They are political opertunists unburdened by the need to have coherent policies that would actually work in power so can just play to the crowd
They're not alone in that. At the recent conferences, all the major parties have made promises of tax cuts, without feeling the need to explain where the money to fund these would be coming from. Cloud cuckoo-land economics. So why wouldn't UKIP join in?
Footflaps - a UKIP/Tory government wouldn't be a radical government. It would be ineffective beyond an EU referendum - they'd be too distracted and busy ripping each other apart.
The moment when that woman who was dismissed as a Bigot by GB was a seminal point in history!
She was a bigot. What's the problem?
She wasn't a bigot. She was just not very articulate.
In which case why are we beating up the LibDems for doing something that will become the norm.
The campaign language will change. As I keep saying, this is a huge issue. Currently the parties are forced to say "WE WILL DO THIS!" and then when it turns out they can't due to X, Y, and Z they get ripped to bits and the electorate hate them. This always happens.
What they need to say is "We stand for this" and "Our aim is to do this". And then if they can't, they need to be up front about why. Frequent coalition govts would force this to happen imo.
UKIP / Tory coalition. Can imagine the Tories in 5 years time bleating how they've curbed the worst excesses of the UKIP manifesto promises..
Or maybe UKIP bleating about how they've curbed the worst (liberal) excesses of the Tory manifesto!
Surprisingly I don't think it's yet been mentioned on this thread, and nor does it come up all that much in UKIP discussion, but UKIP is clearly now the Daily Mail party. The significance of this is that quite a lot of people you'd expect to be core Labour voters read the DM.
Yes Labour has not got any policies.
It hasn't committed to forming an integrated health and social care system.
Hasn't committed to fundamentally changing the way our dysfunctional energy market works.
Hasn't committed to a jobs guarantee program for those young people who have been out of work for a year or more.
Hasn't committed to a significant increase in the minimum wage.
Hasn't committed to create a new nationwide apprenticeship and vocational training programme.
Hasn't committed to the reintroduce the 10p rate of tax.
Hasn't committed to build 200,000 houses a year in the next parliament.
She was a bigot. What's the problem?
was she? or was she a voter with a valid concern? do you change her mind by dismissing her and calling her a biggot? why have Ed and co stated publically that they got the immigration policies wrong that she was complaining about?
he is more an Aardmann character than a muppetWay to go Ed. You muppet!!!
She was a bigot. What's the problem?
Why was she a bigot ?
Was it because she articulated her concerns in a way that didn't fit in with PC speak ?
Do you know the woman ?
[quote=cheekyboy said]
Why was she a bigot ?
Was it because she articulated her concerns in a way that didn't fit in with PC speak ?
Do you know the woman ?
+1
She mentioned, oh the horror, "immigration".
a good idea, shame it's Burnham's as he is going to end up going when the full Mid Staffs (and others) disaster get put at his feetIt hasn't committed to forming an integrated health and social care system.
Hasn't committed to fundamentally changing the way our dysfunctional energy market works.
shame it will lead to higher prices as everyone will just charge the "cap" to hedge future wholesale price issues, and also lead to under investment in new staions and network
Hasn't committed to a jobs guarantee program for those young people who have been out of work for a year or more.
everyone has something similar
Hasn't committed to a significant increase in the minimum wage.
my personal view is that GO is sat on a higher increase in the next conservative manifesto to be announced the day after Labour go to prnt with theirs
new name, same stuffHasn't committed to create a new nationwide apprenticeship and vocational training programme.
Hasn't committed to the reintroduce the 10p rate of tax.
tax fiddling just like Gordon who brought it in and then took it away
Hasn't committed to build 200,000 houses a year in the next parliament.
who is building these, nasty private companies or local authorities/ housing associations?
[i]
+1
She mentioned, oh the horror, "immigration".[/i]
Indeed....and if she is a Bigot, there's a hell of a lot of 'em and they all vote!
Indeed....and if she is a Bigot, there's a hell of a lot of 'em and they all vote!
Yup.
@jfletch, well said. What I have been trying to say.
@binners is this government really more right wing those of the Thatcher era ? We've had those lovely cuddly Lib Dems to soften everything surely ?
EDIT: also I endorse the comment made by @Roackape about Brown's comment being a turning point. He and the Labour party should have sat up and taken notice.
Hasn't committed to build 200,000 houses a year in the next parliament.
Interesting. If they've not made such soundbite commitments which just result in the wrong houses being built in the wrong places then I might consider voting for them. Presumably unlike the Tories they're not being successfully lobbied by the big housebuilding companies, who are the ones ultimately profiting from such commitments?
Why was she a bigot ?
Was it because she articulated her concerns in a way that didn't fit in with PC speak ?
This is one of the labour parties core problems. Even mentioning the 'I' word has their Islington Guardianista sensibilities recoiling in horror, wetting themselves. Gordon Browns attitude typifies their approach to it. But in its core constituencies (not Islington) immigration is a major issue to a lot of people. In areas of the country with mass youth unemployment, that hasn't seen a sniff of the supposed 'economic recovery', large scale immigration is genuinely driving down wages. And placing genuine strains on local services that have been cut to the bone already.
This isn't right wing scaremongering. This is the reality on the ground.
But labour absolutely refuses to even engage with the issue. Never mind actually address it. It buries its head in the sand and repeats the mantra that 'immigration is always a benefit'. Well it might be if you're middle class, and your Polish cleaner and Latvian nanny come at very reasonable rates. Not so great if you're an unskilled school leaver in Rochdale and just can't get a job, because some firms, by default, just get immigrants in, without even advertising positions locally
Farage, on the other hand... he'll talk about it all day. Loves it! Thrives on it. And now he's seeing he can reap the rewards in previously impenetrable Labour strongholds. Expect UKIP to be hammering those self-same Labour Strongholds with their anti-immigrant message between now and may. Have you seen [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/nigel-farage-keep-hiv-positive-migrants-out-britain ]Todays contribution from him?[/url]
Its worth bearing in mind too that Heywood is right next to Middleton. Rightly or wrongly, the general perception is that a blind eye was turned to Asian men systematically abusing white girls, while the (Labour) authorities did nothing, for fear of being accused of racism, and simply let this happen. Same in Rotherham.
Do you think any of the UKIP canvassers will be shy of pointing this out? What do you think?
Until labour starts engaging with its core vote - no matter how distasteful it finds its 'bigoted' views - then it'll continue to haemorrhage votes to UKIP
Binners exactly !
Farage said today all he wants is the same immigration policies as 190 other countries, doesn't sound quite so bigoted and racist does it ? He's not afraid to speak out on the issue whilst the other parties pussy foot around leaving a gaping void for him to fill. The other parties will have to respond as the issue is not going to go away between now and May 2015
IMO the left wing parties are generally pro-immigration as that group tend to be "working class" and generally vote for the left. Political pragmatism.
Are all immigrants a net benefit to the country? No.
Are all people born in the UK a net benefit to the country? No.
Lumping all immigrants into a big catch all “problem” that needs addressing, is like lumping all people into a group that needs solving. Play the ball instead… having a schools policy that creates new places, where they are needed, quickly would be a start. Having a housing policy that builds for people, not developers, would be a start. Addressing our rush to a low wage ecomony, would be a start. These are problems that need addressing for everyone, they are not specific to immigrants in any way.
Nobody is disputing what you're saying Kelvin. You're bang on! But Labour constantly runs scared of even discussing it. Leaving Farage to offer ridiculously simplistic answers to what are complex social problems for the whole of society, but more so for working class voters, who lest we forget, the Labour party claims to represent
Binners exactly !
+ 1
Labour doesn't run scared of the issues the problem is no one listens to complex solutions.
Finding the language to address the concerns of the ignorant, without offering simple solutions, is damn hard. You have to start by remembering that ignorance is not a crime, and is so often not the individual's fault, but the fault of society as a whole. Calling someone a “bigot” because they spout views that can be read in just about any paper on the newstand is a big mistake, as their views are pretty mainstream now, even if based on ignorance. This is where Gordon Brown went wrong. Oh, and trusting Sky to put a microphone on him… that was crazily naive!
I disagree that Labour don't talk about the things that people care about, and that UKIP address, it's just that they haven't found the language and ideas to address those things. Nobody has. Partly because it takes admitting that the problems need to be addressed by people outside, as much as inside, “politics”.
[quote=fr0sty125 said]Labour doesn't run scared of the issues the problem is no one listens to complex solutions.
Hmmm, troll or Ed Balls ?
It's the truth anyone in politics knows it. The media and public like simple messages
Labour doesn't run scared of the issues the problem is no one listens to complex solutions.
Please explain the complex solution (genuine question)
jambalaya - MemberPlease explain the complex solution (genuine question)
On immigration or remaining in the EU?
Immigration
As an aside, I run a Commercial fit out company and employ only English labour from various areas on my sites. However I was let down by some Decorators who didn't turn up one morning (due to some 'issues'), not for the first time by the way. Anyway I called someone who sent me two English speaking Eastern European Decorators at £25 per day cheaper than I was paying and they are the best Decorators I've ever had.
Not sure where that fits into the debate, but thought I'd mention it! 🙂
I rarely agree with Binners politically, but he is dead right there. Refusing to address peoples real concerns on immigration, whether the concerns were justified or not, Labour left the door wide open for Ukip, and they will regret it.
Finding the language to address the concerns of the ignorant
This is Labour's problem - a belief that only their point of view, experiences, expectations and wants are valid and the demonisation of any who dare to disagree with them.
I am an immigrant and therefore, not too surprisingly, think that some level of immigration is a very good thing. It has been beneficial to me and to people that I work and socialise with, but...
I agree with Binners.
if you're middle class, and your Polish cleaner and Latvian nanny come at very reasonable rates. Not so great if you're an unskilled school leaver in Rochdale and just can't get a job, because some firms, by default, just get immigrants in, without even advertising positions locally
If there are winners, there are going to be losers. In the case of immigration the people who have lost out are those who have been given, at best, a bog standard comprehensive education and who, with poor academic ability, are destined for low paid and semi-skilled jobs. They have lost out to a glut of cheaper and often more motivated and better educated immigrants on the factory floors and fields of the UK. These people should be one of the bedrocks of support for Labour and they have been taken for granted as they have never had any other party to turn to. Now the grubby oiks might just upset their masters and betters in North London.
@rockape - that's great news and I have had similar experiences. All I would like to see is people fill in a form before coming to UK as part of an application for a work permit/visa and that they should have an offer of employment (US and many other systems tie the work permit to a specific employer in most cases).
What we need to avoid is the sort of situation brought to light in the article below where immigrant workers are abused by "gangmasters"
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/08/wisbech-migrant-workers-exploited-gangmasters-eastern-europe ]Workers Expoilted[/url]
Addressing our rush to a low wage ecomony, would be a start.
Low wages are an outcome not an input. We continue to employ more to produce the same/less. It's called declining productivity and we have a good (!) track record here. Unfortunately the solutions are not short term ones, so politicians prefer tinkering and hiding the underlying issues with minimum wage legislation etc. We need proper supply side reforms of the UK economy. Oddly, one of the few people talking about such policies is the much maligned (rightly for other reasons) M Hollande.
Immigration has a positive impact in the UK economy but this will get complete lost in the soundbites garbage that we will be subjected to as the GE approaches. The only thing worse than UKIP is the SNP.
"Yes Labour has not got any policies."...
Let's look at those "policies" shall we:
[s]Hasn't committed to fundamentally changing the way our dysfunctional energy market works. [/s]Has pledged to disrupt a market that currently means we pay significantly less for energy than many other countries in Europe, and a market in which one of largest "profiteering / cartel" retail energy companies has made a substantial loss 3 years in a row.
[s]Hasn't committed to a jobs guarantee program [/s]hasn't explained how this would work, how much it would cost or who would pay for it for those young people who have been out of work for a year or more.
[s]Hasn't committed to a significant increase in the minimum wage.[/s] Has committed to ignoring the recommendations of the low pay commission it established in the last parliament and won't even commit to the living wage. Has also committed to a significant increase in the minimum wage that would take low paid Londoners over 5 years to less than the living wage is now.
[s]Hasn't committed to create a new nationwide apprenticeship and vocational training programme. [/s]Has committed to raising the costs of apprentice programmes so significantly employers will simply opt out.
[s]Hasn't committed to the reintroduce the 10p rate of tax. [/s] Has committed to reintroducing a rate of tax that punished low pay workers in the last parliament. Has not committed to reducing the overall tax burden on these workers.
[s]Hasn't committed to build 200,000 houses a year in the next parliament[/s].Has committed to building 850,000 more homes than it managed in the last parliament when they actually halved the number of houses built by the public sector.
So yes, some interesting commitments, but some of them reflect the people making them have never spent a second outside of the westminster bubble, and others are best judged against what the same party actually did last time round. People are easily fooled.
Guardian piece on how campaigning on the NHS when voters care about immigration nearly cost Labour the Heywood seat.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/heywood-and-how-labour-nearly-lost-it ]link[/url]
A quote from it ...
[i]But while many voters in the constituency undoubtedly hold dear the idea of universal healthcare for all, it was not their first concern in this byelection. In three visits to the area over the last two weeks, almost all the voters I spoke to began each conversation by saying, unprompted, that they were concerned about immigration – the electrician complaining about wages being undercut by eastern European workers, the parents unable to get their offspring into local primary schools because immigrant children were taking up scarce places, the patients waiting for a GP appointment in a waiting room filled with foreign chatter. Others said things like: “I just want our country back.”[/i]
JY I will accept that for you this result wasn't a wake up call.
Why would it be there vote held up the shift was from Lib dem and tory and BNP to UKIP. It was a largely protest vote and the scale and shift wont be seen in a general election
Its also a day when UKIP gained their first MP at the expense of the Tory with a massive majority as well. its not Labour who need to wake up. Its not labour whose policies will [ continue to] take a lurch to the UKIP right it is Tories.
I do understand why you wish to discuss labours "problems" with Ukip" but the Tory house has burnt down to the ground and labour can see the smoke and smell it and it is a little irritating. Why would anyone choose to discus labour "problems" ? We should discuss [s]your[/s] the tory problems with them not labours as . lets be honest, they are the ones in real trouble here.
As I said it's going to be an interesting 7 months, lets see what the Labour response is over the next few weeks
It will be as nothing compared to the rapid scramble to the right you will see in the Tory party.
Its funny to see all you right wingers [ THM aside] rounding on labour .....it was such a bad day you cannot even talk about it so you attack labour.
Nice to see that Dave has received the message loud and clear,. He's just been on the radio saying that the UKIP showing in the by-elections is.... and you really couldn't make this up....
"a wake up call for voters"
Not a wake up call for him, his party, the Westminster establishment generally. No... its the voters who need to sort their act out.
Dear god! The sheer arrogance!
Maybe someone needs to take him to one side and quietly explain to him, in words of less than 2 syllables, the fundamental principles of this whole democracy lark
The first thing we have to consider is why people migrate to the UK. It isn't because of the benefits system, the vast majority migrate for employment opportunities or education.
So looking at the Labour market we need to consider what is dysfunctional about it. Most of the issues centre around employment practices, wages, job creation and skills.
On employment practices it has been well documented that certain employers are recruiting staff via agencies from outside the UK to work in the Uk under unfair terms and conditions. These contractual loop holes mean that the foreign workers have very few guarantees and can effectively be hired and fired. It also means that agencies can minimise the ammount of taxes they have to pay. This system undercuts UK workers on both pay and working conditions.
When it comes to wages all of us are aware of it, many of us will have encountered it. Poor enforcement of the minimum wage means some employers are not paying the minimum wage especially when it comes to less skilled or casual Labour.
Another issue is that we are not creating enough decent jobs. Jobs that are skilled and pay at least the living wage with regular hours.
The next issue is skills our education system and our employers have failed to provide adequately skilled and educated workers for those jobs that do exist. NHS and high tech manufacturing are prime examples of this.
On migration to the UK for education as long as they are here to be educated then there is nothing wrong with it. They will be effectively subsidising our education system for us.
Other issues around immigration but not the cause of it is community cohesion and housing.
We need to build more houses and they have to be genuinely affordable. The sector is highly dysfunctional and houses will only built if they provide significant profit for developers. In the last couple of decades supply of housing has only met demand in a single year (2005).
On cohesion we need to apply interculturalism to public policy and support community cohesion. We have to make sure programmes similar to ESOL are properly funded. Yes we are tolerant but we need a cohesive society.
So we need to outlaw bad employment practices
Enforce the minimum wage properly
Create decent skilled jobs
Make sure our native workforce has the necessary education and skills
Tackle the housing crisis
Improve community cohesion through public policy
EDIT typed on my phone so may be some pretty poor grammar!
If there are winners, there are going to be losers.
Hmm… not everything is a zero win competition. The economy of Rochdale needs a kick up the arse, or everyone there will continue to see quality of life decline. If migration occurs into the area, from inside or outside the UK, linked to a local economy that is no longer declining, then there is lots to gain, or at least less is lost. Companies may need people that aren't already in the area… and that's not always about cost. Sometimes it's about skills and attitudes. I can't think of a single company I've worked for that hasn't needed skills from outside the area, and yes the country, to succeed, and to expand and employee more local people.
Immigration has a positive impact in the UK economy
Maybe it has from an economists point of view, from anyone having to compete with immigrants for work it has a negative impact, this in turn leads to resentment towards the immigrants themselves.
Finding the language to address the concerns of the ignorant, without offering simple solutions, is damn hard
That must one of the most self damning, conceited statements I have ever read anywhere, ever !
Maybe it has from an economists point of view, from anyone having to compete with immigrants for work it has a negative impact, this in turn leads to resentment towards the immigrants themselves.
I agree but some immigration to fill skills gaps is necessary.
[b]Conceited?[/b] Maybe. But also self evidently true. The less informed you are, the more you will respond to simple solutions offered to you. Truthfully saying that the problems faced are complicated, and intertwined, and that there is no simple fix (such as pulling up the drawbridge), and that no party can fix things without changes outside “government” also occurring, isn't a vote winner.
I agree but some immigration to fill skills gaps is necessary.
Canada have the federal skilled worker program, designed to make the move more simple for people in areas of skill shortages. This would be ideal in our situation.
Why would it be there vote held up the shift was from Lib dem and tory and BNP to UKIP. It was a largely protest vote and the scale and shift wont be seen in a general election
Labour vote should have been much higher at this point in the electoral cycle. So although it 'held up', you should have been doing much better. A lot of those previously conservative votes should have come to Labour.
Both by-elections have also demonstrated one fact to voters considering UKIP - that they are electable. They have moved in one parliament from being a party from whom a vote is on a par with voting green - pretty much wasted, to one with real electoral clout.
Now they have a momentum which comes from voters believing that putting an cross next to UKIP could actually mean a UKIP MP. That seed is planted not just in conservative-leaning voters, but in Labour voters too, plenty of whom agree with Farage's core policy statements.
I'm interested in the Mark Reckless by-election. Clacton was a lost cause because of the personal popularity of the candidate. The tories will throw absolutely everything at the next one.
@Frosty top phone effort ! All of those things are indeed admirable and will result in even more uncontrolled immigration as the UK becomes an even better place versus those poorer EU states. Also enforcing the employment laws costs money, so you'd need increased government spending and more police time. Controlling immigration can be cost neutral as the cost of visas equal the costs of processing them and funding the compliance system. We definitely need more social housing, this should be built by local authorities with a covenent that it can never be sold on.
JY I really think you are over-analysing what you think are my motives, if it where purely something pro-Tory I would have been in favour of Scottish independence no ? What I care about is people taking the immigration issue seriously and avoiding the growth of a party like UKIP (horse has well and truly bolted on that).
Someone posted earlier that they thought Cameron believed Conservatives wouldn't win the next election, I don't think that at all. He knows they have a fight on their hands but believe they are better placed than Labour with the Lib Dems to be a sideshow.
Controlling immigration can be cost neutral
Try telling the American's that…
[b]Idle thought…[/b] but what happens if UKIP get a similar share of the vote at GE as Labour/Tories, yet only win a very small number of seats? It's highly likely that they will end up a close second all over the country, but with hardly any representation in parliament to reflect that. Could that further disenchantment for voters cause real problems?
Labour vote should have been much higher at this point in the electoral cycle. So although it 'held up', you should have been doing much better. A lot of those previously conservative votes should have come to Labour.
Given we have shifted from a three party system to a four [ in non general elections anyway] those votes have to come from somewhere- they are not coming from labour so why discuss what it means to them?
JY I really think you are over-analysing what you think are my motives,
Of course you are not a right wing anti labour /left wing/anti socialist type are you...forgive me.
if it where purely something pro-Tory I would have been in favour of Scottish independence no ?
IIRC the pro tory position was pro the union so No a Conservative and Unionist party supporter would be pro the Union 😕
No offence but sometimes i think your posts are just trolls designed to get a response - this is one example.
What I care about is people taking the immigration issue seriously and avoiding the growth of a party like UKIP (horse has well and truly bolted on that).
Then you should discuss the tory party and [ primarly] their voters.They are run by an ex tory, funded by ex tories and their first MP is an ex Tory. They could not be more ex Tory yet you want to discuss Labour problems as if this will address UKIP. It makes no sense given the actual facts. IMHO it remains largely a right wing distraction to do this because you cannot discuss the real issues of tories leaving to create UKIP and taking your votes and then your seats.
It's highly likely that they will end up a close second all over the country,
I cannot see this happening tbh _ I dont even think Farage dreams of this after 15 pints down the boozer with his working class mates.