Labour morale is wonderfully low

niceguy-

The problem is that in reality welfare has become a giant albatross. It costs too much, we cannot afford it but too many people (voters) rely upon it.

The majority of people claiming some form of welfare are in work.

Any real/fundamental changes that would actually be needed to bring it back to affordable levels would be so unpopular that it would make the poll tax riots look like a garden picnic.

That's not true at all. You say this because you think that reducing welfare costs must be done by reducing eligibility for welfare payments and reducing the already abysmal about given out.

If you got the costs of living under control then far fewer people would claim welfare. This could be done by raising the minimum wage to a living wage and getting rent under control by building more houses and social housing and/or enacting rent controls.

The reason so many people claim is because the government is subsidising the landlords and corporations.

Attacking the problem at the source - the cost of living - would be a very popular move. Moreover, it would be effective and ethical, unlike what is currently happening with the Tory scum.

I expect all senior Labour figures will be in their villas in Tuscany sipping champagne and whining about over-privileged Eton boy Tories. But in any case they are to be recalled to Parliament this week I heard on the news.

I actually agree with you there Wellwobbly.

Remember when his Tonyness came to power? Frank Fields was given a mission. Go think the unthinkable on welfare. He came back, reported and was promptly sacked/sidelined. Not THAT unthinkable!

The problem is that in reality welfare has become a giant albatross. It costs too much, we cannot afford it but too many people (voters) rely upon it.

Any real/fundamental changes that would actually be needed to bring it back to affordable levels would be so unpopular that it would make the poll tax riots look like a garden picnic.

As a result no politician can seriously suggest a fundamental change. Only tinker around the edges and hope someone else will sort it out in the future.

Focusing on 'evil' rather than 'creepy' doesn't dodge it Bangon.

By the way, I do not vote Conservative.

You are I are agreed on a merciful welfare state. Which we do not currently have.

The welfare state as it is currently constructed traps people on benefit.

The answer would be to CHANGE the welfare provisions, but they won't. Why? Because 1. they don't have the balls, any of them, apart funnily enough from Ian Duncan Smith and he has already been stymied/shut down, and 2. it would cost too much.

Viviennemary

And I thought this 'evil Tory' silliness had gone decades ago.

Goodness, no. The left is so bereft of actual political arguments that childish smearing is all they have left.

And I thought this evil Tory silliness had gone decades ago. Apparently not. I voted Labour last time but won't again. They haven't got a single answer to anything except spend more. And I disagree with that policy I'm afraid.

Evil is your word, not mine.

The existence of a merciful welfare state isn't what 'traps' people on benefits. As the Joseph Rowntree foundation has proved over & over what traps people on benefits are low wages, job insecurity & mass redundancies.

I have many, many reasons to hate the Labour party btw, but what's that old saying about my enemy's enemy?

That's right, BangOn. ALL you ever have to do, is decide that the people you disagree with, are evil.

That makes you morally better than them, and it also, very especially, completely removes you from having to think about anything they say.

Because they are creepy and evil and not as good as you.

A very old, worn, deeply faded and completely out of touch with reality left wing tactic.

Something wrong with the NHS? That is evil.
Welfare state and benefits actually trap people? Only uncaring people can think that.
Rehabilitative justice doesn't work? Now you are a nazi!
'Green' energy is pointless and a scam? OK, now you are a whacko and you don't care about the ENVIRONMENT
etc
etc
etc

Not washing much any more, BangOn.

Ewww... Some really creepy tories on this thread. The hairs are standing up on the back of my neck at the obviously glee & schadenfreude the very creepy longfingernails expresses at the thought of all the nasty poor & disabled people suffering as they should.

Scratch, scratch, scratch

I know how much they screwed up the economy in 13 years in power.

Thank you for admitting that, Ophelia.

Personally I'm hoping they get rid of Cameron and we get Boris!

He's such a popular character that he'd probably raise the Tory popularity by 10% overnight.

Personally I'd love the idea of having a bimbling baffoon in charge. I'm sure he couldn't do worse and it'd be dead funny watching him meet Obama or the Queen etc.

I completely agree niceguy,

The quality of the Labour front bench is disturbingly poor. I remember watching Angela Eagle (I think) on QT and was really disturbed by her lack of understanding of economic matters. It was just embarassing.

The only one who looks like a runner to me is Andy Burnham - he seems like a credible candidate who has actually made a difference with his role in exposing the Hillsborough cover up.

Looking at the Labour benches I can't think of a single person other than David Miliband who'd be a match for Cameron. And I don't consider Cameron to even be a good PM. He's just the best of a bad bunch.

The perception is that Labour have no new ideas and that Miliband isn't PM material.

Policies rarely matter. It's perceptions that will win the next election.

I'm not in the least surprised. Milliband is a total and absolute dead loss. Until they get rid of him they have no chance. They need a straight talking person not a waffler. So when he/she speaks people will think I agree with that or that's a good idea. I've yet to hear Milliband say a single thing I agree with. It shouldn't really be that difficult to find somebody who will be a match for David Cameron.

All this pie in the sky stuff about increasing wages. It isn't going to happen. But I do agree that minimum hour contracts should be made illegal.

I can't see Labour winning the next election or even getting close - to me these are some of their problems;

• Ed is an uncharismatic leader who seemingly has nothing new to add to political discourse. His USP seems to be 'I went to a comprehensive school' which IMO is really very pathetic (and I went to a comp.).

• Ed is tainted by association with Brown whose reckless spending has caused some of the current problems. We could argue about the validity of this statement in the context of a world banking crisis but this is a widely held perception amongst the electorate.

• Labour has lost touch with its core support - white working class people in provincial towns and cities are probably more likely to support UKIP nowadays. The rainbow coalition which Labour hoped will replace this support is a lot smaller in numbers. There is a big opportunity for a populist party of the left (like UKIP is to the right) at the moment.

• The stampede to occupy the middle ground has made all parties virtually indistiguishable. The things they argue about are irrelevent to the lives of the majority.

• Ed Balls (don't really need to add anything here).

So what could Labour do?
Personally I think that the next election is already lost and like the Tories with Thatcher, Labour will not get another chance until it is clear that their leadership is not associated with the GB disaster. This cannot happen under Ed because he was one of its architects of the mess.

Long term perhaps the y could be brave and bold. Move to the left and try to engage with the lost support. This would mean more involvement for the grass roots of the party, no parachuting in of candidates and less emphasis on image management.

I don't agree with Ed's policies....

The lines between Tory and Labour are becoming very blurred - it's virtually impossible to tell one from the other

Because Capital is in control of politics.

Labour are traditionally stronger in the north than the south. The south is generally more affluent and as a result have more Tory voters.

I wouldn't read too much into it. I'd give DC an egg or two given half the chance.

Not so simple as that. Labour has typically been more metropolitan, as historically that's where has been labour based.

Hence, most of the north is Labour and most of the south is Tory scum, but then most of London is also Labour.

The lines between Tory and Labour are becoming very blurred - it's virtually impossible to tell one from the other

He stands for not being the Tories. That's the only reason anyone could possibly have for voting for him.

That is true CrackFox

I don't actually know what Ed stands for - it is all one white noise.

I don't agree with Ed's policies but egging anyone is utterly contemptible

It's on BBC news. The PR minder was quick to block the cameras so there are no good eggy shots to run and run. And he didn't throw a punch like John Prescott.

Labour are traditionally stronger in the north than the south. The south is generally more affluent and as a result have more Tory voters.

I wouldn't read too much into it. I'd give DC an egg or two given half the chance.