You do know that Gladstonian Liberal for all intents and purposes = nightwatchman state, right? You'd be hard pressed to find many of those even in the Tories, let alone Labour.

It shouldn't be, but unfortunately on the evidence of the last 5 years, and especially in the months after the election, it is.

 

Given the choice between those two far-from-ideal choices, I'd rather take the one which doesn't result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut.

Given two of the three moderate candidates only abstained on the Welfare Bill on the principle that if they disobeyed the leader they couldn't well turn around and tell other MPs to obey them (christ, talk about small beer dilemmas in retrospect), I don't think it really is too much to ask.

 

Nonetheless, you are taking the one which will result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut. What do you think is going to happen after 2020?

IN THE MEANTIME

 

Are the Panama papers actually going to amount to anything, or are the revelations all too predictable to capture anyone's interest?

Given two of the three moderate candidates only abstained on the Welfare Bill on the principle that if they disobeyed the leader they couldn't well turn around and tell other MPs to obey them (christ, talk about small beer dilemmas in retrospect), I don't think it really is too much to ask.

 

But it wasn't just the leader at the time who wanted to abstain. The New Statesman said at the time that only THREE shadow cabinet members wanted to vote against the Bill ( http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/...is-inside-story ). Something had gone horribly wrong with the whole of the "ancien regime" that they didn't think protecting poor people was something they had to go to the mattresses to defend.

 

I don't doubt that Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper et al would privately have had concerns about many of the vile Tory policies (though I'm not sure about Liz Kendall and the ultra-ideological Progress sect), but they showed themselves to be utterly gutless -- I have no faith at all that, if they had still been in charge the last few weeks, that they would've stood firm on the disability benefit cuts if they were being sneered at by the Tories and the press for "supporting scroungers".

Given two of the three moderate candidates only abstained on the Welfare Bill on the principle that if they disobeyed the leader they couldn't well turn around and tell other MPs to obey them (christ, talk about small beer dilemmas in retrospect), I don't think it really is too much to ask.

 

But it wasn't just the leader at the time who wanted to abstain. The New Statesman said at the time that only THREE shadow cabinet members wanted to vote against the Bill ( http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/...is-inside-story ). Something had gone horribly wrong with the whole of the "ancien regime" that they didn't think protecting poor people was something they had to go to the mattresses to defend.

 

I don't doubt that Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper et al would privately have had concerns about many of the vile Tory policies (though I'm not sure about Liz Kendall and the ultra-ideological Progress sect), but they showed themselves to be utterly gutless -- I have no faith at all that, if they had still been in charge the last few weeks, that they would've stood firm on the disability benefit cuts if they were being sneered at by the Tories and the press for "supporting scroungers".

Given two of the three moderate candidates only abstained on the Welfare Bill on the principle that if they disobeyed the leader they couldn't well turn around and tell other MPs to obey them (christ, talk about small beer dilemmas in retrospect), I don't think it really is too much to ask.

 

But it wasn't just the leader at the time who wanted to abstain. The New Statesman said at the time that only THREE shadow cabinet members wanted to vote against the Bill ( http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/...is-inside-story ). Something had gone horribly wrong with the whole of the "ancien regime" that they didn't think protecting poor people was something they had to go to the mattresses to defend.

 

I don't doubt that Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper et al would privately have had concerns about many of the vile Tory policies (though I'm not sure about Liz Kendall and the ultra-ideological Progress sect), but they showed themselves to be utterly gutless -- I have no faith at all that, if they had still been in charge the last few weeks, that they would've stood firm on the disability benefit cuts if they were being sneered at by the Tories and the press for "supporting scroungers".

It shouldn't be, but unfortunately on the evidence of the last 5 years, and especially in the months after the election, it is.

 

Given the choice between those two far-from-ideal choices, I'd rather take the one which doesn't result in the incomes of the poorest people in the country getting cut.

That'll be neither, then.

 

Who will be that in between figure then - Owen Smith/Lisa Nandy from the left or Chucka/Tristam/or other uber gladstonian liberal - And will they be a Kinnock (Not literally) or will Labour just jump straight to a Blair?

I'd gladly take either of the former.

I have no faith at all that, if they had still been in charge the last few weeks, that they would've stood firm on the disability benefit cuts if they were being sneered at by the Tories and the press for "supporting scroungers".

I think you've built up a parody world in your head if you think any of them would've just simply backed down over a measure which was literally based on 'you're certified disabled enough to need a wheelchair or a walking stick, but we'll decide this qualifies you for less money anyway' just because someone shouted 'scrounger', rather than calling that out. *Especially* when it's funding tax cuts for the wealthiest!

That'll be neither, then.

 

Except we just saw cuts to disabled people kiboshed barely two weeks ago...

 

 

I think you've built up a parody world in your head if you think any of them would've just simply backed down over a measure which was literally based on 'you're certified disabled enough to need a wheelchair or a walking stick, but we'll decide this qualifies you for less money anyway' just because someone shouted 'scrounger', rather than calling that out. *Especially* when it's funding tax cuts for the wealthiest!

 

I don't see why that's any more inconceivable than them supporting a measure which was literally based on "you've gone over our two-child limit, so we'll decide that third kid shouldn't qualify for any money".

 

And if anything, the fact they were funding tax cuts for the wealthiest would've made it even less likely they would've taken a stand over it. Burnham, Cooper and especially Kendall were all saying even the laughably feeble tax rises in Labour's 2015 manifesto were "anti-aspiration" and "the politics of envy".

Dan jarvis. The left are already running scared, and they should be.

 

Re: coalition laying the groundwork for the Tory hatchet jobs. Presumably in the same way Thatcher and Major laid the groundwork for Blair. What you don't change in government speaks volumes as much as what you do change. Also add, the groundwork for the coalitions' student fees policy was laid by Labour, and the groundwork for the cuts was also laid by Labour (who ran an election or two on cuts, having allowed overspending to happen in the first place).

 

Yes, I know I'm constantly repeating myself, but hey, I'm also very right (but not politically).

 

 

Labour didn't overspend.

 

You are also missing out factoring in right wing, terrified of the post war Thatcher consesus being changed, terrified of nationalisation, hysteric anti-Corbyn propaganda. Even with propaganda over his tie and having journos measure his bow with measuring tape almost,and they STILL CAN'T PUT HIM AWAY!! Like Clinton with Danders, who is now tipped to win New York and the nomination through his momentum, Socialism is hur to stay.

I don't see why that's any more inconceivable than them supporting a measure which was literally based on "you've gone over our two-child limit, so we'll decide that third kid shouldn't qualify for any money".

Because taking money away from people who are in no way contestable as disabled is almost universally seen as unfair, whereas stopping child benefit for more than two children *in future* (i.e. families with more than two children now aren't affected) is not? I don't agree with limiting child benefit, but one is kicking the stick under from people commonly agreed in need. It isn't commonly agreed at all that the government should provide benefits for more than two children. As it isn't a retroactive measure it isn't even that comparable in its effects either.

 

And if anything, the fact they were funding tax cuts for the wealthiest would've made it even less likely they would've taken a stand over it. Burnham, Cooper and especially Kendall were all saying even the laughably feeble tax rises in Labour's 2015 manifesto were "anti-aspiration" and "the politics of envy".

You're taking the piss. There's a difference between 'okay, probably better to stick with where taxes are now because people don't really trust us with money' and 'yep, let's support tax cuts for people at the top and cuts for disabled people because aspiration', as if the only problem disabled people have is a lack of aspiration. This is pure parody of what a centre-left position would be.

 

You seem to be stuck in this idea that merely because Ed Miliband wouldn't vote against a welfare cap and three candidates abstained at the order of a leader on more than two children receiving child benefit in the future, this means moderate candidates would enthusiastically vote for the abolition of the whole welfare state (because if they wouldn't disagree with cuts against disabled people, what would they conceivably disagree with? It's *the* definitive example of what the welfare state is there for, in a way 'future third children' is not.) and all tax cuts for the wealthiest. The former doesn't give you a blank cheque for the latter.

The restrictions on child benefit still punish the blameless though. After all, the children will suffer and there isn't a child on Earth who chose to be born, let alone chose which woman would give birth to them.

The restrictions on child benefit still punish the blameless though. After all, the children will suffer and there isn't a child on Earth who chose to be born, let alone chose which woman would give birth to them.

That still ignores that there is a key distinction in the eyes of the many who see one as unfair and the other as not - you can't choose whether or not to be disabled. You can choose whether or not to have a third child. I think it's wrong to effectively put a barrier on whether people can have more than two children or not, but the notion that one punishes people for forces beyond their control and the other doesn't has a lot to do with the difference in attitudes towards the two.

Because taking money away from people who are in no way contestable as disabled is almost universally seen as unfair, whereas stopping child benefit for more than two children *in future* (i.e. families with more than two children now aren't affected) is not? I don't agree with limiting child benefit, but one is kicking the stick under from people commonly agreed in need. It isn't commonly agreed at all that the government should provide benefits for more than two children. As it isn't a retroactive measure it isn't even that comparable in its effects either.

You're taking the piss. There's a difference between 'okay, probably better to stick with where taxes are now because people don't really trust us with money' and 'yep, let's support tax cuts for people at the top and cuts for disabled people because aspiration', as if the only problem disabled people have is a lack of aspiration. This is pure parody of what a centre-left position would be.

 

You seem to be stuck in this idea that merely because Ed Miliband wouldn't vote against a welfare cap and three candidates abstained at the order of a leader on more than two children receiving child benefit in the future, this means moderate candidates would enthusiastically vote for the abolition of the whole welfare state (because if they wouldn't disagree with cuts against disabled people, what would they conceivably disagree with? It's *the* definitive example of what the welfare state is there for, in a way 'future third children' is not.) and all tax cuts for the wealthiest. The former doesn't give you a blank cheque for the latter.

 

I'm starting to think you're genuinely unaware of a lot of the welfare stances Labour took in the last parliament. They supported changes to the Disability Living Allowance which were just as punitive as the recent PIP proposals. They supported the household benefits cap. They abstained when the Tories wanted to overturn a court ruling against their ridiculous sanctions regime. They didn't even oppose the bedroom tax at first. They said Jobseekers Allowance for under-25s would be means-tested. Not to mention Rachel Reeves popping up every other week to say how unacceptable it was for people to "linger on benefits" and how Labour would be "tougher than the Tories on welfare".

 

Like it or not, Labour were complicit in allowing the Tories to clobber welfare claimants - if they had taken a stronger stance like Corbyn has and got out everyday making the arguments about how bad it was, people probably wouldn't've have suffered so much. And I personally don't want to risk going back to those dark days until the supposed "moderates" have done MUCH more to show they've learnt their lesson.

Edited April 5, 20169 yr by Danny

I agree with Danny that Labour attacked 'scroungers' in the last parliament in search of right wing working class potential UKIP voters but what good did that do them when UKIP came second in many northern working class seats. I also agree that its right to attack this reduction of the welfare state because once you start changing the boundaries the Tories will want more so JC is right to oppose these changes.

 

Todays news about the tax havens just highlights the unfairness of the current globalised neo-liberal hegemony!

I agree with Danny that Labour attacked 'scroungers' in the last parliament in search of right wing working class potential UKIP voters but what good did that do them when UKIP came second in many northern working class seats. I also agree that its right to attack this reduction of the welfare state because once you start changing the boundaries the Tories will want more so JC is right to oppose these changes.

 

Todays news about the tax havens just highlights the unfairness of the current globalised neo-liberal hegemony!

 

Absolutely!

 

The WHOLE syste of unfettered capitalism is groasly unfair and we need a leader, JC, to highlight this!!

Meanwhile, the so-called "moderates" continue to show how disinterested they are in actually helping the country: instead of focussing on policy, they're constantly squawking about how bad the local elections will be in order to position themselves for a leadership contest (the fact that many of the people commenting on this have leadership ambitions of their own is I'm sure a total coincidence):

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politi...uggesting-local

Edited April 5, 20169 yr by Danny

The grassroots movement just won't allow that. The 'modertaes' can go stand for the Tories next time if they're not hur for theNew Left.

Labour didn't overspend.

 

I support helping the needy, but afraid they did overspend. The books still aren't balanced and we still as a nation pay loads of interest to borrow more money to pay the bills that we can't afford.

 

It's all a matter of priority and choosing what to spend cash on. We don't, for example, need to spend hundreds of thousands in each council on media plebs counting the number of times the council gets mentioned in the local press, or using mediaspeak translation devices to try and hide the truth from the public. On the other hand plenty of jobs we do need have staff who are really struggling to cope now. Don't need consultants. Do need nurses. Don't need quite so many councillors in some councils. Do need social workers and teachers. etc etc