest payments will rise making our government services either poorer or the electoral poorer one of the two.

We can't tax the rich as the rich will just move to a more tax friendly place, the middle class already pays a lot and the poor will be the last frontier for tax rises or dismantling the services they get to save on spending. I would consider my self the working poor. While i've never received any benefits or subsidies from the government VAT, fuel taxes, council taxes, national insurance, MOT, TAX disk, Duty on tobacco and alcohol add up quite significantly on an annual basis. I make under £10,000 a year so when you add up all the taxes and then calculate the % of tax paid by the working poor compared to that of the rich or middle class we are hit harder. That is if we don't claim any benefits of course.

Sorry i didn't mean the percent of taxes. I meant that the working poor have less disposable income so any tax on that income makes us harder hit then the middle class and rich. Obviously the rich and middle class pay more and at a higher percent, sorry had a brain fart.

I see, I misread your statement as a defence of minority special interest Government and not a criticism of NuLab policy. Here's something I need explaining though, generally speaking those who argue low taxes keep the wealth creators in this country are huge proponents of the free-market, wouldn't the mass exodus of entrepreneurs and capital holders create a gap in the market which would be filled by the next generation?

[crazylilting]

I see, I misread your statement as a defence of minority special interest Government and not a criticism of NuLab policy. Here's something I need explaining though, generally speaking those who argue low taxes keep the wealth creators in this country are huge proponents of the free-market, wouldn't the mass exodus of entrepreneurs and capital holders create a gap in the market which would be filled by the next generation?

Yes it would until they got to the point where they would be over taxed as well or better served abroad. It takes companies to hire people, and rich people create tax payers. Why don't we have enough tax payers right now? Because there isn't there enough tax payers? There seems to be a threshold or an upper limit that is hit where people tend to find tax shelters. Why?

[octopus]

The title of this thread rather begs the tongue in cheek reply "Why do Labour appeal to anyone"!

Oh, they definately appeal to some people: Fearal yobs, spongers, so-called ayslum seekers looking for a country that is an easy touch, criminals, especialy foriegners, the worlds misfits and themselves of course, they seem to do alright financialy, the individuals, maybe not the party. To everybody else, they create a nightmare to which we are now paying the price for, and will do in a variety of ways, for many years to come. The worrying thing is, their successors also fail on a lot of the above.

[crazylilting]

This is an outdated article but relevent i think

Benefit payouts will exceed income tax revenue

[soloman]

Oh, they definately appeal to some people: Fearal yobs, spongers, so-called ayslum seekers looking for a country that is an easy touch, criminals, especialy foriegners, the worlds misfits and themselves of course, they seem to do alright financialy, the individuals, maybe not the party. To everybody else, they create a nightmare to which we are now paying the price for, and will do in a variety of ways, for many years to come. The worrying thing is, their successors also fail on a lot of the above.

You start off with a good analysis which I agree with; in your last sentence are you referring to the coalition as the 'successors'?

[Yeti]

Oh, they definately appeal to some people: Fearal yobs, spongers, so-called ayslum seekers looking for a country that is an easy touch, criminals, especialy foriegners, the worlds misfits and themselves of course, they seem to do alright financialy, the individuals, maybe not the party. To everybody else, they create a nightmare to which we are now paying the price for, and will do in a variety of ways, for many years to come. The worrying thing is, their successors also fail on a lot of the above.

The only way Labour will get re-elected next time around is if the Coalition over taxes the population, fail to cut wastage and fail to deal with the fearal yobs, spongers and so call ayslum seekers.

[octopus]

The only way Labour will get re-elected next time around is if the Coalition over taxes the population, fail to cut wastage and fail to deal with the fearal yobs, spongers and so call ayslum seekers.

Which they will!

[manrow]

The only way Labour will get re-elected next time around is if the Coalition over taxes the population, fail to cut wastage and fail to deal with the fearal yobs, spongers and so call ayslum seekers.

I doubt it. You have just listed the major faults of every Labour government ever!

[octopus]

You start off with a good analysis which I agree with; in your last sentence are you referring to the coalition as the 'successors'?

Yes, I do. The coalition are cut from the same cloth as regards to dealing with immigration and crime especialy - totaly ineffective like Labour! .

[soloman]

Yes, I do. The coalition are cut from the same cloth as regards to dealing with immigration and crime especialy - totaly ineffective like Labour! .

I very much hope you are wrong. We are hamstrung to a large extent by EU legislation, but we do need to plough our own furrow or we will be overwhelmed, or maybe we already are!?

[Opinionated]

Quick comment to try and get back on topic; who would have thought after the Jeremy Thorpe thing and the attempted SDP "coup" that the Liberals would ever appeal to the electorate again and yet here they are the King makers! If Labour are ever going to recover then they are going to need to accept that Blair/ Brown's version of a third way has been an abject failure and somehow reconnect with their grass roots and reach out to the working everyman. They need to stand for true equity and equality which will not happen with eith the Millibands in charge. Those of us who once supported the aims of the Labour Party can only hope that a long period in the wilderness will give the phoenix time to rise, they could do worse than to adopt many of the Lib Dem manifesto proposals as their own and steal that Parties support which is already disillusioned with the coalition.

[Midas]

Quick comment to try and get back on topic; who would have thought after the Jeremy Thorpe thing and the attempted SDP "coup" that the Liberals would ever appeal to the electorate again and yet here they are the King makers! If Labour are ever going to recover then they are going to need to accept that Blair/ Brown's version of a third way has been an abject failure and somehow reconnect with their grass roots and reach out to the working everyman. They need to stand for true equity and equality which will not happen with eith the Millibands in charge. Those of us who once supported the aims of the Labour Party can only hope that a long period in the wilderness will give the phoenix time to rise, they could do worse than to adopt many of the Lib Dem manifesto proposals as their own and steal that Parties support which is already disillusioned with the coalition.

True equality?? Since when have people ever been equal in any respect? That's always been, and I'm sure always will be, one of the biggest negative aspects of any form of socialism; trying to shoehorn people of hugely different abilities, ambitions and drives into one average mold and cosset them in state-provided cotton wool at the expense of the most productive individuals in society. Given your views on education and the need to bring out and develop every child's individuality and teach them to accordingly so they can go on to reach the highest level possible appropriate to their intelligence and ability, isn't what you say here a bit of an oxymoron?

[octopus]

I very much hope you are wrong. We are hamstrung to a large extent by EU legislation, but we do need to plough our own furrow or we will be overwhelmed, or maybe we already are!?

In my opnion there"s very little difference between the top three parties on these issues - and very important to a lot of people living in Britain today. That is why our future lays with parties further to the right, who say they do have measures to deal with these huge problems.

Firstly, crime: For start, thanks to the "jackboot" of the EU, we are not allowed, under the agreement we have with them to reintroduce capital punishment - with violent crime on the scale we have is an absolute must, in my opnion. Plus many people I know, have changed their minds in favour of it. Corporal punishment, another abololute must. Some yobs, interviewed on the media, have admitted this would make them think twice, about their offences and crimes is regarded as something out of the dark ages, so out of the question, and I can vouch for that, because I"ve met some of them myself- spineless cowards; capital punishment and corporal punishment both work through. Prisons have to be run like holiday camps: Three square meals a day, libaries, gyms, councilors, free education up to BA honours degrees- cost you and me thousands of pounds for some of these services - but we pay for their comfort and future well being, out of our taxes. Both these proposals are in the BNP manifesto and UKIP have suggested a free vote on the case of capital punishment, which is endorsed by around 70% of the population. The top three really want to get their act together on law and order. If they don"t, "whoever" as Gordon Brown described the right-wing parties, will sort it. No wonder the killers of Gary Newlove and Reece Jones were laughing and joking in the dock before even the verdict was reached, let alone the announcement of the sentence, that"s how much they fear the law; 12 years each, I believe. As they are not yet, even out of their teens, in either case, they are well assured of coming out before they are forty years of age

As for immigration: We are being slowly driven out of our homes and cities. The Muslim birthrate is easily 3 times that of the indgenious population of the UK - saying nothing of the Afro-carribean, sikhs, hindus and eastern european, who also have large families. In Portsmouth, not a huge immigrant population by the standards of the larger cities such as London Birmingham and northern cities and towns, but still very large numbers, that cause a traffic jam when the mosque turns out on a friday afternoon. 85% Muslim pupils at a school - I know this, because I know the lady that prepares their meals - she has to cook a special diet for them; they also become very angry if the catering staff at this school, don"t get it right. I can frankly, well believe this when you see what some members of the Islam faith still get up to in their own countries, such as Iran, today, in 2010. Yet, if we suggest sending them back, we"re Islamophopics, racists, bigots, xenophopics. This is the view of the three parties that, really govern, Britain- especialy LABOUR. The only non far -right party to mention these obvious dangers, is UKIP.

It is not just the Muslims that threaten Britain"s way of life - the Afro-carribeans have a huge influence; they forced me and my family from London, many years ago,
when they only made up about a small percentage of the local population of South London - now, forty years later, my mothers life long friend, is the only white person in that Camberwell street. In my parents day, only about 40% were afro-carrbean (enough to make us move - we could see the way it was going to go). Succesive Labour and Tory goverments have caused this calamity - AGAIN, LABOUR THE BIGGEST CUPPRIT! By refusing to address this issue.

Soultion: Very diifficult now! In the 50s and 60s, much easier - first boat home for the ones that have nothing to offer in the way of skills. Bus crews, factory workers, cleaners and all unskilled, surely could be filled by the indigenous poulation. If we wish to emigrate to Australia or the USA, we normaly have to have something to offer: Doctors, dentists, accountants, business people - were perhaps they wouldn"t have quite so many readily qualified people in that partcular area.

Even with these skilled people entering the UK - they should be issued with a visa and sent home if that job terminates. All other immigrants only admitted at the discrection of the UK goverment. We have gone the other way, the flood gates open for more than half a century, and they are surpised we have choas - I"M NOT! My parents saw this coming 40 years ago, . I think we will have to be a bit more like France - SEND THEM BACK, LIKE THOSE ROMANIAN GYPSIES! If we don"t, the cost could be far more than we could afford to pay.

Any immigrant convicted of any crime, unless under exceptional circumstances, should apon realease of prison be driven to Heathrow and put on the first plane for their country of origin - WE HAVE ENOUGH OF OWN SCUM WITHOUT IMPORTING THEM!

If Labour want to get back into the electorates good books that is what they have to do. Some hopes! That also says it for present lot as well, I"m afraid.

[silentmist]

Re:- Post #24

Curious how being anti capital punishment is labeled as jack booting. I can't think of a more jackboot policy than capital punishment.

As for all of the other opinions, I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.

[octopus]

Re:- Post #24

Curious how being anti capital punishment is labeled as jack booting. I can't think of a more jackboot policy than capital punishment.

As for all of the other opinions, I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.

Interesting, but I can"t think of a more "jackboot" activity as MURDER!

[ryoden]

Re:- Post #24

Curious how being anti capital punishment is labeled as jack booting. I can't think of a more jackboot policy than capital punishment.

As for all of the other opinions, I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.

To be frank I have no problem with the termination of certain criminals but only if we had a perfect justice system, but we don't and I wouldn't like to send a possibly innocent person to the gallows. If we could be sure of their guilt though, I think it's an ideal deterrant and less expensive tax-wise than locking them up for 20+ years.

[silentmist]

Interesting, but I can"t think of a more "jackboot" activity as MURDER!

Murder is the intentional killing of another. Sound familiar?

[silentmist]

To be frank I have no problem with the termination of certain criminals but only if we had a perfect justice system, but we don't and I wouldn't like to send a possibly innocent person to the gallows. If we could be sure of their guilt though, I think it's an ideal deterrant and less expensive tax-wise than locking them up for 20+ years.

I'm against inflicting suffering on another under any justification. The government takes on the 'parent' role and then has it's permission givers for committing abuse. Naturally, the 'child' (us) will learn that that is OK. The cycle of abuse becomes complete and acts out in perpetuity.

[octopus]

Murder is the intentional killing of another. Sound familiar?

Very fimiiar! However, I don"t know about you, silentmist, but in most murder cases, my only interest is with the victim, their friends and family; the killer, I give as much thought to his or her welfare as I would a maggot. Not only do I think of the dead person, and the circumstances in how they died but the spouse who will have to bring up their children on half the income, they are used too, the children that may have to be brought up by strangers, because both parents are dead, the homes that will be repossesed by the banks and building societies, perhaps ending up in tough council estates, because the victim"s family can"t afford the repayents on their home with only one wage coming in, the marriage break-ups, people take their own lives, because of the manner in which their loved ones died and all the other side effects thousands of people have had to endure, often through no fault of their own - JUST IN THE WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME! Have you ever considered this side of murder?

I have no doubt, you are caring, considerate, person. But don"t you think when you see killers laughing and joking in the dock as their deeds are being described by the prosecution council, that the possibilty of a couple of decades in jail, is not the answer? Would they still be treating the matter with such levity, if they were going to meet their maker in a month or so, if found guilty? I think you know the answer, really. Sometimes you have to fight "murder" with "murder" (if you wish to use that word); only difference one is guilty, and has the choice to kill, one is innocent, and doesn"t any choice. I hope that answers your question. All things considered, I think the murderers have got the better end of the deal.

I think Labour like any mainstream party, would never introduce this kind of measure, (although, almost three quarters of the population wish to have it returned)so it is wasted on idealists like the top three. Unless the far-right, or UKIP are elected it is unlikely to be restored, because they, like you only seem to consider killers rights, which is one of the reasons why I would never vote them; they would be ideal for some caring person like yourself.

[silentmist]

Very fimiiar! However, I don"t know about you, silentmist, but in most murder cases, my only interest is with the victim, their friends and family; the killer, I give as much thought to his or her welfare as I would a maggot. Not only do I think of the dead person, and the circumstances in how they died but the spouse who will have to bring up their children on half the income, they are used too, the children that may have to be brought up by strangers, because both parents are dead, the homes that will be repossesed by the banks and building societies, perhaps ending up in tough council estates, because the victim"s family can"t afford the repayents on their home with only one wage coming in, the marriage break-ups, people take their own lives, because of the manner in which their loved ones died and all the other side effects thousands of people have had to endure, often through no fault of their own - JUST IN THE WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME! Have you ever considered this side of murder?

I have no doubt, you are caring, considerate, person. But don"t you think when you see killers laughing and joking in the dock as their deeds are being described by the prosecution council, that the possibilty of a couple of decades in jail, is not the answer? Would they still be treating the matter with such levity, if they were going to meet their maker in a month or so, if found guilty? I think you know the answer, really. Sometimes you have to fight "murder" with "murder" (if you wish to use that word); only difference one is guilty, and has the choice to kill, one is innocent, and doesn"t any choice. I hope that answers your question. All things considered, I think the murderers have got the better end of the deal.

I think Labour like any mainstream party, would never introduce this kind of measure, (although, almost three quarters of the population wish to have it returned)so it is wasted on idealists like the top three. Unless the far-right, or UKIP are elected it is unlikely to be restored, because they, like you only seem to consider killers rights, which is one of the reasons why I would never vote them; they would be ideal for some caring person like yourself.

The victim's dead. Killing the murderer isn't going to undo that. Neither will it undo the consequences for the victim's community. I would never consider a human being to be a maggot, no matter what they did. Appealing to the victim's communities desire for vengeance would ultimately end up harming society as it legitimises the 'eye for an eye' philosophy. Getting a sense of satisfaction from an act of violence puts everyone at increased risk. I wouldn't be moved by this killers defiant behaviour in the dock. Anyone who commits and act of murder is obviously not a reasonable person. If the act of murder brought pleasure to the murderer and the murderer is continuing to derive pleasure from that act, then they are a particular risk to other people and must be imprisoned. I wouldn't care to give an estimate as to the length of imprisonment. I have no idea if this hypothetical murderer would be less jovial in the dock if they were facing a death sentence. It's your caricature, you tell me. I disagree that sometimes you have to fight murder with murder. I'm not sure how one could fight an act of murder, millennia of capital punishment doesn't seem to have worked though. Anyone who is part of a murder isn't innocent. A murderer that acts on passion in the moment is less culpable that someone who murders after deliberation. Murder poisons everyone it touches, like all crime.

We used to have capital punishment in this country. It was stopped. Returning to that culture of state sanctioned sadism would be a massive step backwards for everyone. I think it would place the public at higher risk of murder, not lower. It would also put police officers at higher risk of attack too as the escalation in aggression manifested itself on the streets.

If we want criminals to be respectful, we have to teach them respect, by example. Prisons should be what you call 'holiday camps', punishment is an unfortunate habit from a blood thirsty past that I hope is consigned to the history books ASAP. For a criminal, being punished is a far easier option than learning that what you did was wrong and learning to have sympathy and empathy for those you find offensive. Punishment prevents that growth from happening. If you want someone to have empathy, you have to give it.

[Midas]

The victim's dead. Killing the murderer isn't going to undo that. Neither will it undo the consequences for the victim's community. I would never consider a human being to be a maggot, no matter what they did. Appealing to the victim's communities desire for vengeance would ultimately end up harming society as it legitimises the 'eye for an eye' philosophy. Getting a sense of satisfaction from an act of violence puts everyone at increased risk. I wouldn't be moved by this killers defiant behaviour in the dock. Anyone who commits and act of murder is obviously not a reasonable person. If the act of murder brought pleasure to the murderer and the murderer is continuing to derive pleasure from that act, then they are a particular risk to other people and must be imprisoned. I wouldn't care to give an estimate as to the length of imprisonment. I have no idea if this hypothetical murderer would be less jovial in the dock if they were facing a death sentence. It's your caricature, you tell me. I disagree that sometimes you have to fight murder with murder. I'm not sure how one could fight an act of murder, millennia of capital punishment doesn't seem to have worked though. Anyone who is part of a murder isn't innocent. A murderer that acts on passion in the moment is less culpable that someone who murders after deliberation. Murder poisons everyone it touches, like all crime.

We used to have capital punishment in this country. It was stopped. Returning to that culture of state sanctioned sadism would be a massive step backwards for everyone. I think it would place the public at higher risk of murder, not lower. It would also put police officers at higher risk of attack too as the escalation in aggression manifested itself on the streets.

If we want criminals to be respectful, we have to teach them respect, by example. Prisons should be what you call 'holiday camps', punishment is an unfortunate habit from a blood thirsty past that I hope is consigned to the history books ASAP. For a criminal, being punished is a far easier option than learning that what you did was wrong and learning to have sympathy and empathy for those you find offensive. Punishment prevents that growth from happening. If you want someone to have empathy, you have to give it.

After a considerable amount of deliberation I'm afraid I have to disagree with much of what you say about the death penalty, and I'm now fully in support of reintroducing it, certainly where premeditated murder or the murder of any official trying to carry out their duty, is involved; I do appreciate your point concerning the fact that a murderer who acts on passion on the spur of the moment is less culpable that one who murders after deliberation, however it shouldn't automatically relieve them of the ultimate consequence of their action. I'm also well aware of the fact that the death penalty has little deterrent effect, people who kill either not even thinking of the consequences or believing they'll not be caught, however that's only part of the picture, and if what I hear and read are to be believed, and I have no reason to think otherwise, the vast majority of close friends and relatives of murder victims would find the death penalty a good form of closure. I also believe that the high percentage of public support for the reintroduction of the death penalty can't be ignored.

I also disagree that prisons should be holiday camps! They need to be as tough and as uncomfortable as we can possibly make them, alongside which the learning you mention must also take place. The only way I can see that we can counter the huge amount of crime and anti-social behaviour in the UK is to be tough, damned tough, on those who commit it. Decades of liberalism certainly haven't worked!

[uncon]

I think my views on the Death Penalty are pretty well known.

If we take away the emotional or moral argument, it still remains flawed:

Fundamentally it seems to consist of people saying….”I know! Lets kill ‘em! If we kill people, we can show that killing people is wrong”

I really should love this idea as a principle….because if you take it to the same place then drug dealers will be given lots of drugs, people who rob jewellers get given diamonds and crazy people….well they still get ignored unless they kill people, deal drugs or break into jewellers.

[soloman]

I think my views on the Death Penalty are pretty well known.

If we take away the emotional or moral argument, it still remains flawed:

Fundamentally it seems to consist of people saying….”I know! Lets kill ‘em! If we kill people, we can show that killing people is wrong”

I really should love this idea as a principle….because if you take it to the same place then drug dealers will be given lots of drugs, people who rob jewellers get given diamonds and crazy people….well they still get ignored unless they kill people, deal drugs or break into jewellers.

I am afraid I don't follow your logic in the last sentence at all!
So do please explain how you would deal with the murderers etc., if there is to be no return to the death penalty.
The do-gooders have forced all sorts of easy regimes on the guilty, yet I see no sign of a reduction in serious crimes since the abolition of the Death Penalty, so maybe it was the answer afterall?

[uncon]

I am afraid I don't follow your logic in the last sentence at all!
So do please explain how you would deal with the murderers etc., if there is to be no return to the death penalty.
The do-gooders have forced all sorts of easy regimes on the guilty, yet I see no sign of a reduction in serious crimes since the abolition of the Death Penalty, so maybe it was the answer afterall?

It was a perfectly simple premise.

In fact I fail to see how I could make it simpler, but I will try because I am nice like that.

If we kill people that we believe have killed people then we dole out exactly the same as we believe they commited and gained from....death.

Working on the same logic...we punish people with what they committed and gained from.....that would be drugs to the drug dealer, diamonds to the jewel thief and money to the defrauding banker....call me cynical, but I would say it isn't actually a good policy although apparently a few are content with it and profiting quite happily

[soloman]

It was a perfectly simple premise.

In fact I fail to see how I could make it simpler, but I will try because I am nice like that.

If we kill people that we believe have killed people then we dole out exactly the same as we believe they commited and gained from....death.

Working on the same logic...we punish people with what they committed and gained from.....that would be drugs to the drug dealer, diamonds to the jewel thief and money to the defrauding banker....call me cynical, but I would say it isn't actually a good policy although apparently a few are content with it and profiting quite happily

So do please explain how you would deal with the murderers etc., if there is to be no return to the death penalty.
The do-gooders have forced all sorts of easy regimes on the guilty, yet I see no sign of a reduction in serious crimes since the abolition of the Death Penalty, so maybe it was the answer afterall?

Read more:

[Midas]

Working on the same logic...we punish people with what they committed and gained from.....that would be drugs to the drug dealer, diamonds to the jewel thief and money to the defrauding banker....call me cynical, but I would say it isn't actually a good policy although apparently a few are content with it and profiting quite happily

That's faulty logic. The correct way to see it should surely be that a convicted murderer is not given death but denied life, in just the same way that anyone found guilty of any crime should be denied certain rights, not given them! The liberal approach just hasn't worked; we need to make people aware that crime doesn't pay through increasingly harsh penalties for those who break the law.

[soloman]

That's faulty logic. The correct way to see it should surely be that a convicted murderer is not given death but denied life, in just the same way that anyone found guilty of any crime should be denied certain rights, not given them! The liberal approach just hasn't worked; we need to make people aware that crime doesn't pay through increasingly harsh penalties for those who break the law.

Thank you Midas - good common sense at last!

[Opinionated]

That's faulty logic. The correct way to see it should surely be that a convicted murderer is not given death but denied life, in just the same way that anyone found guilty of any crime should be denied certain rights, not given them! The liberal approach just hasn't worked...

Goodness me we're but I suppose we can just about argue this is going into where Labour could gain support by being "strong" on law and order, it would alienate their traditional and core base though and is the preserve of the Tories naturally.

we need to make people aware that crime doesn't pay through increasingly harsh penalties for those who break the law.

Yet you accept that the death penality does not work as a deterrent, so who has the faulty logic now? The death penalty is not about punishment it's about revenge pure and simple, now that may bring the victim's family some temporary sense of justice but it doesn't bring their loved one back. I agree with uncon, if we say it is wrong to take a life then it is just as wrong, if not more so, to sanction the State doing so!
Prison is not a holiday camp by the way that's a myth based largely on juvenile and remand centres not high security facilities, it's pretty grim and dehumanising by most accounts, a relativly recent parolee I happen to know joked to me that it is "basically Big Brother without the evictions"; but I know he had a hard time and was denied immediate medical attention for some time following a mini stroke, his crime by the way was unknowingly (according to him) bringing ilegal immigrants into the country in the back of his lorry.

[Midas]

Goodness me we're but I suppose we can just about argue this is going into where Labour could gain support by being "strong" on law and order, it would alienate their traditional and core base though and is the preserve of the Tories naturally.

You know how some threads wander, just like life, and it's sometimes best to keep people talking...... If you want to split off this part of the thread to keep it going and still get back on topic here though, please do so.

Yet you accept that the death penality does not work as a deterrent, so who has the faulty logic now? The death penalty is not about punishment it's about revenge pure and simple, now that may bring the victim's family some temporary sense of justice but it doesn't bring their loved one back. I agree with uncon, if we say it is wrong to take a life then it is just as wrong, if not more so, to sanction the State doing so!
Prison is not a holiday camp by the way that's a myth based largely on juvenile and remand centres not high security facilities, it's pretty grim and dehumanising by most accounts, a relativly recent parolee I happen to know joked to me that it is "basically Big Brother without the evictions"; but I know he had a hard time and was denied immediate medical attention for some time following a mini stroke, his crime by the way was unknowingly (according to him) bringing ilegal immigrants into the country in the back of his lorry.

I don't believe that it is faulty logic, because there are two other important aspects to the death penalty, the wishes and need for closure by the families and friends of the victim and significant public opinion, and I think that for certain categories of murder they play a very significant role and need to be taken into consideration. I also don't see that retribution (a better word than revenge) is necessarily a bad thing - why shouldn't society say "if you do this to me, I'll do the same back to you"?

Never having been in a prison, even as a visitor, I couldn't comment on the conditions other than as I've seen in the media, on TV and from a few friends who are in the criminal justice system, however the overall impression is that they're far from tough and time inside is considered a badge of belonging by many criminals. It's also very plain from re-offending rates for all types of crime that it doesn't have a great deal of deterrent effect. It's about time that the human rights of prisoners came way down the list; as it stands those liberals within the system seem determined that they should be given more consideration than those of their victims.

[octopus]

Goodness me we're but I suppose we can just about argue this is going into where Labour could gain support by being "strong" on law and order, it would alienate their traditional and core base though and is the preserve of the Tories naturally.
Yet you accept that the death penality does not work as a deterrent, so who has the faulty logic now? The death penalty is not about punishment it's about revenge pure and simple, now that may bring the victim's family some temporary sense of justice but it doesn't bring their loved one back. I agree with uncon, if we say it is wrong to take a life then it is just as wrong, if not more so, to sanction the State doing so!
Prison is not a holiday camp by the way that's a myth based largely on juvenile and remand centres not high security facilities, it's pretty grim and dehumanising by most accounts, a relativly recent parolee I happen to know joked to me that it is "basically Big Brother without the evictions"; but I know he had a hard time and was denied immediate medical attention for some time following a mini stroke, his crime by the way was unknowingly (according to him) bringing ilegal immigrants into the country in the back of his lorry.

I would disagree strongly, that it would alienate the hard core Labour party support - a lot of victims of violent crime are from poorer, run down areas, where labour do get a lot of support from; plus the vast majority of the UK population DO support this measure. I have know many labour supporters who support capital punishment. This thread is about making Labour electable again -WITH AROUND TWO THIRDS TO THREE QUARTERS IN FAVOUR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, THIS WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO DOING THIS. So in my opnion, this not off topic.

To do this, Labour would have to renegotiate the human rights act with the EU, as they wish to remain a part of it, whereas the far right parties and UKIP, who either have it in their manifestos, or have not ruled it out, would quit the EU if elected.

Of course with that shower we saw in the last Labour adminstration, none of this is very likely - I would more likely become Labour party chairman, sorry, chairperson. However, I think I know their supporters, a lot better than the likes of Jack Straw, David Milliband, Diane Abbot, Harriet Harman and the terrible twins, Gordon and Tony. Like immigration they are pig sick of nothing being done decade in decade out, and it is mainly Labour supporters that are effected with issues like this. The core base Tories tend to live in better areas, so, like the Labour party bosses, don"t really get the brunt of it, as someone living in a coucil estate. If they don"t, wake up and smell the coffee, Labour voters will carry on defecting to the "whoevers", as Gordon Brown described the far right; a lot of BNP support comes from former Labour voters, and I know one now that supports UKIP. Why? For the reasons I always state.

No Prison is not a hoilday camp (especialy for good people like Tony Martin and Nick Hogan) . However, if you had the choice betwen three square meals a day, a chance to study for a degree 9 (at tax payers expense), counciling and "do-gooders" like yourself - and being, robbed, tied up petrol poured over you - THEN SET ON FIRE AND LEFT TO DIE! Which would you choose? And would you not think twice before you took a life, if you thought you would lose your own if convicted of a crime like that? Ask anyboby that was around 50 odd years ago; the ones I speak too - SAY DEFINATELY A HUGE DETERENT! I think the fiqures at the time would prove them right, don"t you?

As for prison being dehumanising and degrading - GOOD! That is what I want to hear; a living hell, for these scum bags. However, if it becomes like a soviet labour camp or nazi concentration camp, then perhaps we have gone too far. Untill then, I am only concerned with the plight of their victims. Frankly, I couldn"t care less how badly, maggots, sorry, people such as I describe are treated.

[octopus]

The victim's dead. Killing the murderer isn't going to undo that. Neither will it undo the consequences for the victim's community. I would never consider a human being to be a maggot, no matter what they did. Appealing to the victim's communities desire for vengeance would ultimately end up harming society as it legitimises the 'eye for an eye' philosophy. Getting a sense of satisfaction from an act of violence puts everyone at increased risk. I wouldn't be moved by this killers defiant behaviour in the dock. Anyone who commits and act of murder is obviously not a reasonable person. If the act of murder brought pleasure to the murderer and the murderer is continuing to derive pleasure from that act, then they are a particular risk to other people and must be imprisoned. I wouldn't care to give an estimate as to the length of imprisonment. I have no idea if this hypothetical murderer would be less jovial in the dock if they were facing a death sentence. It's your caricature, you tell me. I disagree that sometimes you have to fight murder with murder. I'm not sure how one could fight an act of murder, millennia of capital punishment doesn't seem to have worked though. Anyone who is part of a murder isn't innocent. A murderer that acts on passion in the moment is less culpable that someone who murders after deliberation. Murder poisons everyone it touches, like all crime.

We used to have capital punishment in this country. It was stopped. Returning to that culture of state sanctioned sadism would be a massive step backwards for everyone. I think it would place the public at higher risk of murder, not lower. It would also put police officers at higher risk of attack too as the escalation in aggression manifested itself on the streets.

If we want criminals to be respectful, we have to teach them respect, by example. Prisons should be what you call 'holiday camps', punishment is an unfortunate habit from a blood thirsty past that I hope is consigned to the history books ASAP. For a criminal, being punished is a far easier option than learning that what you did was wrong and learning to have sympathy and empathy for those you find offensive. Punishment prevents that growth from happening. If you want someone to have empathy, you have to give it.

If we had the death penalty, the victim would probably be alive, very likely there would have been no crime commited - THAT IS WHY WE NEED IT! You speak of these people like you speak of me, and I speak of you; a world of difference, believe me. Would you burn an old man of 70 with an iron, in front of his wife - AND THEN THREATEN TO POUR BOILING WATER OVER THEIR SLEEPING GRAND DAUGHTER (last episode of BBC Crimewatch, I don"t know if you saw it!), would you beat a toddler to death, would you even let this kind of thought enter your head? And would just laugh it off in court? Of course not! That is why I referer to them as vermin! They are not human beings in my mind - not if they are prepared to commit vile crimes like that, and more often as that, just laugh it off.

If you give them a hundred years inside, it is no match, in terms of detrerent, as capital punishment - they still have hope. Their victims have no hope. frankly, Silentmist, you are trying to find their good side - GOOD LUCK, IN MOST CASES YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A LONG SEARCH, I"M AFRAID! Everybody, I speak too, almost without exception, Labour voters, in particular, are in favour of a return of the hangman; they still vote for their favourite party - BUT FOR HOW LONG?

I think we will have to disagree big time on this one, I"m afraid. But do try and think more of the victim, and less of these "poor underpriviged people" that have wrecked thousands of innocent lives.

[uncon]

So do please explain how you would deal with the murderers etc., if there is to be no return to the death penalty.
The do-gooders have forced all sorts of easy regimes on the guilty, yet I see no sign of a reduction in serious crimes since the abolition of the Death Penalty, so maybe it was the answer afterall?

Read more:

So people who don't share a belief in killing others are 'do-gooders'?

Hell yes...put me right there. If I am responsible for the death of one innocent person whether directly or through the support of the death penalty then that would make me an evil doer.

It costs less to imprison a man for life than to execute him after the requisite appeals have gone through

to return to the subject of the thread I am fascinated that both in this country and the US we are moving towards a more socialist view and Labour seems to have a problem with this. If we look at the leadership contest we see a party in absolute flux and with no vision at all. Stuck between various philosphical approaches...perhaps now would have been a good time for Kinnock!

[Opinionated]

You know how some threads wander, just like life, and it's sometimes best to keep people talking...... If you want to split off this part of the thread to keep it going and still get back on topic here though, please do so.

No Octopus has done a good job of making the case why it's on topic .

I don't believe that it is faulty logic, because there are two other important aspects to the death penalty, the wishes and need for closure by the families and friends of the victim...

I do not see how any punishment can give those left behind closure, I don't think there is such a thing when you've been robbed of a love one at the hands of someone else.

and significant public opinion, and I think that for certain categories of murder they play a very significant role and need to be taken into consideration.

Why in this case do you think absolute democracy should decide when in other areas you argue the public is not qualified to grasp the intricacies of a subject?

I also don't see that retribution (a better word than revenge) is necessarily a bad thing - why shouldn't society say "if you do this to me, I'll do the same back to you"?

because it doesn't work as a deterrent anyway and the problem with an eye for an eye is that everyone just ends up blind.

However, if you had the choice betwen three square meals a day, a chance to study for a degree (at tax payers expense), counciling and "do-gooders" like yourself - and being, robbed, tied up petrol poured over you - THEN SET ON FIRE AND LEFT TO DIE! Which would you choose?

Well anyone in their right mind given that choice would choose prison, but that assumes people consider such things before commiting murder of course they don't, no-one in their right mind commits pre-meditated murder and those who kill in self defence say aren't thinking about anything beyond the moment.

And would you not think twice before you took a life, if you thought you would lose your own if convicted of a crime like that? Ask anyboby that was around 50 odd years ago; the ones I speak too - SAY DEFINATELY A HUGE DETERENT! I think the fiqures at the time would prove them right, don"t you?

Actually no all the evidence shows that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent, murder is thankfully as rare today as it was then, in fact when you consider the population growth in that time, not including victims of terrorist attacks, murder is statistically commited less than before.

[Midas]

I do not see how any punishment can give those left behind closure, I don't think there is such a thing when you've been robbed of a love one at the hands of someone else.

Again I can only go on what I see and hear from people who have been in that position, but it does seem to be a recurring comment. I can also imagine that should I ever find myself in that position, I'm sure, at least I'm as sure as I can be, I'd find a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that perpetrator had received the same end as the victim.

Why in this case do you think absolute democracy should decide when in other areas you argue the public is not qualified to grasp the intricacies of a subject?

Because this isn't a 'technical' subject nor is it concerned with any area of government to which the public shouldn't have full knowledge. It's a subject which elicits strong feeling and one which has had very full airings over a considerable period of time so the public should be fully aware of the major pros and cons. As such I would be perfectly happy to abide by a majority public decision.

because it doesn't work as a deterrent anyway and the problem with an eye for an eye is that everyone just ends up blind.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point babe.

[ryoden]

I'm against inflicting suffering on another under any justification. The government takes on the 'parent' role and then has it's permission givers for committing abuse. Naturally, the 'child' (us) will learn that that is OK. The cycle of abuse becomes complete and acts out in perpetuity.

That is faulty logic, we are not children. Children are pre-programmed to learn by example, adults are not (well unless you count brainwashing and indoctrination) our brains function in different ways as we age. For instance if a relative of mine were murdered and then the criminal was executed I would not suddenly decide that it was ok for me to go out and kill the person who cut me up in his car for example, because I have a moral compass. The only reason I would take someone elses life deliberately would be in self defence (if necessary).

[uncon]

Sean Hodgson.

I could produce a long list of names, but lets do just one.

Therese de Simone was a good hard working girl of 22. She worked at the Gas board and she also did part time work as a barmaid (as I did to supplement my income years ago). She was raped...brutally. She was then effectively garotted with her own crucifix necklace and dumped in the body of her car.

A strange little man confessed. He was mentally ill, but his confession was accepted and his withdrawal of that confession ignored. He was imprisoned for 27 years as a murderer before DNA proved it wasn't him.

If Sean Hodgson had been hanged, then Miss De Simones family would not only have to deal with the death of her, but what would have been a further murder too. Not much closure there I would say.

I can't say this enough times - it is more expensive to go through the appeal process and execution, than it is to incarcerate a man for life....and you can't release a dead man if you are proved wrong.

[soloman]

Well the five candidates for the Labour leadership are on Question Time tonight 16 September 2010.

We could well see why they didn't win the election tonight, or maybe they have learnt something! I doubt it!

[uncon]

Well the five candidates for the Labour leadership are on Question Time tonight 16 September 2010.

We could well see why they didn't win the election tonight, or maybe they have learnt something! I doubt it!

I have to admit that the most interesting battle is that of King and Livingstone to me when we are looking at labour.

It was very telling when it was mentioned at PMQ's that Harman and her (I assume it is her wife as he was parachuted into a woman only constituency) have 7 votes between 2 of them

[Opinionated]

Again I can only go on what I see and hear from people who have been in that position, but it does seem to be a recurring comment. I can also imagine that should I ever find myself in that position, I'm sure, at least I'm as sure as I can be, I'd find a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that perpetrator had received the same end as the victim.

Oh don't get me wrong so I'm sure would I, infact I'm sure I'd want to break every international law against torture twice over, until I became Amnesty Internationals number one enemy - we're talking making the Spanish Inquisition look like tickle me elmo time! However that would be motivated by hate and anger and to give into it would debase and dehumanise me and that is why we shouldn't give in to a natural desire to inflict the highest form of retribution.

Because this isn't a 'technical' subject nor is it concerned with any area of government to which the public shouldn't have full knowledge. It's a subject which elicits strong feeling and one which has had very full airings over a considerable period of time so the public should be fully aware of the major pros and cons. As such I would be perfectly happy to abide by a majority public decision.

No but it's an emotive one and the law mustn't be about emotion it should be about facts and protecting society.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point babe.

Not for the first time sweety and I'm certain not the last -it's a deal!