Labour in Falkirk

[Alba gu Brath]

What the France do they do there? How can these guys be so incompetent?

 

And where is Johann Lamont? I thought she was meant to 'run' the Scottish party?

 

[ToadKiller Dog]

The blue Labour Party getting the police involved in Falkirk .

[Gorgiewave]

It'll still be a NO, so don't get your hopes up.

[ToadKiller Dog]

It'll still be a NO, so don't get your hopes up.

 

Wait until the Condems austerity welfare cuts hit home ( which blue labour are backing ) . The UK will be a much more divided and angry nation by the independence vote .

 

The Nos will win but I think it may be a good bit tighter .

[Auld Reekin']

Wait until the Condems austerity welfare cuts hit home ( which blue labour are backing ) . The UK will be a much more divided and angry nation by the independence vote .

 

The Nos will win but I think it may be a good bit tighter .

 

This is always the thing that gets me about those vociferous in support of the status-quo: if things were going great, and we were all shiny happy people, enjoying excellent health and longevity in a prosperous and near fully-employed Scotland, then I could understand their reluctance to contemplate any radical change. However, they're not, we're not, and it isn't...

[Gorgiewave]

This is always the thing that gets me about those vociferous in support of the status-quo: if things were going great, and we were all shiny happy people, enjoying excellent health and longevity in a prosperous and near fully-employed Scotland, then I could understand their reluctance to contemplate any radical change. However, they're not, we're not, and it isn't...

 

Why is it necessarily Westminster's fault? Maybe we live on the wrong planet, or maybe Scotland is too full of people who like to snipe at success and whose idea of equality is everybody being a depdendent helpless mediocrity.

[Auld Reekin']

Why is it necessarily Westminster's fault? Maybe we live on the wrong planet, or maybe Scotland is too full of people who like to snipe at success and whose idea of equality is everybody being a depdendent helpless mediocrity.

 

I'm not saying "it" is Westminster's fault, and I've not heard anyone in the SNP saying that either. Yes, there are a lot of problems in Scotland, just as there are in Spain and in many - if not most - other places, but things are getting worse and worse here, and will get worse still before they get better. Surely there has to be a better way for Scotland to be governed? Why are certain people so scared, so fearful of any change, and so lacking in confidence in the abilities and potential of Scotland and its people?

[Gorgiewave]

I'm not saying "it" is Westminster's fault, and I've not heard anyone in the SNP saying that either. Yes, there are a lot of problems in Scotland, just as there are in Spain and in many - if not most - other places, but things are getting worse and worse here, and will get worse still before they get better. Surely there has to be a better way for Scotland to be governed? Why are certain people so scared, so fearful of any change, and so lacking in confidence in the abilities and potential of Scotland and its people?

 

Because Scotland likes being a managed, dependent culture in which people receive a subsidy for everything and anything. People hate Margaret Thatcher because she hated that very same dependency mentality and because they (Scots) wanted to keep up the loss-making subsidised industrial wasteland and council house occupancy that prevailed before and which is so terribly beloved of brave new saltire-flying, T in the Park-attending young moron nationalists.

 

And because the traditional Scottish mentality has been resentment of success and "getting above yourself", rather than celebration of success.

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

 

 

Because Scotland likes being a managed, dependent culture in which people receive a subsidy for everything and anything. People hate Margaret Thatcher because she hated that very same dependency mentality and because they (Scots) wanted to keep up the loss-making subsidised industrial wasteland and council house occupancy that prevailed before and which is so terribly beloved of brave new saltire-flying, T in the Park-attending young moron nationalists.

 

And because the traditional Scottish mentality has been resentment of success and "getting above yourself", rather than celebration of success.

That shite made me smile.

[Auld Reekin']

Because Scotland likes being a managed, dependent culture in which people receive a subsidy for everything and anything. People hate Margaret Thatcher because she hated that very same dependency mentality and because they (Scots) wanted to keep up the loss-making subsidised industrial wasteland and council house occupancy that prevailed before and which is so terribly beloved of brave new saltire-flying, T in the Park-attending young moron nationalists.

 

And because the traditional Scottish mentality has been resentment of success and "getting above yourself", rather than celebration of success.

 

Some would say that all of the above is a sweeping generalisation, taken from an entrenched misanthropic, right-wing, and hard-line unionist perspective, and would therefore be inclined to dismiss it as any sort of balanced or reasoned contribution to the independence debate. However, I for one would maintain that perhaps it's taken the 1200 miles of distance, and however many years of absence it has been, between you and Scotland for you to be able to see clearly all that is wrong with this country and pinpoint exactly what's needed to address this*.

 

The funny thing is that you seem to have little positive to say about Spain either...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*Change nothing and carry on as before, it would seem... )

[JamboX2]

Big mess indeed. Falkirk CLP has been a mess for ages. Then again selection issues are not an issue exclusive to the Labour Party.

 

This policy was a UK wide one, therefore is the responsibility of the UK Party. The idea was good, but poorly thought through, the Party wanted more "ordinary" folk in the ranks, the Unions have a load of these "ordinary" people and it was felt that those who wanted a fast track in should come from fellow members of the Labour movement. Much as the Tory Central HQ picks the best bankers and the SNP their faourite SPADs. It's been the case in all parties for ages.

 

Fwiw Miliband dealt with this well. The Unions were pressganging folk in local pubs to get them to vote and rigged it for an all women list. Now I have no issues with Union membership and women lists, but Unite were far too forthright and have essentially bullied the local party here. Miliband's actions have been right and good in correcting this.

 

It's a mess, but it's been pretty much ignored by the public at large. It featured in last nights Question Time and folk asked why something more important wasn't being dealt with. It'll have little effect on the outcome of the referendum. Cameron's rants, almost foaming at the mouth about it, were hysterical and badly directed, showed him to be totally out of touch. I only wish Mr Salmond had had a chance to use it at FMQs to see how he'd have reacted.

 

What do people want from Labour? Genuine question - reality on the economy, or to be the UK ignatios of Spain / to advocate indy or union / to be pro-TU to the extent they are run by the old smoke filled rooms or not?

 

All parties have vested interests and over influential backers. The Tories have the City friends, the LibDems have the wealth of certain Peers and Industrialists, the Greens have pro-green industry and groups, the SNP have McColl, Souter and Farmer and the Labour Party have the TUs and some wealthy City folk. Do we all want state funding now? Because that's what this boils down to.

[TheMaganator]

 

Big mess indeed. Falkirk CLP has been a mess for ages. Then again selection issues are not an issue exclusive to the Labour Party.

 

This policy was a UK wide one, therefore is the responsibility of the UK Party. The idea was good, but poorly thought through, the Party wanted more "ordinary" folk in the ranks, the Unions have a load of these "ordinary" people and it was felt that those who wanted a fast track in should come from fellow members of the Labour movement. Much as the Tory Central HQ picks the best bankers and the SNP their faourite SPADs. It's been the case in all parties for ages.

 

Fwiw Miliband dealt with this well. The Unions were pressganging folk in local pubs to get them to vote and rigged it for an all women list. Now I have no issues with Union membership and women lists, but Unite were far too forthright and have essentially bullied the local party here. Miliband's actions have been right and good in correcting this.

 

It's a mess, but it's been pretty much ignored by the public at large. It featured in last nights Question Time and folk asked why something more important wasn't being dealt with. It'll have little effect on the outcome of the referendum. Cameron's rants, almost foaming at the mouth about it, were hysterical and badly directed, showed him to be totally out of touch. I only wish Mr Salmond had had a chance to use it at FMQs to see how he'd have reacted.

 

What do people want from Labour? Genuine question - reality on the economy, or to be the UK ignatios of Spain / to advocate indy or union / to be pro-TU to the extent they are run by the old smoke filled rooms or not?

 

All parties have vested interests and over influential backers. The Tories have the City friends, the LibDems have the wealth of certain Peers and Industrialists, the Greens have pro-green industry and groups, the SNP have McColl, Souter and Farmer and the Labour Party have the TUs and some wealthy City folk. Do we all want state funding now? Because that's what this boils down to.

Was Red Ed not basically put in power by the TUs?

I've always thought they picked the wrong brother.

I'm not a labour man but they need to sort themselves out and quickly. Like it or not there'll be some who'll vote YES next year if they think the Tories will get back in at the 2015 election.

[Alba gu Brath]

It'll still be a NO, so don't get your hopes up.

 

Not from you it won't. The folk in Madrid don't get a vote.

[Alba gu Brath]

Because Scotland likes being a managed, dependent culture in which people receive a subsidy for everything and anything. People hate Margaret Thatcher because she hated that very same dependency mentality and because they (Scots) wanted to keep up the loss-making subsidised industrial wasteland and council house occupancy that prevailed before and which is so terribly beloved of brave new saltire-flying, T in the Park-attending young moron nationalists.

 

And because the traditional Scottish mentality has been resentment of success and "getting above yourself", rather than celebration of success.

 

Really? The borrow now and pay later culture started with her. Seriously, Auld Mags increased the UK's level of borrowing as never before to pay for her tax cuts and 'free market' ideology. And you think only state owned industry enjoys lavish slappings of tax payers' money???!!

 

As to 'Scottish mentality' - you can't prove anything with that. Especially when Scots celebrate whatever success they get - be it beating France away, their team winning the cup or the SNP upsetting the odds to win the last election.

 

Man, what have we done to you? You really hate Scotland, don't you? Is it your Orange relatives? Or did the schemies turn on you when you went off to yon posh school?

 

Let it go... and anyway, what do you think of Labour's mess in Falkirk?

[JamboX2]

Was Red Ed not basically put in power by the TUs?

I've always thought they picked the wrong brother.

I'm not a labour man but they need to sort themselves out and quickly. Like it or not there'll be some who'll vote YES next year if they think the Tories will get back in at the 2015 election.

 

I agree. And Red-Ed got in due to the TU vote being in his favour, that voting system was brought into stop the abuse which happened under 1 member 1 vote where CLP selections were inundated with TU regional leaders popping in with boxes of votes. There's got to be a better way of doing it, but the electoral college is probably the fairest. The LibDems use a similar triple lock and it seems to do them no harm.

 

The Party at UK level is actually a well run machine, and the fact Ed kept the ship together after he won is testement to him, there were a lot of Blairites who were willing to go 2 terms in opposition to get the man they wanted. The party in Scotland too is better run now and Lamont is asserting herself on it and its direction. In many areas there are huge gulfs in policy between the Scottish and UK parties. The Scottish party is pretty poor in presentation.

 

As I've said on here before, people are not listening in Scotland because the SNP are very good in the attack and follow a line and hammer it home, even when it's been disproved or has no basis. At UK level the Party is struggling because the press are still largely for the Coalition, or at least in the majority of the tabloids and widely read papers.

 

I reckon 2015 will see a Labour win, a narrow one at that, possibly in coalition with the LibDems. I don't think Cameron will do well, I think his party want shot of him and Osbourne, they think he's too left for the Tories. On top of that no leader has improved his parties performance at the ballot box at a subsequent election when in government since Eden in 1955. Cameron is too tarnished as leader and PM to his government's record to do an Eden, who was the "fresh faced chap" replacing the tired old Churchill, who as Foreign Secretary was not as visible for the stagnant government he presided over. Hopefully Labour does win.

 

However, I don't think that'll play a part on the referendum outcome. If Yes picks up any momentum, and good momentum at that, in the next 6-8 months, No can kiss a win, or a decisive one goodbye.

[Alba gu Brath]

Big mess indeed. Falkirk CLP has been a mess for ages. Then again selection issues are not an issue exclusive to the Labour Party.

 

This policy was a UK wide one, therefore is the responsibility of the UK Party. The idea was good, but poorly thought through, the Party wanted more "ordinary" folk in the ranks, the Unions have a load of these "ordinary" people and it was felt that those who wanted a fast track in should come from fellow members of the Labour movement. Much as the Tory Central HQ picks the best bankers and the SNP their faourite SPADs. It's been the case in all parties for ages.

 

Fwiw Miliband dealt with this well. The Unions were pressganging folk in local pubs to get them to vote and rigged it for an all women list. Now I have no issues with Union membership and women lists, but Unite were far too forthright and have essentially bullied the local party here. Miliband's actions have been right and good in correcting this.

 

It's a mess, but it's been pretty much ignored by the public at large. It featured in last nights Question Time and folk asked why something more important wasn't being dealt with. It'll have little effect on the outcome of the referendum. Cameron's rants, almost foaming at the mouth about it, were hysterical and badly directed, showed him to be totally out of touch. I only wish Mr Salmond had had a chance to use it at FMQs to see how he'd have reacted.

 

What do people want from Labour? Genuine question - reality on the economy, or to be the UK ignatios of Spain / to advocate indy or union / to be pro-TU to the extent they are run by the old smoke filled rooms or not?

 

All parties have vested interests and over influential backers. The Tories have the City friends, the LibDems have the wealth of certain Peers and Industrialists, the Greens have pro-green industry and groups, the SNP have McColl, Souter and Farmer and the Labour Party have the TUs and some wealthy City folk. Do we all want state funding now? Because that's what this boils down to.

 

Was speaking a friend of a friend recently - a serving RAF man and 'old Labour' supporter to the point of being a republican and socialist - who was complaining about the front runner apparently being a bit of an IRA supporter. Not sure if it's the Karie Murphy lass who Unite want in but he was disgusted anyway. Why be a Irish Republican and be falling over to represent a Unionist party and to swear allegience to the Queen while opposing Scottish self-determination?

 

Suffice to say, Labour are up to their necks in cac. The funny thing is that Lamont, the 'Scottish leader' is nowhere to be seen or heard. Has she any power at all over the 'Scottish Party'?

 

What do I want from Labour? Probably the kind of balls that saw the NHS set up. Our finances weren't much better after WWII than then are now and yet we managed to set up this magnificient institution. Labour need independence before they recapture that kind of spirit again.

[JamboX2]

Really? The borrow now and pay later culture started with her. Seriously, Auld Mags increased the UK's level of borrowing as never before to pay for her tax cuts and 'free market' ideology. And you think only state owned industry enjoys lavish slappings of tax payers' money???!!

 

As to 'Scottish mentality' - you can't prove anything with that. Especially when Scots celebrate whatever success they get - be it beating France away, their team winning the cup or the SNP upsetting the odds to win the last election.

 

Man, what have we done to you? You really hate Scotland, don't you? Is it your Orange relatives? Or did the schemies turn on you when you went off to yon posh school?

 

Let it go... and anyway, what do you think of Labour's mess in Falkirk?

 

I don't think Scotland is as good as folk in Yes make out. Then again I don't think the UK is particularly great either. Scottish politics are childish and immature, from all sides. We have deep seated cultural problems with sectarianism. We have deep seated issues with drinking and poor diet which is killing us. We can't own up to our own mistakes and failings either. Holyrood was designed, and has the power to correct these issues. It's done bugger all to really correct these things. We've had it a generation. Long enough to make change begin. But nope, nothing major or lasting. I keep being told by friends who are Yes folk that it'll help us realise these failings and correct them and drop the blame culture. Well frankly that's rubbish. Blaming others needn't exist as it stands, and failing to see our own faults should be self evident, not only once we are independent.

[JamboX2]

Was speaking a friend of a friend recently - a serving RAF man and 'old Labour' supporter to the point of being a republican and socialist - who was complaining about the front runner apparently being a bit of an IRA supporter. Not sure if it's the Karie Murphy lass who Unite want in but he was disgusted anyway. Why be a Irish Republican and be falling over to represent a Unionist party and to swear allegience to the Queen while opposing Scottish self-determination?

 

Wow. How the hell am I meant to answer that? I don't know the candidate nor her political leanings. I suppose Irish republicans believe in Irish Unionism (ie Uniting North and South Ireland) whilst she would back the Union on the Island of Great Britain. Does that help?

[Alba gu Brath]

Wow. How the hell am I meant to answer that? I don't know the candidate nor her political leanings. I suppose Irish republicans believe in Irish Unionism (ie Uniting North and South Ireland) whilst she would back the Union on the Island of Great Britain. Does that help?

 

Ho-ho! You don't need to. Just thought I'd through in some third-hand insider knowledge...

[Craig_]

Because Scotland likes being a managed, dependent culture in which people receive a subsidy for everything and anything. People hate Margaret Thatcher because she hated that very same dependency mentality and because they (Scots) wanted to keep up the loss-making subsidised industrial wasteland and council house occupancy that prevailed before and which is so terribly beloved of brave new saltire-flying, T in the Park-attending young moron nationalists.

 

And because the traditional Scottish mentality has been resentment of success and "getting above yourself", rather than celebration of success.

 

Bloody hell, you've got a few patatas bravas on your shoulder!

 

No wonder you left the country!

[TheMaganator]

The whole situation explained:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/the-labour-falkirk-controversy-explained-2013070474801

 

Sorry, made me laugh!

(No offence Jambox2)

[Walter Kidd]

The Labour Party is dead. Miliband is crippled by union dogma and we shall have 20 to 30 years of Tory rule to contend with.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Until we get the option of voting for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballot paper there is not true democracy. Politicians are self interested tossers that we are better off without.

[JamboX2]

Was speaking a friend of a friend recently - a serving RAF man and 'old Labour' supporter to the point of being a republican and socialist - who was complaining about the front runner apparently being a bit of an IRA supporter. Not sure if it's the Karie Murphy lass who Unite want in but he was disgusted anyway. Why be a Irish Republican and be falling over to represent a Unionist party and to swear allegience to the Queen while opposing Scottish self-determination?

 

Suffice to say, Labour are up to their necks in cac. The funny thing is that Lamont, the 'Scottish leader' is nowhere to be seen or heard. Has she any power at all over the 'Scottish Party'?

 

What do I want from Labour? Probably the kind of balls that saw the NHS set up. Our finances weren't much better after WWII than then are now and yet we managed to set up this magnificient institution. Labour need independence before they recapture that kind of spirit again.

 

Mate, read my posts in full, you've edited this so I'm replying to what's been added. The policy was a UK wide agreement between the UK party and the Unions. Meaning it's a UK HQ issue, to which Lamont will no doubt be involved in. Same would have applied in Wales. I don't get why people seek to attack Scottish Labour for being a UK wide party, with UK wide issues, which are dealt with by the UK wide HQ.

 

Please, stop with this nonsense. You Yes folk seem to think everything will start at year 0 for Scotland, for parties and people. It won't. The Leadership of the Scottish Labour Party will be the same or similar to now. The policies won't be much different. The attitude will be hostile to the SNP, and the SNP will win in 2016 due to the electoral arthmatic facing it. It's a naivity which does your side no good. Things move on, politics change. I want big change too, but not all things are achieved in grand gestures. Nobody needs independence to discover anything. The things which drive Labour today drove them in 1997 and 1999 and in 1974 and 1964 and 1945 and 1924 and way back beyond into it's 3rd party stage. The party's core beliefs are on it's membership cards, social justice and the protection of workers rights, are the basic points. That hasn't changed. Labour under Blair and Brown acted through stealth because they were warped by Thatcher's time to make them think it had to be stealthily done and fairness was dead. Naieve and stupid.

 

Labour is right to question universalism now. Targeting benefits is generally a better way. Danish subsidised childcare works on a sliding scale in terms of what people earn = how much the state pays. Nordic and Germanic social democracy is based on targeting. Universalism was a Thatcherite creation to pacify the industrial working class when things began to go sour for them. Prior to 1979 most benefits beyond state education and national health care was targeted to an extent. It's the basis of a contributory welfare state. And I reckon it works better than the universal system which gives rich folk, regardless of age, the benefit of being better off due to having money to pay it but not needing to. Whilst the poorest get moderate ill-suited universal support which fails to address their individual needs.

 

The Labour Party at UK level are building inclusive and far reaching policies on issues from the Living Wage, a National Care Service, more infrastructure spending, changes to the way we enforce NMW to protect migrants and national workers, on how we invest in Industry with a move to National and Regional investment banks. These are all huge steps in the right direction to rebalance the economy and make life better for all in the UK. Scottish Labour are looking at new policies and new ideas also, but with the Scottish elections a wee bit off, 3 years, I don't think they want to play all the cards yet. Which is fair. Salmond and Cameron were equally airy fairy in the run up to their winnig elections.

[JamboX2]

The whole situation explained:

http://www.thedailym...d-2013070474801

 

Sorry, made me laugh!

(No offence Jambox2)

 

I saw it earlier this week and, honestly, really did like it. The Mash is spot on. The party is a mess at times, and it sells itself short, far too often.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

No coincidence that Tom Watson resigned yesterday.

[JamboX2]

Until we get the option of voting for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballot paper there is not true democracy. Politicians are self interested tossers that we are better off without.

 

Agreed.

 

No coincidence that Tom Watson resigned yesterday.

 

The candidate being reconsidered was his office assisstant and he's the chief election co-ordinator for the party. Was the right thing to do.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Looking forward to Polly Toynbee writing about this.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Looking forward to Polly Toynbee writing about this.

 

 

Time for ye olde clothes peg to adorn Polly's nose again!

[Jambo-Chappy]

 

The Labour Party is dead. Miliband is crippled by union dogma and we shall have 20 to 30 years of Tory rule to contend with.

We really need a new workers party. Agree Labour is finished. Credibility very low, and not unlike the other parties in policy. Unions have never been more needed than today, but the huge super unions do very little for the worker.

[ToadKiller Dog]

June 2013 is a milestone in the history of the Labour Party in its politics and Ideology .

 

It's the month that Mr Ed and Balls gave up any pretence of resistance to the Condems austerity agenda .

They stated in speeches they will not seek to change or reverse any of the Condems welfare cuts .

Labour has abandoned for good the principle of universalism which was a part of the foundations of the welfare state .

Balls will take back the winter fuel payments from 600'000 pensioners they class as rich enough . It claws back a minuscule figure . But the symbolism of such an act says all .

 

Blue labours plans are basically tax adjustments for the wealthy benefit cuts and evictions for the poor .

It's laughable Mr Ed trying to evoke the spirit of 45 and argue that Blue Labour acceptance of the Tory Austerity plans is anything similar to the labour government of 45 .

The principal of universalism was at the Heart of the 45 government , it removed stigmatisation of the poor , it made everyone feel they had a stake in the welfare state and from that the nations good .

It's why the NHS still has mass public support at all levels .

 

Labour are prepared to go hand and hand as they lurch right with the other main stream UK parties toward selectivism and stigmatisation in general .

 

The Labour of 45 stood for the right of working people to have a job , the right to decent housing and the right to health and it was societies duty to provide such .

 

It's sad that the Labour leadership in Scotland and down south can see no alternative to cuts .

There was a time when good labour people stood up to the reactionary politics of the Tory party .

 

The Labour Party is about pandering to ignorance to win elections these days .

 

Our ancestors struggled to get welfare to get workers rights to get trade unions and from that created the Labour Party .

 

The current Labour Party is not representing the ordinary worker in Scotland or the UK its a shame most of the public are distracted by trivialities and crap telly to see the real threat they are facing as UK politics has no real opposition to the right .

 

Time for the Unions to reform , remove themselves from the Labour Party and rebuild a proper labour movement , but I won't hold my breathe .

 

It's easier to ignorantly have a go at poor folk as work shy , benefit cheats .

[dobmisterdobster]

Because Scotland likes being a managed, dependent culture in which people receive a subsidy for everything and anything. People hate Margaret Thatcher because she hated that very same dependency mentality and because they (Scots) wanted to keep up the loss-making subsidised industrial wasteland and council house occupancy that prevailed before and which is so terribly beloved of brave new saltire-flying, T in the Park-attending young moron nationalists.

 

And because the traditional Scottish mentality has been resentment of success and "getting above yourself", rather than celebration of success.

 

Coming from the guy who lives in a country who spent other people's money on building highways and airports which were then mothballed.

 

Always glass houses with you.

[dobmisterdobster]

And where is Johann Lamont? I thought she was meant to 'run' the Scottish party?

 

Lamont is just a PR peon for the Labour party in the gerrymandered shortbread senate.

 

Whenever she has tried to assert her own ideas, she has been put back in her place by Labour MPs.

[JamboX2]

June 2013 is a milestone in the history of the Labour Party in its politics and Ideology .

 

It's the month that Mr Ed and Balls gave up any pretence of resistance to the Condems austerity agenda .

They stated in speeches they will not seek to change or reverse any of the Condems welfare cuts .

Labour has abandoned for good the principle of universalism which was a part of the foundations of the welfare state .

Balls will take back the winter fuel payments from 600'000 pensioners they class as rich enough . It claws back a minuscule figure . But the symbolism of such an act says all .

 

 

The position on pensioners benefits, in this case winter fuel payments, is something left wing think tanks have been calling for for years. It affects the 5% of pensioners who pay high rate income tax and can afford the hit. Why should poorer people loose their libararies, see class sizes increase for their children and see their local services cut so a wealthy pensioner who has made a lot from society can get a cheaper winter fuel bill than they themselves receive? If we believe in benefits for all, universalism, regardless of means or age, then we should believe that the poorest working families get a winter fuel allowance also. I see no issue in removing a benefit from those who can afford it.

On your point on Universalism being the core of the Welfare state, it certainly is. It has been it's core since around the mid-1980s. Prior to that it was based on the contributory principle where you got what you paid in. Not everyone in 1948 received Child Benefit. Universalism has been a con. It provides all with a benefit, some people do not actually need that, and it dilutes and lessens the amount free for the worst off. I think targeting benefits have been proved to be better. In Denmark, for example, child care is subsidised, but on a scale of what you earn, more you earn, more you pay and less the state provides, what's wrong with that? It focuses resources where they are needed the most.

The main, and most constant, universal "benefits" have been a right to Health Care and a right to Primary and Secondary education. Why should access to a winter fuel payment be open to all pensioners and a right, when it takes money out of services which will be better served at reducing poverty. Lets be clear, this change takes the money away from those pensioners in Belgravia and the like, not Wester Hailles or Dalry or Brixton. That is not the aim, that is not the policy.

 

 

Blue labours plans are basically tax adjustments for the wealthy benefit cuts and evictions for the poor .

It's laughable Mr Ed trying to evoke the spirit of 45 and argue that Blue Labour acceptance of the Tory Austerity plans is anything similar to the labour government of 45 .

The principal of universalism was at the Heart of the 45 government , it removed stigmatisation of the poor , it made everyone feel they had a stake in the welfare state and from that the nations good .

It's why the NHS still has mass public support at all levels .

 

 

Labour in 1945 and 1997 accepted the spending plans of the then government and done a lot. They accept the amount they will spend, what else they do is open to them. For example, they could come in abolish the bedroom tax and then pass a bankers bonus tax. it doesn't limit their power to act differently. The Universalism point I answered above. The original principle of the welfare state was contributory. You got what you paid in. It's why for years women who left work to raise a family lost a lot of a money in their state pension as they never earned to pay in via their NI. National Insurance and the Welfare state changed massively between 1984 and 2000. Away from Contribution, based on full employment, to Uniservsalism and no guarantee of work. NI is no longer tied to your benefits, it pays for tanks and trains and 3rd world aid. It was designed to pay your pension, unemployment benefit and the like.

 

 

Labour are prepared to go hand and hand as they lurch right with the other main stream UK parties toward selectivism and stigmatisation in general .

 

 

Yup, Red-Ed the Union Baron is marching Labour and the UK to a thatcherite utopia. If it was the people's Dave then I might be able to understant that as he was a Blairite...

 

 

The Labour of 45 stood for the right of working people to have a job , the right to decent housing and the right to health and it was societies duty to provide such .

 

 

The pledge for a million new homes, the demand from Chukka Umma to move back to full employment and a degree of state involvement in the business and it's commitment to health care, especially in England with a commitment to reverse the NHS changes of Lansley.... must've imagined these well reported commitments and speeches.

 

 

It's sad that the Labour leadership in Scotland and down south can see no alternative to cuts .

There was a time when good labour people stood up to the reactionary politics of the Tory party .

 

 

Scottish Labour get slammed every week in Holyrood for opposing SNP changes and cuts, and also at Westminster the UK wide Party gets hit for the same stuff. It can't be both.

 

 

The Labour Party is about pandering to ignorance to win elections these days .

 

 

Just like all parties. Pandering won the SNP their election, remember a commitment to abolish student debt and to get shot of the council tax before the revaluation of rates in 2007? The "Vote for Alex Salmond's SNP"? The Tories and their wee green tree logo, a commitment to green policies and international aid and the NHS? The Liberals and their "we are the only honest party in the UK on cuts"? It's all pandering. Ideas don't win peoples minds anymore. They want moddycuddled sadly, and when people act like idiots and complain when conviction rears its head then they need be prepared for the outcome, which is drivel politics and abusive elites.

 

 

Our ancestors struggled to get welfare to get workers rights to get trade unions and from that created the Labour Party .

 

The current Labour Party is not representing the ordinary worker in Scotland or the UK its a shame most of the public are distracted by trivialities and crap telly to see the real threat they are facing as UK politics has no real opposition to the right .

 

Time for the Unions to reform , remove themselves from the Labour Party and rebuild a proper labour movement , but I won't hold my breathe .

 

It's easier to ignorantly have a go at poor folk as work shy , benefit cheats .

 

The Unions here have technically broken electoral laws on candidate selections here by pressganging union members here. They are a valued part of Labour and the Labour Party is generally been more called the Labour Movement for years.

 

Labour, the Party and the Unions have led the charge against this whole "shirkers" thing. I have heard nothing from Labour to suggest otherwise. What people want, or seem to want, is for Labour to demand renationalisation and take Britain and Scotland back to pre-Thatcher. They can't. No one can. Britain's left has to adapt the current position to suit it. That means things like investment banks for industry and infrastructure, a living wage, a return to contributory benefit systems and a commitment to full employment or as near as possible.

 

I think Labour is in the same place the Tories were down south for 10-15 years. No one will listen, no one wants to, and everyone is beginning to hate the government.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Who would have thunk it the resident labour spin doctor spinning things to suit his party's current position .

 

Getting back to Universalism you should read up on the Jimmy Reid Foundations (proper left wing think tank ) recent study .

They argue where social services are rationed for those on lowest income the quality of those services decline .

Universal benefits are more efficient than means tested , cheaper to operate and less vulnerable to fraud .

Labour are proposing to introduce or reintroduce in selectivism in child benefit ,I don't think it will end there .

I remember the abuse those with a dinner ticket got at schools , I can see the stigmatism that's coming up from poor being directed by the job centre to foodbanks current Tory policy to do this and scrap crisis loans will Labour reverse this ?

 

Why won't Labour or the SNP come out and say they will reverse the bedroom tax ,( already rent arrears going through the roof and evictions starting to take place ) . They won't because its a populist policy due to ignorance rather than a sensible policy .

 

The 600,000 so called wealthy pensioners accounts to ?100m UK wide a tiny minuscule part of the welfare budget to accuse them of taking money from schools and kids is a nonsense . Scrapping trident would save much more . Making business such as Amazon pay the correct amount of taxes etc .

 

The Pessimism of main stream politics is disappointing . We need to see a party that challenges the reactionary views growing on Immigration , racism,the disabled , towards those struggling on benefits . Labour nor the SNP are really standing up for those at the bottom .

That challenges austerity ( only for those at the bottom of course , sales of Luxury cars, jets rocketing ) as being the only way .

 

I don't really have knowledge of Falkirk , the Unions view is certainly not the same as the labour party's .

I know how the Labour Party operated in its high level days where I grew up and it wasn't nice .

 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

So Ed Miliband was parachuted into the position by the unions and, now that he feels comfortable, he has jettisoned them in a vain attempt to appeal to middle England. If the unions had any sense, they'd quickly stop funding a party that refused to represent their interests. Labour could be in deep trouble after this.

[JamboX2]

So Ed Miliband was parachuted into the position by the unions and, now that he feels comfortable, he has jettisoned them in a vain attempt to appeal to middle England. If the unions had any sense, they'd quickly stop funding a party that refused to represent their interests. Labour could be in deep trouble after this.

 

You do know they were pretty close to breaking the law on this? What's wrong in moving to a system where workers opt in to fund Labour?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So Ed Miliband was parachuted into the position by the unions and, now that he feels comfortable, he has jettisoned them in a vain attempt to appeal to middle England. If the unions had any sense, they'd quickly stop funding a party that refused to represent their interests. Labour could be in deep trouble after this.

I note that Polly Clothes Peg was bemoaning the fact that only 1.1% of the population of the UK belongs to a political party. Since she lives in the Westminster bubble as primary Labour cheerleader, she doesn't get that the vast majority of people think political parties are shite.

[Patrick Bateman]

You do know they were pretty close to breaking the law on this? What's wrong in moving to a system where workers opt in to fund Labour?

 

How close? The unions will be seething about this, make no mistake. As Labour's biggest funder, why would they continue to support them if their views are no longer interested? They'll walk away, Labour's finances will take a huge hit, and the unions might start supporting other parties. Even if the unions stick by labour, I can see them turning on Miliband and in any case, the whole episode makes him look like a weak leader.

[JamboX2]

How close? The unions will be seething about this, make no mistake. As Labour's biggest funder, why would they continue to support them if their views are no longer interested? They'll walk away, Labour's finances will take a huge hit, and the unions might start supporting other parties. Even if the unions stick by labour, I can see them turning on Miliband and in any case, the whole episode makes him look like a weak leader.

 

The file hasn't been disclosed to the public, but that's because it's in police hands for investigation. Alleged illegality is a serious issue in party funding.

 

Union bosses will be furious, will union members? I don't know. It gives people who are in unions a choice to fund Labour or not. If you're a CWU member and vote SNP or Conservative you'll no longer feel as though Union membership is hostile to your political views by your membership funding a party you don't vote for. That's a progressive move and mirrors other similar systems in Europe between Labour parties and Unions.

 

Labour stands to loose ?5 million of the current ?8million. But it makes the party work harder to gain the backing of Union members and their money, which again can only be good. They need, as does every party, to open up the manner in which they selec candidates, be it women or working class men and women.

 

Had he failed to act he'd be weaker. This taking a stand, but reinforcing the commitment to strong relationships to Union members is a balance and a move forward. We need to move away from people looking at Labour and seeing 5 Union bosses in a smoke filled room with the Labour leadership dictating policy. That isn't democratic at all. We need a more open relationship between these two parts of the Labour movement. I'd bring back votes on policy at conference myself, but I will wait to see where this leads before jumping on the bandwagon against it. Will they withdraw their backing? I don't think they will, or not all will, I can see Serwotka walking away with the CWU, but I don't think Unite will. Even if they did, should it not be the right of Union members to choose which party they affiliate with? Is that not proper union democracy?

[ToadKiller Dog]

Labour can spin all they like , it's another example of the labour leadership scared to stand up to the right wing media lead narrative which leads most political Discusion .

Still waiting for Labour to say they will reverse the Condems Austerity attacks and demonising of the poor . Why won't Edd say he will scrap the bedroom tax ? .

 

That said I have argued for the Unions to cut funding from Labour since Bliars time . So this could be a good thing ends the closed shop hold Labour has on Unions .

 

It gives space for creating a viable proper socialist alternative like Die linke in Germany ( that's if they can get out from enjoying fighting amongst themselves ) there will now be millions of union members open to the argument and debate , but as I expect socialists as ever will miss the boat

 

Labour will replace the money list from unions by wooing the business community .

[Coco]

Labour can spin all they like , it's another example of the labour leadership scared to stand up to the right wing media lead narrative which leads most political Discusion .

Still waiting for Labour to say they will reverse the Condems Austerity attacks and demonising of the poor . Why won't Edd say he will scrap the bedroom tax ? .

 

That said I have argued for the Unions to cut funding from Labour since Bliars time . So this could be a good thing ends the closed shop hold Labour has on Unions .

 

It gives space for creating a viable proper socialist alternative like Die linke in Germany ( that's if they can get out from enjoying fighting amongst themselves ) there will now be millions of union members open to the argument and debate , but as I expect socialists as ever will miss the boat

 

Labour will replace the money list from unions by wooing the business community .

 

Bob Crow said at lunchtime that he and some others are setting up a new political party.

 

I'm sure that lots of people will want to vote for the ?145k per year Bob Crow who lives in social housing, depriving someone of the housing that they might actually need.

[The People's Chimp]

Not from you it won't. The folk in Madrid don't get a vote.

 

An interesting point, made by you (or A.N.Other) in another thread as well. Seems like you're gloating that Scots living outside of Scotland won't get a vote?

[JamboX2]

Labour can spin all they like , it's another example of the labour leadership scared to stand up to the right wing media lead narrative which leads most political Discusion .

Still waiting for Labour to say they will reverse the Condems Austerity attacks and demonising of the poor . Why won't Edd say he will scrap the bedroom tax ? .

 

That said I have argued for the Unions to cut funding from Labour since Bliars time . So this could be a good thing ends the closed shop hold Labour has on Unions .

 

It gives space for creating a viable proper socialist alternative like Die linke in Germany ( that's if they can get out from enjoying fighting amongst themselves ) there will now be millions of union members open to the argument and debate , but as I expect socialists as ever will miss the boat

 

Labour will replace the money list from unions by wooing the business community .

 

There was the Trade Unions partnership with Solidarity in the last Scottish elections and in the 2010 General for Westminster. The choice is there for the Unions. I still think that it is right for it to be an opt-in system when it comes to party donations. If you were (or indeed are) a union member and you clearly have no liking for Labour surely this move allows you the political leverage to take your money and "backing" elsewhere. You're other points are off topic, but sadly I think Labour's leadership have gambled on the assumption that the bedroom tax will have run its course by 2015, meaning that the job then will be, as you say repeal (or "amendment") and looking at the 1 million homes pledge to rectify it.

 

Labour's position today has been to propose this as part of wider change, limiting MPs in 2nd jobs on earnings and party political funding reform. Maybe this is pushing us ever more to a European style in terms of funding. But personally, I reckon the mainstream unions, Unite, Unison and maybe the like of CWU will stay as Labour's principal backers, as I don't think Watson would have resigned and the dossier be given to the Scottish Police Service if it wasn't for some form of illegality.

 

I'd welcome a party like Die Linke in the UK. I'd welcome a move to AMS or STV for Westminster in terms of elections. Coalition makes more sense, it creates greater stability and brings about more cooperative politics. A Die Linke in coalition with Labour in government wouldn't be a bad thing, and when you look at Europe, be it Norway or Denmark or Spain, social democratic parties do work well in government with parties of a more socialist persuasion. See no reason why that would fail here.

[The Comedian]

I've just read Bob Crowes press release.

 

 

Not exactly mincing his words.

[Sarah O]

The ahem "Scottish" Labour party are a joke.

The "Scottish" Conservatives -

The "Scottish" Liberal Democrats?

 

Is there actually a decent party out there?

[Alba gu Brath]

If we believe in benefits for all, universalism, regardless of means or age, then we should believe that the poorest working families get a winter fuel allowance also. I see no issue in removing a benefit from those who can afford it

 

- That's what taxes are for. Tax the rich more so we avoid the trouble of means testing everyone.

 

Your fondness for Labour is touching but they are a shadow of their former selves. Even as old Labour, while they may have retained 'socialist' principles, they were bloated, complacent and corrupt - hopefully the SNP can avoid this. They jumped from pillar to post on some issues. Like building nuke power stations and then opposing it in the 80s. I can mind seeing the likes of George Robertson on anti-racist and anti-nuke demos before he got a whiff of the 'real-politik'. At the same time they also bizarrely had bigots like Sam Campbell from Midlothian ranting about Papists at Orange rallies.

 

There's so much about Labour that makes them redundant as a progressive poltical force. Much much more than the Iraq War debacle.

 

Add to that the wipeout at the last Scots election which saw them without a plan B when their 'big beasts' were sent packing and left them to fill whatever seats they got with Z-listers. So much so that the likes of Kezia Dugdale and Sarwar are portrayed as 'bright young things'!

 

But to get back to the OP - what on earth is Lamont doing? Why is the Scottish leader, with remit for MPs in Scotland as well as MSPs, nowhere to be seen nor heard? She's been pretty lame as leader so far but this surely has weakened her further.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Best piece I've read on Labour/the unions is surprisingly by Tim Stanley of the Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100225589/if-ed-miliband-betrays-the-unions-itll-leave-labour-as-just-a-neo-liberal-party-led-by-a-sad-man-with-a-lisp/

[JamboX2]

If we believe in benefits for all, universalism, regardless of means or age, then we should believe that the poorest working families get a winter fuel allowance also. I see no issue in removing a benefit from those who can afford it

 

- That's what taxes are for. Tax the rich more so we avoid the trouble of means testing everyone.

 

Your fondness for Labour is touching but they are a shadow of their former selves. Even as old Labour, while they may have retained 'socialist' principles, they were bloated, complacent and corrupt - hopefully the SNP can avoid this. They jumped from pillar to post on some issues. Like building nuke power stations and then opposing it in the 80s. I can mind seeing the likes of George Robertson on anti-racist and anti-nuke demos before he got a whiff of the 'real-politik'. At the same time they also bizarrely had bigots like Sam Campbell from Midlothian ranting about Papists at Orange rallies.

 

There's so much about Labour that makes them redundant as a progressive poltical force. Much much more than the Iraq War debacle.

 

Add to that the wipeout at the last Scots election which saw them without a plan B when their 'big beasts' were sent packing and left them to fill whatever seats they got with Z-listers. So much so that the likes of Kezia Dugdale and Sarwar are portrayed as 'bright young things'!

 

But to get back to the OP - what on earth is Lamont doing? Why is the Scottish leader, with remit for MPs in Scotland as well as MSPs, nowhere to be seen nor heard? She's been pretty lame as leader so far but this surely has weakened her further.

 

On your point on the SNP, the real-politik always infects political parties mate. Don't be daft enough to think the leaders of the SNP don't have the snout in the trough and arse in the air. It's really sad that some SNP supporters think this is not the case. Souter, McColl and Farmer back that party to the hilt. Don't think they don't get a say on the policies or an influence. Lower corporation tax has been McColls thing for years. Soutar on the busses too with no reregulation of bus routes. To be fair, wee things compared to some of the scandals the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats have been involved in in their history. But please don't be so blinkered to say you hope the SNP isn't infected or will be. What comes around goes around.

 

Aye Labour up here is at it's 1983 moment. Nackered. No arguments from me on that. Then again when we were "strong" the party still got slated for having dinosaurs at the top table.

 

All I did on this thread was highlight that the party has acted, in a manner you may agree with or not, but the truth, a sad one at that, is that bloc funding is no longer viable. The one major block to legal reform of party funding is going. It could end up costing Labour hugely in terms of it's ability to compete financially with the Conservatives, the Liberals and in Scotland arguably the SNP (then again since 2007 the SNP have outspent Labour).

 

On your point on universalism, I agree, taxing those who can afford the tax is right and proper. Universalism is a principle which we should all aspire to. But lets be honest, you can tax the wealthy till the cry, they'll still find a way round the tax cause they can afford to. Every tightening of loopholes creates more, that is true globally. What Llyod George said in his peoples budget is as true today as it was then, when you go with the beggining bowl to places people can't afford to pay they throw money at you, but when you go to the mansions of Belgravia, or in Scotland Morningside or Kelvinside, you get a pittance. I wonder who would rather see the corporation tax cut the SNP are promising...

[ToadKiller Dog]

So the Unite union officials suspended have been cleared and reinstated .

Labour won't publish the report which clears them .

So a cover up or the truth ?