What I would like to hear from Labour on welfare

[ttosca]

Conservative MPs frequently say that the Conservatives are the party of ‘hardworking people’, and the Labour Party is ‘the party of welfare’. It’s said as an accusation, an insult, and many Labour MPs take it as such, attempting to deny the charge as if it’s something to be ashamed of.

I would like to see Labour MPs acting as an Opposition, and to meet this ‘accusation’ head on, with conviction and pride. Here is what I’d like to hear a Labour MP say.

“Yes, we are the party of welfare, and we’re proud to be so. Let me tell you why.

“We’re the party of welfare because we don’t believe that, if you have a stroke tonight, you should have poverty added to your misfortune.

“We’re the party of welfare because, if you are diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease tomorrow, we don’t believe that you should worry about eviction as you wait six months for an assessment, only to be denied the support you so obviously need.

“We’re the party of welfare because we don’t believe that when 1700 people apply for eight jobs at Costa, or when 1500 people queue for hours to apply for 40 jobs at Aldi, there is a big problem with people being ‘workshy’. We don’t believe unemployed people are to blame for unemployment.

“We’re the party of welfare because we don’t believe ordinary workers need to be motivated by the threat of hunger, whilst bankers need huge bonuses to motivate them.

“We’re the party of welfare because we don’t believe that if a person loses their job, they need to have their distress exacerbated with the threat of benefit sanctions if they are late for a Jobcentre appointment.

“We’re the party of welfare because we don’t believe that ‘hardworking people’ and people in receipt of benefits are somehow two different species. We know that in an unfair economy, many hardworking people rely on benefits to keep a roof over their head and their children fed. And until such time as the economy is fair, and those people’s wages are sufficient, we will not begrudge them the support they need

“So yes, we are the party of welfare, because we’re the party of humanity, compassion, and fairness, and we do not view people who are poor or in difficulty with thinly disguised suspicion and contempt.”

That is what I would like to hear a Labour MP say, the next time they are ‘accused’ of being the party of welfare.

www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/20322

[expatinscotland]

As long as Ed Milliband is their leader, they can say what they want, they will never have my vote.

[ttosca]

Ed Milliband isn't the problem. You're not voting for a celebrity. The problem is with the party itself. It no longer represents the interests of the working public.

The three main parties are a complete joke, UKIP even more so.

[SanctiMoanyArse]

I want to know what they think about Carers. it so often gets avoided; hard to criticise as seen as 'deserving' but also claimants so scroungers in other people's eyes.

More and more people will join our ranks as society ages, but what's our future like? And I don't mean soundbites about respite and the like- even with three kids with SN I don;t reach my council's qualifying rules (and I know there was a document saying it should not be extended to people caring for a child with an ASD due to numbers, the document acidentally went up on line briefly).

Sixty quid a week isn't making this a choice many of us can sustain, but there's little childcare / adult care to help us work either.

[meringue33]

Love the OP
Thank you
Sadly I think Labour are not brave enough to take this stand at the moment. It is v disappointing that they seem to have accepted the welfare bashing dominant narrative rather than challenging it.
Voting for the welfare cap has made me disinclined to vote for them in 2015 - even though I am a party member.

[Isitmebut]

ttosca....History shows that the Conservatives are the party that through their policies encourages the less well off to help themselves, while Labour encourages welfare dependency, there is a difference to your interpretation – and which ideology is always better for society, and more sustainable when the money runs out?

And who finally confirms that the money ran out and that for 2010 votes they were just delaying the inevitable;

“Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/21/labour-to-cut-benefits-bill-2015

"Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday."

“Liam Byrne, a Labour frontbencher, said the coalition's welfare reforms were failing to cut costs enough, and called for cross-party talks to "save" some of the government's key schemes.”

“However, he signalled Labour wants to get universal credit and other major schemes back on track, rather than scrap them altogether.”


But don't worry, come election time, you'll hear exactly what Labour know you want to here.

[ttosca]

History shows the Tories wage class war on the poor and grind them further in to poverty and death - exactly as they are doing now.

Hope this helps.

[Isitmebut]

Hmmm ttosca, did it help?

It might have helped a century or two ago, but unfortunately this ‘class thang’ has been very unhelpful to the sustainability of the Private Sector and consumed those who think of nothing else for decades, to the detriment of this nation – as most of those consumed by some ‘struggle’ or another, would rather see NO private sector jobs (and an under funded public sector) than give in on wage demands.

Don ‘t you think that it is telling that this ‘struggle’ between workers, class and employers is not present in Japan and Germany, who at least try to understand commercial problems? Don’t you think that the fact they kicked our asses in manufacturing in the 1970’s, as we lost millions of man hours on wildcat strikes - and we lost most of our heavy manufacturing while theirs still thrive, tells us anything?

Did those trade unions and workers win various great battles decades ago, but lose the war – or the fact militant trade unionists could jump to the Private Sector that grew so fast under Labour – kept the ‘class war’ going, for them at least?

After all, unlike a factory, the State and public sector services NEVER runs out of money, does it?

I see Mr McCluskey doesn’t just want to visit those good ‘ol employer-trade union- government battles of the 1970’s, he wants us to believe there is a similarity for the need of workers rights now, as back around the 1900’s.

“Unite's Len McCluskey warns over Labour 'defeat' in 2015”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26832994

"Labour consistently has to demonstrate that it is our voice, we created it. At the beginning of the last century, ordinary working people sat down… to create a party of labour so that we had a voice in the political arena.

"Is Labour still that voice? I'm hoping the answer to that is yes, but we are at a stage in politics at the moment where just bumbling along in the old ways is not going to happen any more.

"People will put those questions under deeper scrutiny. And unless Ed and the Labour leadership demonstrate that they are on our side... then I can envisage a debate taking place if Labour lost the election next May”.


The Conservatives believe that creating an environment for Private Sector growth/employment is key to the prosperity of all, as only head-up-bum socialists think that there ‘is a god given right to a private sector job’ and doesn’t think at all that it is the Private Sector that funds all the jobs/services/welfare of the Public Sector.

The Conservatives believe that a thriving Private Sector, that without mass manufacturing decimated in the 1970’s, has moved further up the ‘value added’ chain - so the economy and our prosperity needs better educated citizens to take semi and skilled jobs that pay better than the unskilled jobs - that get fewer and fewer as our population grows.

The Conservatives believe that in keeping the SIZE of the State/Public Sector down to as big as it needs to be and keeping costs down through efficiencies and better practices e.g. ‘more for less’, THEREBY NEEDING LESS TAXES TO PAY FOR IT, CITIZENS KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARN.

This means a nation is tackling the ‘cost of living’ issues from TWO fronts, rather than like the 1970’s through ever higher wage demands, drive business either into the ground or have them leaving the country – which achieves what for jobs and tax receipts into welfare etc?

A true non politicking measure of the Conservatives will be when, like Labour in 1997 and the economy and social ‘problems’ Labour inherited, the Tories have similar economic and annual budget and just HALF the money Labour had to correct the social problems of this nation – as without a Labour Quangocracy, more money could have been spent where needed and take many out of welfare and tax credit dependency.

[dotnet]

You know, OP, that would make a good speech - all that repetition hammering home a message! Labour should do a forensic analysis of foodbanks and flag up the largely coalition government induced situations which reduce people to this level of hand to mouth living. Also, shout more loudly about the plight of families thrown into penury and unable to meet their day to day bills because of the bedroom tax. Heartbreaking.

[ttosca]

It's sad how badly this country's politics is moving backwards in time.

[Viviennemary]

I'm another one who doesn't like Ed. I liked Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. But went off TB. They won't win the election with him in charge.

[KL07]

marking place

[Viviennemary]

It's not exactly quite on the topic of the thread. But tonight I read that Euan Blair was being lined up for a very safe seat in Liverpool. Not a good idea. Do we really want a Blair dynasty.