Labour trying their hardest not to get elected then!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by brettarider, Jun 6, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Well turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas I wonder how many "core" voters they will lose with this little gem if they every get into power,

    In the speech, the Labour leader will outline plans to cut long-term unemployment and encourage employers to pay a "living wage", keeping the costs of in-work benefits down.
    He will pledge to restore the "contributory principle" to jobseeker's allowance, so that only people who have paid in "for significantly longer" than the current minimum of two years will be eligible.
    The party will look at whether to give more than the current £71-a-week rate to those who have contributed longest, he will say.
    Mr Miliband is expected to say: "People's faith in the system has been shaken by a system that appears to give a minority of people something for nothing and other people nothing for something.
    "Currently, after two years of work, someone is entitled to contributory jobseeker's allowance.
    "They get £71 per week, whether they've worked for two years or 40 years.
    "Two years of work is a short period to gain entitlement to extra help.
    "And £71 is in no sense a proper recognition of how much somebody who has worked for many decades has paid into the system.
    "A longer period of qualification would mean some new claimants would have to work longer than they expected before being entitled to extra support if they lose their job - but greater support for those who have worked for a longer time, providing real recognition of their contribution."

    BBC News - Ed Miliband: Labour would cap social security spending
  2. It's actually a vague acceptance of the fact that public support for the benefits side of the welfare side is at an all timer low.

    Local rags letters pages tend to run 5 to 1 against benefits et al at the moment..... people tend to be somewhat peeved that the total benefits a family could claim is capped at £500 a week when very few writers earn that much to support their own familiy
  3. Get on, the Liarbor Party's traditional supporters - doley scroungers, professional students, and all sorts of Lefty types who reckon its their Yumin rites to live off the State and off the back of hard working taxpayers as 'Social Parasites' and 'bludgers' as the Aussies call 'em.

    'Bone Idlers' and 'Work-shysters' is a Life Style choice for the Vicky Pollards and Waynes of society. If Mr Ed and the Labour Party decide to to a Right-about-turn on their supporters, then they will be f**ked at the next General Election in 2 years time.
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Were his lips moving at the time?

    You know - Lips Moving = Lies!
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Quite right,but has Red Ed consulted his Trade Union paymasters re:the content of his speech?Of course,it is only a speech and not a manifesto commitment(at the moment),and probably designed to hoodwink the less worldly-wise into thinking that Labour are serious about public spending in order to gain votes from the 'floating' voters(whoever they are).I do wonder sometimes whether any of the mainstream parties really want to win the next General Election;it does seem that they are trying to avoid office,for some reason.Of course,there's always UKIP...
  6. If you can look past your Daily Mail induced fug you might realise that most people on benefits are working and tend to want to stay that way, a Living wage is the way forward.
    • Like Like x 2

  7. How they achieve the living wage will be interesting. As its labour, it'll probably be a benefits payement.
  8. Most of the people inveighing against benefits and the unemployed, fail to realise that a largeish pool of vilified unemployed is a central plank of govt. policy and has been since the 80s. Fear of unemployment keeps wages low and neuters employment rights to the point where Cameron could openly speak of sweeping them all away.

    I wonder how many of the ranters on here would actually like to be in a position where their boss has the legal right to sack them without notice, on a mere whim or personal dislike.

  9. Waffle from Lying c**ts is just waffle. Cut the tax rate so people keep the same amount of money as they would get being paid a "Living Wage" now.

    £7.45 an hour for a 37.5 hour week equals a yearly take home of £12,697.30 after tax now. If labour actually said we will increase the tax allowance to £12k in our first Budget in Office. Then maybe I might consider them as a possible vote
  10. In the same way as there is no point in robbing someone who hasn't got anything , Labour will happily wait for another term or two for the Tories to repair the public finances , then get themselves re- elected courtesy of the BBC and the press and do exactly what they have done every time they've been in power , namely drain the coffers dry and systematically wreck the country .
    The Tories are not great by any stretch of the imagination , but they are by far the lesser of both evils .
    • Like Like x 6
  11. Lol. It's like watching a comedy show reading threads like this. You are mostly guaranteed a laugh although a lot of it is still a load of crap.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Just Labour testing the water with the public and the Comrades.

    Would the frothy left of the party let them get away with anything close to what they're hinting at? I doubt it

    They could always lower employment but making 0,000's of pointless non-jobs in the public sector . . . again!
  13. The 'frothy left' of the Labour party is now defined by thinking that it would be better if not every single aspect of the State was privatised. The bogeyman Left of 80s-Sun-headline memory is long dead, Blair ushered the last of them off the premises in about 1996.
    • Like Like x 1

  14. 60% of people getting a benefit in this country are in work and they get it because minimum wage has become the default wage, a subsidy to employers. A genuine living wage would be higher but that would stop employers, particularly high street retailers and caterers, creaming off the cash. You need only look at how T&Cs for firms like Next and M&S (I've seen both staff handbooks) have deterioated since Sunday trading became legal and the subsequent minimum wage legislation came in to see how, despite increased footprint and cumulative growth over many years, their costs have gone down and profits have gone up and likely into tax avoidance schemes.

    Waynes and Waynettas don't vote in the same proportion as other demographics. Like it or not Labour don't get in on a student vote. The 1970s student image is balls these days anyway, I met as many Tory boys as I did Che Guevaras while I was in higher education. Labour do have a large, stable constituency amongst reasonably well educated people with good jobs and incomes but who profess to have a social conscience that precludes them from ever considering voting Tory.

    Just as you get a large number of thick as shit Alf Garnett types that vote Conservative even though they are the very people the Boris Johnsons and Jacod Rees-Moggs of this world despise you get people you'd expect to vote Tory voting Labour.

    I happen to think that what Miliband has come out with makes sense. Having been employed for 27 years without a break and having paid more than my share I don't see why I should only get £71 pw were I unfortunate enough to need to claim JSA. Classing Labour's core vote as being the workshy and idle is niave at best. By doing this Labour will attract far more votes than they lose.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. You can increase tax allowances to £50,000 if you like. It doesnt help anyone if the employer is only paying them £12000 a year for working 37.5 hours on minimum wage.
    • Like Like x 1